Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Food and Nutrition Service
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Economic Analysis Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Western Area Power Administration
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Land Management Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
FAA is amending, restructuring, and consolidating the falsification regulations presently located throughout title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Regarding 14 CFR chapter I, this rule eliminates inconsistencies among the various falsification regulations and associated sanctions; consolidates all existing falsification regulations into one part under 14 CFR chapter I to standardize the existing falsification regulations; and ensures that falsification-related conduct not addressed by pertinent current regulations is covered. This rule also creates a falsification prohibition applicable to the regulations governing commercial space transportation.
Effective November 3, 2025.
For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking documents and other information related to this final rule, see “How to Obtain Additional Information” in the
Jessica E. Kabaz-Gomez, Senior Attorney, Aviation Litigation Division, AGC-300, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; email
FAA and other stakeholders rely on complete and accurate information in safety-related records. Indeed, FAA and other stakeholders make critical safety-related decisions based on the information, such as in FAA-required records, and rely necessarily on the veracity of that information. When a person provides falsified information or omits material information from records, that person creates a threat to aviation safety by inhibiting the ability of FAA and other stakeholders to make critical safety-related decisions. Falsification regulations promote the integrity of information necessary to ensure aviation safety. They also serve as a basis for appropriate action when a person engages in falsification-related conduct.
The final rule affects applicable parts in 14 CFR chapters I and III. Falsification prohibitions prior to this final rule were found in 14 CFR chapter I, parts 3, 21, 43, 60, 61, 63, 65, 67, 89, 107, 111, 120, 121, 139, 142, and 145. The final rule removes the existing falsification regulations from these parts, except part 3, and consolidates them in a new subpart in part 3.
The amendments in this final rule also remove the existing falsification regulations located in 14 CFR 413.17(c) and create a new part 402 containing a falsification prohibition applicable to 14 CFR chapter III, subchapter C. Subchapter C consists of parts 413, 414, 415, 417, 420, 431, 433, 435, 437, 440,
The amendments in part 3 and new part 402 proscribe: (1) intentionally false or fraudulent statements; (2) productions, reproductions, or alterations for fraudulent purpose; and (3) knowingly omitting or causing to be omitted a material fact. They provide a means to address incorrect statements. Also, the final rule standardizes sanctions for violations of the falsification regulations under 14 CFR, chapters I and III, cited in this final rule.
FAA has made relatively minimal changes to its proposal in this final rule. The changes have been made in response to comments received. First, FAA has revised the incorrect statement and omission prohibitions in proposed §§ 3.405 and 402.5 to align with the structure of the current incorrect statement prohibitions found in 14 CFR 60.33(c) and 67.403(c). As a result, the revision narrows the scope of sanctions for incorrect statements or omissions to allow for an FAA action against the issuance (
Falsification regulations promote aviation and commercial space safety by incentivizing participants in the National Aerospace System to provide accurate and truthful information in safety-related records. The final rule benefits the safety of the public by ensuring that information made, kept, or used to show compliance with regulatory requirements or provided to FAA is accurate and complete. The final rule also benefits private industry by standardizing sanction provisions and providing consistent sanction determinations. Additional benefits to private industry include a more reliable aviation system.
FAA has evaluated the cost impacts to the stakeholders affected by this final rule and does not anticipate any new cost impact to aviation and space industries or FAA.
FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
With respect to 14 CFR chapter I, this rulemaking is issued under 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which establishes the authority of the Administrator to prescribe regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security. It is also issued under 49 U.S.C. 44702-44709, which prescribe the Administrator's authority to issue different types of certificates to various individuals and entities and to amend, modify, suspend, or revoke those certificates as appropriate. This final rule is within the scope of these sections because it establishes new falsification regulations that consolidate existing falsification regulations into one part under 14 CFR chapter I that standardizes the existing falsification regulations and covers falsification-related conduct that is not, but should be, addressed by current pertinent regulations. This final rule also falls within the scope of 49 U.S.C. 46301, which prescribes FAA's authority to assess civil penalties, because it authorizes the assessment of civil penalties for noncompliance with the general falsification provision.
With respect to 14 CFR chapter III, this rulemaking is issued under the authority described in the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended and recodified at 51 U.S.C. 50901-50923 (the Act). The Act authorizes DOT to oversee, investigate, license, and regulate commercial launch and reentry activities and the operation of launch and reentry sites as carried out by U.S. citizens or within the United States.
The regulations fall within the scope of 51 U.S.C. 50901-50923 because they establish comprehensive falsification proscriptions that currently do not exist in 14 CFR chapter III that promote the integrity of the information FAA relies on and serve as a basis for regulatory action as appropriate, which is essential to FAA's statutory responsibility under the Act. The rulemaking is within the scope of 51 U.S.C. 50908 because this section authorizes FAA, under delegated authority from the Secretary of Transportation, to modify, suspend, or revoke a license issued or transferred under 51 U.S.C. Subtitle V, chapter 509. It is within the scope of 51 U.S.C. 50917 because it authorizes FAA, under delegated authority from the Secretary of Transportation, to assess a civil penalty for a violation of chapter 509, a regulation prescribed under chapter 509, or any term of a license issued or transferred under chapter 509.
On February 8, 2024, FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Falsification, Reproduction, Alteration, Omission, or Incorrect Statements.”
FAA implemented the first of its falsification regulations in 1965.
The NPRM proposed to amend and reorganize the current falsification regulations to create uniform and comprehensive falsification regulations for the applicable parts of 14 CFR chapter I and across 14 CFR chapter III, subchapter C.
FAA received submissions in response to the NPRM from thirteen commenters: eight industry associations and five individuals. Two individual
As previously stated, FAA has made relatively minimal changes to its proposal in this final rule. One item that FAA revised is the incorrect statement and omission prohibitions that were proposed for §§ 3.405 and 402.5. This final rule aligns more closely with the language in 14 CFR 60.33(c) and 67.403(c) regarding incorrect statement prohibitions. This final rule narrows the scope of sanctions for incorrect statements or omissions to allow for an FAA action against the issuance (
In the NPRM, FAA proposed in §§ 3.405(a) and 402.5(a) to prohibit incorrect statements: “No person may make or cause to be made a material incorrect statement or omit or cause to be omitted a material fact, in” the documents described in §§ 3.405(a)(1)-(2) and 402.5(a)(1)-(2).
A4A, AOPA, ALPA, ASA, MARPA, ARSA, and Aerospace Industries Association of Brazil recommended that FAA eliminate or limit the prohibition of unknowing or unintentional incorrect statements and omissions in proposed §§ 3.405 and 402.5. They commented that the proposed prohibitions would create a strict liability offense that would punish honest mistakes and create a chilling effect on the voluntary reporting of safety-related information. Likewise, one individual commented that sanctioning unintentional errors or omissions would make persons reluctant to report safety concerns. The organizational groups noted that the consequence of making an incorrect statement or causing such a statement to be made would be unduly harsh and overbroad because FAA could take action against certificates or other issuances that were not issued in reliance on the incorrect statement or omission. Similarly, ASA commented that §§ 3.405 and 402.5 made the proposed rule a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866, because they “create a novel enforcement approach to incorrect statements by creating a strict liability enforcement mechanism for honest mistakes.”
FAA agrees that the proposed regulatory text regarding the incorrect statement and omission prohibition should be modified. In this final rule, FAA revises proposed §§ 3.405 and 402.5 to align more closely with the structure of 14 CFR 60.33(c) and 67.403(c) regarding incorrect statements. Regarding § 3.405, rather than proscribing incorrect statements as proposed in the NPRM, this final rule provides that an incorrect statement or omission of fact may serve as a basis for suspending, modifying, revoking, rescinding, removing, or withdrawing an acceptance, approval, authorization, certificate, rating, declaration, designation, qualification, or similar, or denying an application or request for reconsideration, or similar, issued or granted by the Administrator. This change prevents a strict liability application of sanctions for incorrect statements and omissions and instead allows FAA to take appropriate remedial action tailored to the circumstances surrounding the incorrect statement or omission. The final regulatory language of § 402.5 mirrors the above-referenced revision.
The revisions addressed in the preceding paragraph render moot ASA's statement that §§ 3.405 and 402.5 constitutes a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866.
In the NPRM, FAA proposed § 3.403 to prohibit fraud and intentional falsification and, as noted above, § 3.405 to prohibit incorrect statements or omissions. Section 3.401 applied §§ 3.403 and 3.405 to 14 CFR chapter 1 as follows: “This subpart applies to any person subject to the requirements in subchapter A (except parts 1 and 3), subchapter C (except part 39), subchapter D, subchapter E (except parts 71 and 73), subchapter F (except parts 95 and 97), subchapter G (except part 110), subchapter H, and subchapter K (except parts 185, 187, 189 and 193), of this chapter.”
A4A stated that without adequate explanation, FAA excluded certain airport regulations from the applicability of § 3.401 in the proposed rule. The commenter explained that if the rulemaking were to standardize the existing falsification regulations, then it should apply to all aviation stakeholders, including those under 14 CFR chapter 1, subchapter I (“Airports”), which includes regulations that implicate aviation safety.
The FAA declines to expand the scope of the rule to all parts of 14 CFR chapter I or to subchapter I. The NPRM did not propose to include subchapter I, and stated that application of the falsification prohibition to subchapter I would constitute an unnecessary or unwarranted expansion of the falsification prohibition at this time.
A4A commented that “the FAA proposes to make unknowing material misstatements or unknowing omissions violations of the law” and questioned whether the proposal conflicted with FAA's planned “iterative application and reporting requirements” in the proposed rulemaking regarding
Currently, each applicant for a TC must show, and certify, that it has complied with the applicable requirements in accordance with 14 CFR 21.20. These requirements are unaffected by this final rule. Also, after issuing the TC, FAA may conduct a reinspection at any time under 49 U.S.C. 44709(a). Such a reinspection could be appropriate if, for example, an incorrect statement or omission called into question the validity of an applicant showing or certification under 14 CFR 21.20, or an FAA finding of compliance, and therefore the validity of the TC. Under such circumstances, FAA could seek to amend, modify, suspend, or revoke the certificate under § 44709(b) if safety in air commerce or air transportation and the public interest required that action. Such authority is unaffected by this rule.
The changes in this final rule to §§ 3.405 and 402.5 do not expand the consequences of material incorrect statements or omissions of material fact beyond what is currently allowed under the Administrator's reinspection/reexamination authority in 49 U.S.C. 44709. However, FAA acknowledges the possibility that its review of safety-critical information submitted by an applicant under the Congressionally mandated DOSCI proposal before certification could reveal material, but unintentional, incorrect statements or omissions of material fact. In such instances, FAA anticipates that the applicant or certificate holder would make necessary updates or corrections to show and certify compliance before FAA, or its designee, makes any findings and issues the TC. In any event, if FAA issued a certification and later discovered that an unintentional, incorrect statement or omission was material to the issuance, validity, or granting of that certification, FAA could take remedial action against the issued certificate under § 3.405 in the interest of aviation safety. The holder of the certificate at issue would be able to apply for a new certificate supported by corrected information.
In this final rule, FAA has changed §§ 3.405 and 402.5 to resolve the potential conflict between this falsification prohibition rulemaking and the requirements proposed by the DOSCI NPRM. The changes in this final rule limit the consequence of incorrect statements or omissions to an action against the acceptance, application approval, authorization, certificate, rating, declaration, designation, qualification, request for reconsideration, or similar, when the incorrect statement or omission was material to its issuance, validity, or grant.
In the NPRM, FAA proposed a new § 3.401, which would identify the applicable regulatory subchapters of 14 CFR chapter I affected by this rule, and certain exceptions. AOPA recommended that FAA “clearly delineate the specific regulations subject to the proposal rather than to cover the proposal with blanket applicability.” Similarly, ALPA stated that the proposal lacks “a comprehensive listing, or specific notice, of 14 CFR `record requirements,' ” which is “complicated by the expanded coverage and expanded sanctions” associated with the proposed regulatory text in the part 3 rule.
FAA notes that proposed § 3.401 did not apply “blanket applicability,” but rather identified the applicable subchapters and the excepted parts of those subchapters. Thus, § 3.401 notifies the public as to which parts of 14 CFR this final rule applies. This final rule applies to the entirety of each regulatory part identified in § 3.401, just as the current falsification prohibitions in particular parts apply to those entire parts.
Regarding ALPA's comment, the final rule does not contain a comprehensive listing of “record requirements” in 14 CFR because the record requirements or documents that persons may submit, or that are kept, made, or used to show compliance, vary widely depending on the part. The falsification regulations as stated in this final rule cover the documents referenced in those specific parts. Therefore, the final rule covers, for example, the records or reports described previously in § 43.12(a)(1) that are required to be made, kept, or used to show compliance with any requirement under part 43. Similarly, it covers the applications for a certificate, rating, or authorization described previously in § 61.59(a)(1). FAA did not make any changes to § 3.401 based on this comment, and the section is adopted as proposed.
AOPA commented that proposed §§ 3.403 and 3.405 use “document” and “statement” as “terms of art” and as the sole descriptors of what may be falsified. ALPA also noted this language and concluded this will lead to confusion and unintentional noncompliance and asked FAA to revise the proposed language to include definitions for “document” and “statement” as those terms were not defined in the NPRM.
FAA agrees in part with the commenters. The proposal generally intended the ordinary definition of the terms “document” and “statement.” However, those terms are not the sole descriptors of what may be falsified. Rather, proposed §§ 3.403, 3.405, 402.3, and 402.5 contain a list of types of documents in which a person could make a false statement. In addition, the NPRM explained, and this final rule reiterates, that documents “in any format” include tangible formats such as a data plate or marked parts. Nonetheless, FAA has updated the final rule text in response to this comment by defining, in §§ 3.401 and 402.1, “document in any format” as including documents (electronic or physical), and other tangible items, such as data plates or marked parts.
AOPA and an individual recommended that FAA revise the proposal to limit the use of the word “any.” AOPA encouraged “specificity in the regulatory text to foster an easily understandable regulatory scheme.” Additionally, AOPA opined that the frequency of the proposed use of “any” “creates confusion and fosters misunderstanding, leading to unintentional noncompliance and unintended consequences.”
FAA does not concur that limiting the use of “any” is necessary. The meaning and use of “any” is unambiguous and consistent with the use of that term in the falsification regulations that existed prior to this final rule. To illustrate, using 14 CFR 61.59 as a representative example, the language used in the prior falsification regulations included a prohibition of “any fraudulent or intentionally false statement on any application for a certificate, rating, authorization, or duplicate thereof, issued under this part.”
In the NPRM, FAA proposed new § 3.403(a), which would prohibit “any fraudulent or intentionally false statement . . . .” A4A recommended that FAA clarify § 3.403(a) by adding the
FAA notes that adding a
An individual stated that FAA lacks statutory authority to issue falsification regulations applicable to the BasicMed provisions under 14 CFR part 68 because BasicMed does not involve the issuance of a certificate. The commenter also stated that 18 U.S.C. 1001 and the affirmations required by BasicMed in the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016, Public Law 114-190 (FESSA) in connection with the Comprehensive Medical Examination Checklist (CMEC) and Medical Education Course are sufficient substitutes for falsification regulations that would apply to the BasicMed regulations of 14 CFR part 68.
FAA is authorized to issue falsification regulations applicable to 14 CFR part 68. The FAA's authority under 49 U.S.C. 44701 is not limited to the issuance of certificates. Rather, FAA has broad authority under § 44701(a)(5) to issue “regulations and minimum standards for cybersecurity and other practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.” Such regulations include longstanding falsification prohibitions, and this final rule applies a falsification prohibition appropriately to part 68 through § 3.401 as read in conjunction with § 3.403.
FAA has determined that the affirmations of truthfulness and completion required in FESSA § 2307(b) regarding completion of the CMEC are insufficient substitutes for falsification regulations in 14 CFR part 68.
Similarly, criminal falsification prohibitions under 18 U.S.C § 1001 are an insufficient substitute for administrative falsification prohibitions. Indeed, FAA acknowledged as much by implementing the earliest falsification regulations in 1964 under the Federal Aviation Act of 1958.
In the NPRM, FAA proposed §§ 402.1, 402.3, and 402.5, which would apply a falsification prohibition to 14 CFR chapter 3, subchapter C, and provide a means for addressing incorrect statements. ASA indicated that a civil penalty against a person resulting from an alleged violation of §§ 402.3(c) or 402.5 based on a failure to include information in the “Remarks” section of an FAA Form 8130-3, Authorized Release Certificate, Airworthiness Approval Tag (an “8130-3 tag”), may violate the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) when the omitted information is of the type recommended in FAA Order 8130.21H, “Procedures for Completion and Use of the Authorized Release Certificate, FAA Form 8130-3, Airworthiness Approval Tag,” which is not an information collection that has been subject to OMB controls, and thus is advisory only.
There is no new requirement for information collection associated with this final rule. FAA made no change to the rule as a result of this comment.
Although not related directly to the falsification regulations in the NPRM and this final rule, FAA amends § 3.1(a) by changing “part” to “subpart.” This technical amendment was necessary, but not accomplished, when FAA in 2019 added the security threat disqualification regulations at §§ 3.200 and 3.205.
E.O. 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and E.O. 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) require agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make “a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section (3)(f)(1) of E.O. 12866.
On February 8, 2024, FAA published an NPRM (89 FR 8560). FAA received comments from eight industry associations and five individuals in response to the NPRM. None of the comments expressed concerns with the economic impacts of the proposal. Therefore, the following regulatory evaluation has no changes from the
Falsification regulations promote aviation and commercial space safety by incentivizing the provision of accurate and truthful information to FAA. The final rule enhances aviation safety by standardizing and extending the scope of conduct proscribed by falsification regulations that FAA intends to deter across all the applicable sections of 14 CFR. The final rule also standardizes sanction provisions for this conduct and allows for more consistent sanction determinations as appropriate.
The final rule benefits the safety of the public by ensuring that information made, kept, or used to show compliance with regulatory requirements or provided to FAA is accurate and complete. The final rule also benefits private industry by standardizing sanction provisions and providing consistent sanction determinations. Additional benefits to private industry include a more reliable aviation system.
FAA has evaluated the cost impacts to the stakeholders involved in this final rule. FAA does not anticipate any new cost impact to industry and FAA anticipates minor administrative cost savings because the consolidation of the various prohibitions in one part creates efficiencies for both industry and FAA by eliminating the inconsistencies that exist in the current regulations and associated sanctions and centralizing the prohibition in one location.
FAA considered no action as an alternative to this rulemaking. However, taking no action would not achieve the needed harmonization and consolidation of the falsification regulations and standardization of the scope of conduct proscribed by falsification regulations.
FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule has no new costs, but positive benefits due to the consolidation of these regulations. This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action because it has total costs less than zero.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, Sept. 19, 1980), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, Mar. 29, 1996) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240, 124 Stat. 2504 Sept. 27, 2010), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small businesses and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and 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.
FAA has not identified any small entities that will be affected by the rule because this standardization of the scope of conduct proscribed by falsification regulations does not add any new costs to regulated entities. Therefore, FAA certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on small entities.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. FAA has determined that this final rule is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to trade.
FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined its objective is to ensure the safety of the American public and it does not exclude imports that meet this objective. As a result, FAA does not consider this final rule as creating an unnecessary obstacle to foreign commerce.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or Tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government having first provided the funds to pay those costs. FAA determined this final rule will not result in the expenditure of $183 million or more by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, in any one year.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. FAA has determined there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this final rule.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. FAA has determined there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these regulations.
The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this final rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of E.O. 13132, Federalism. FAA has determined this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, will not have federalism implications.
Consistent with E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, and FAA Order 1210.20, American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and Procedures, FAA ensures that Federally Recognized Tribes (Tribes) are given the opportunity to provide meaningful and timely input regarding proposed Federal actions that have the potential to have substantial direct effects on one or more Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Tribes; or to affect uniquely or significantly their respective Tribes. At this point, FAA has not identified any unique or significant effects, environmental or otherwise, on Tribes resulting from this final rule.
FAA analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). FAA has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the E.O. and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
E.O. 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of E.O. 13609 and has determined this action will have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.
A copy of the NPRM, all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.
All documents FAA considered in developing this final rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed in the electronic docket for this rulemaking.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, Mar. 29, 1996) requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the
The documents described in § 402.5(a)(1) are: “(1) Any document in any format, submitted under any provision referenced in § 402.1, consisting of or related to any acceptance, application, approval, authorization, permit, license, waiver, record, report, or similar; or (2) Any document in any format that is kept, made, or used to show compliance with any requirement under the provisions referenced in § 402.1.”
Under § 402.5(b), a material incorrect statement, or omission of a material fact, in a document described in § 402.5(a)(1) and (2) may serve as a basis for denying, suspending, modifying, revoking, rescinding, removing, or withdrawing any acceptance, application, approval, authorization, permit, license, waiver, or similar, issued or granted by the Administrator and held by that person.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Fraud.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Teachers.
Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Navigation (air), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
Air traffic controllers, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
Airmen, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
Administrative practice and procedure, Air carriers, Air operators, Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Charter flights, Drug abuse, Public aircraft, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Air carriers, Air traffic controllers, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Charter flights, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airports, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Educational facilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Students, Teachers.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Fraud, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rockets, Safety, Space transportation and exploration.
Confidential business information, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rockets, Safety, Space transportation and exploration.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR parts 3, 21, 43, 60, 61, 63, 65, 67, 89, 107, 111, 120, 121, 139, 142, 145, 402, and 413 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, 44701-44709, 46111, 46103 and 46301.
(a) This subpart applies to any person who makes a record regarding:
(a) This subpart applies to any person subject to the requirements in subchapter A (except parts 1 and 3), subchapter C (except part 39), subchapter D, subchapter E (except parts 71 and 73), subchapter F (except parts 95 and 97), subchapter G (except part 110), subchapter H, and subchapter K (except parts 185, 187, 189, and 193), of this chapter.
(b) For purposes of this part, “document in any format” includes documents (electronic or physical), and also other tangible items, such as data plates or marked parts.
(a) No person may make or cause to be made any fraudulent or intentionally false statement in:
(1) Any document in any format, submitted under any provision referenced in § 3.401, consisting of or related to any acceptance, application, approval, authorization, certificate, rating, declaration, designation, qualification, record, report, request for reconsideration, or similar; or
(2) Any document in any format that is kept, made, or used to show compliance with any requirement under the provisions referenced in § 3.401.
(b) No person may make or cause to be made any production, reproduction, or alteration, for fraudulent purpose, of:
(1) Any document in any format, submitted or granted under any provision referenced in § 3.401, consisting of or related to any acceptance, application, approval, authorization, certificate, rating, declaration, designation, qualification, record, report, request for reconsideration, or similar; or
(2) Any document in any format that is kept, made, or used to show compliance with any requirement under the provisions referenced in § 3.401.
(c) No person may knowingly omit, or cause to be omitted, a material fact in:
(1) Any document in any format, submitted under any provision referenced in § 3.401, consisting of or related to any acceptance, application,
(2) Any document in any format that is kept, made, or used to show compliance with any requirement under the provisions referenced in § 3.401.
(d) The commission by any person of an act prohibited under paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section is a basis for:
(1) Denying, suspending, modifying, revoking, rescinding, removing, or withdrawing any acceptance, application, approval, authorization, certificate, rating, declaration, designation, qualification, request for reconsideration, or similar, issued or granted by the Administrator and held by that person; or
(2) A civil penalty.
(a) The following may serve as a basis for suspending, modifying, revoking, rescinding, removing, or withdrawing an acceptance, approval, authorization, certificate, rating, declaration, designation, qualification, or similar, or denying an application or request for reconsideration, or similar, issued or granted by the Administrator:
(1) An incorrect statement or omission of fact by any person, in or from any document in any format, submitted under any provision referenced in § 3.401, that was material to the issuance, validity, or granting of that acceptance, application, approval, authorization, certificate, rating, declaration, designation, qualification, request for reconsideration, or similar; or
(2) An incorrect statement or omission of fact by any person, in or from any document in any format that is kept, made, or used to show compliance with any requirement under the provisions referenced in § 3.401, that was material to the issuance, validity, or granting of that acceptance, approval, authorization, certificate, rating, declaration, designation, qualification, request for reconsideration, or similar.
(b) [RESERVED].
42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40105, 40113, 44701-44702, 44704, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.
42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40105, 40113, 44701-44702, 44704, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701; Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note).
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-44711, 44729, 44903, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45303.
(f) * * *
(5) The holder makes or causes to be made a statement that is the basis for withdrawal of an Authorization, including a SODA, under subpart D of part 3 of this chapter.
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101(d), 40103(b), 44701, 44805, 44809(f); Section 2202 of Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 629.
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101 note, 40103(b), 44701(a)(5), 46105(c), 46110, 44807.
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101, 40113, 44701, 44703, 44711, 46105, 46301.
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101-40103, 40113, 40120, 41706, 41721, 44106, 44701, 44702, 44703, 44709, 44710, 44711, 45101-45105, 46105, 46306.
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40103, 40113, 40119, 41706, 42301 preceding note added by Pub. L. 112-95, sec. 412, 126 Stat. 89, 44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44729, 44732; 46105; Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note); Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 62 (49 U.S.C. 44732 note); Pub. L. 115-254, 132 Stat. 3186 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note).
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, 44701-44706, 44709, 44719, 47175.
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44703, 44705, 44707, 44709-44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, 44701-44702, 44707, 44709, 44717.
51 U.S.C. 50101-50923.
(a) This part applies to any person subject to the requirements in subchapter C of this chapter.
(b) For purposes of this part, “document in any format” includes documents (electronic or physical), and also other tangible items, such as data plates or marked parts.
(a) No person may make or cause to be made any fraudulent or intentionally false statement in:
(1) Any document in any format, submitted under any provision referenced in § 402.1 of this part, consisting of or related to any acceptance, application, approval, authorization, permit, license, waiver, record, report, or similar; or
(2) Any document in any format that is kept, made, or used to show compliance with any requirement under the provisions referenced in § 402.1.
(b) No person may make or cause to be made any production, reproduction, or alteration, for fraudulent purpose, of:
(1) Any document in any format, submitted or granted under any provision referenced in § 402.1, consisting of or related to any acceptance, application, approval, authorization, permit, license, waiver, record, report, or similar; or
(2) Any document in any format that is kept, made, or used to show compliance with any requirement under the provisions referenced in § 402.1.
(c) No person may knowingly omit or cause to be omitted a material fact in:
(1) Any document in any format, submitted under any provision referenced in § 402.1, consisting of or related to any acceptance, application, approval, authorization, permit, license, waiver, record, report, or similar; or
(2) Any document in any format that is kept, made, or used to show compliance with any requirement under the provisions referenced in § 402.1.
(d) The commission by any person of an act prohibited under paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section is a basis for:
(1) Denying, suspending, modifying, revoking, rescinding, removing, or withdrawing any acceptance, application, approval, authorization, permit, license, waiver, or similar, issued or granted by the Administrator and held by that person; or
(2) A civil penalty.
(a) The following may serve as a basis for suspending, modifying, revoking, rescinding, removing, withdrawing, or denying an acceptance, application, approval, authorization, permit, license, waiver, or similar, issued or granted by the Administrator:
(1) An incorrect statement or omission of fact, by any person, in or from any document in any format, submitted under any provision referenced in § 402.1, that was material to the issuance, validity, or granting of that acceptance, application, approval, authorization, permit, license, waiver, or similar; or
(2) An incorrect statement or omission of a material fact by any person, in or from any document in any format that is kept, made, or used to show compliance with any requirement under the provisions referenced in § 402.1, that was material to the issuance, validity, or granting of that acceptance, application, approval, authorization, permit, license, waiver, or similar.
(b) [RESERVED].
51 U.S.C. 50901-50923.
Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, 44701-44709, 46111, 46103, and 46301, in Washington, DC.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Jet Route J-96 by removing the route segment between the Cimarron (CIM), NM, Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR)/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and the Garden City (GCK), KS, VORTAC navigational aids (NAVAIDs). The FAA is taking this action due to the Cimarron VORTAC radials between 045° and 055°, stated in degrees magnetic (M) north, that make up the route segment east of Cimarron, NM, being unusable since 2020.
Effective date 0901 UTC, November 27, 2025. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
A copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Brian Vidis, Rules and Regulations Group, Policy Directorate, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20597; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the National Airspace System as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.
The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2025-0174 in the
Jet Routes are published in paragraph 2004 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. This amendment will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11J, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending Jet Route J-96 due to the Cimarron VORTAC radials between 045° (M) and 055° (M), that support the route segment between the Cimarron, NM, and Garden City, KS, VORTACs, being unusable since 2020. The jet route action is described below.
The NAVAID radials listed in the J-96 description in the regulatory text of this final rule are unchanged and stated in degrees True north.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action of amending Jet Route J-96 qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321,
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Los Angeles, CA; Paradise, CA; INT Paradise 093° and Parker, CA, 261° radials; Parker; Drake, AZ; Gallup, NM; to Cimarron, NM. From Garden City, KS; Salina, KS; Kirksville, MO; Peoria, IL; to Joliet, IL.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Jet Routes J-6, J-14, J-66, J-101, J-131, and J-180; amends Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal Airways V-54, V-74, V-124, V-305, V-532, and V-573; and revokes VOR Federal Airway V-534 in the eastern United States. These actions support the Little Rock, AR (LIT), VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) relocation project.
Effective date 0901 UTC, November 27, 2025. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
A copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Brian Vidis, Rules and Regulations Group, Policy Directorate, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20597; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the Air Traffic Service (ATS) route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.
The FAA published a NPRM for Docket No. FAA 2023-2269 in the
The NPRM published for Docket No. FAA 2023-2269 in the
Subsequent publication of the NPRM, the FAA decided to remove Jet Route J-180 from this docket and incorporate it into Docket No. FAA 2024-2226. The final rule for Docket No. FAA 2024-2226 was published in the
Also, subsequent publication of the NPRM, the FAA identified that VOR Federal Airway V-573 was described as extending between the Will Rogers, OK (IRW), VORTAC and the Little Rock, AR (LIT), VORTAC in error. Prior to this final rule, V-573 extended between the Will Rogers, OK (IRW), VORTAC and the Bonham, TX (BYP), VORTAC; and
The FAA identified that VOR Federal Airway V-54 was described as extending between the Waco, TX (ACT), VORTAC and the Little Rock, AR (LIT), VORTAC; and between the Sandhills, NC (SDZ), VORTAC and the Kinston, NC (ISO), VORTAC in error. Prior to this final rule, V-54 extended between the Waco, TX (ACT), VORTAC and the Cedar Creek, TX (CQY), VORTAC; between the Texarkana, AR (TXK), VORTAC and the Little Rock, AR (LIT), VORTAC; and between the Sandhills, NC (SDZ), VORTAC and the Kinston, NC (ISO), VORTAC. Additionally, the FAA incorrectly identified that MUFRE, AR, Fix was added to VOR Federal Airway V-54. The MUFRE Fix is in the description of V-54 and this action amends the radial of the Little Rock VORTAC that defines it.
The FAA identified that VOR Federal Airway V-74 was described as extending between the Garden City, KS (GCK), VORTAC, and the Magnolia, MS (MHZ), VORTAC in error. Prior to this final rule, V-74 extended between the Garden City, KS (GCK), VORTAC and the Dodge City, KS (DDC), VORTAC; and between the Pioneer, OK (PER), VORTAC and the Magnolia, MS (MHZ), VORTAC.
The FAA identified that in the description of Jet Route J-131 the radials identifying the RUSLR, MO, Fix were listed in error, and in the description of VOR Federal Airway V-305 the radials identifying the UKORE, AR, Fix were listed in error. The radials listed defined the location of each Fix but did not identify the radials that define the path of each airway as required. In Jet Route J-131, the route segment between the Little Rock, AR (LIT), VORTAC and the Pocket City, IN (PXV), VORTAC should be described as the intersection of the Little Rock 049° and the Pocket City, IN, 229° radials. In VOR Federal Airway V-305, the route segment between the Little Rock VORTAC and the Walnut Ridge, AR (ARG), VORTAC should be described as the intersection of the Little Rock 039° and Walnut Ridge, AR, 215° radials. This final rule corrects these errors.
The FAA reviewed the airway descriptions contained in the in the proposed regulatory text of the NPRM and identified a pre-existing error in the V-532 description. The description is missing the Wichita, KS, VORTAC. When the airway was established in 1982 (47 FR 44717), it contained a segment that extended between the Pioneer, OK, VORTAC through the Wichita, KS, VORTAC and the intersection of the Wichita VORTAC 356° and Salina, KS, VORTAC 168° radials (STONS Fix).
In 1983, the FAA relocated the Wichita VORTAC six nautical miles west from its existing location and published a final rule (48 FR 31191) to adjust the Wichita VORTAC radial that made up the STONS Fix. In that rule, the FAA inadvertently removed the Wichita VORTAC from the V-532 description when it amended the airway by deleting the words “Wichita, KS; INT Wichita 356° and Salina, KS, 168° radials” and substituting the words “INT Wichita, KS, 004° and Salina, KS, VORTAC 168° radials”. The FAA published a final rule correction (48 FR 35366) that same year which corrected the Wichita VORTAC radial that made up the STONS Fix from the Wichita, KS, 004° radial to the Wichita, KS, 014° radial, but retained the inadvertent removal of the V-532 Wichita VORTAC route point between the Pioneer VORTAC and the STONS Fix route points.
This action corrects the V-532 airway description error from 1983 by re-inserting the Wichita, KS, VORTAC route point in the V-532 description between the Pioneer, OK, VORTAC and the intersection of the Wichita VORTAC 014° and Salina, KS, VORTAC 168° radials (STONS Fix) route points. Additionally, this action corrects a typographic error in the V-532 airway description to reflect the “Fort Smith” route point as the “Fort Smith, AR” route point.
Additionally, subsequent to the NPRM, the FAA published a final rule for Docket No. FAA-2024-1048 in the
Finally, minor editorial corrections to the airway descriptions are made to comply with ATS route formatting requirements.
Jet Routes are published in paragraph 2004 and Domestic VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11J, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending Jet Routes J-6, J-14, J-66, J-101, and J-131; amending VOR Federal Airways V-54, V-7, V-124, V-305, V-532, and V-573; and revoking VOR Federal Airway V-534 in support of the Little Rock, AR (LIT), VORTAC relocation project. The ATS route changes are described below.
The navigational aid (NAVAID) radials listed in the ATS route description regulatory text of this final rule are stated in degrees True north.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action of amending ATS Routes J-6, J-14, J-66, J-101, J-131, V-54, V-74, V-124, V-305, V-532, and V-573; and revoking V-534 in support of the Little Rock, AR (LIT), VORTAC relocation project, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321,
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Salinas, CA; INT Salinas 145° and Avenal, CA, 292° radials; Avenal; INT Avenal 119° and Palmdale, CA, 310° radials; Palmdale; Hector, CA; Needles, CA; Drake, AZ; Zuni, AZ; Albuquerque, NM; Tucumcari, NM; Panhandle, TX; to Will Rogers, OK. From Charleston, WV; INT Charleston 076° and Martinsburg, WV, 243° radials; Martinsburg; Lancaster, PA; Broadway, NJ; Sparta, NJ; to Albany, NY.
From Panhandle, TX; Will Rogers, OK; INT Will Rogers 097° and Little Rock, AR, 276° radials; Little Rock; INT Little Rock 105° and Vulcan, AL, 284° radials; to Vulcan.
From Newman, TX; Big Spring, TX; Abilene, TX; Ranger, TX; Bonham, TX; INT Bonham 070° and Little Rock, AR, 247° radials; Little Rock; Memphis, TN; INT Memphis 100° and Rome, GA, 284° radials; to Rome.
From Humble, TX, Lufkin, TX; INT Lufkin 031° and Little Rock, AR, 210° radials; Little Rock; St. Louis, MO; to Spinner, IL. From Northbrook, IL; Badger, WI; Green Bay, WI; to Sault Ste Marie, MI.
From San Antonio, TX, INT San Antonio 007° and Ranger, TX, 214° radials; Ranger; Texarkana, AR; Little Rock, AR; INT Little Rock 049° and Pocket City, IN, 229° radials; to Pocket City.
From Waco, TX; to Cedar Creek, TX. From Texarkana, AR; INT Texarkana 052° and Little Rock, AR, 230° radials; to Little Rock. From Sandhills, NC; INT Sandhills 146° and Fayetteville, NC, 267° radials; Fayetteville; to Kinston, NC. Excluding R-2403B when active.
From Garden City, KS; to Dodge City, KS. From Pioneer, OK; Tulsa, OK; Fort Smith, AR; 6 miles, 7 miles wide (4 miles north and 3 miles south of centerline) INT Fort Smith 112° and Little Rock, AR, 284° radials; Little Rock; Pine Bluff, AR; Greenville, MS; to Magnolia, MS. Excluding R-2403A and R-2403B when active.
From Bonham, T; Paris, TX; Hot Springs, AR; Little Rock, AR; to INT Little Rock 071° and Marvell, AR, 326° radials. Excluding R-2403B when active.
From El Dorado, AR; Little Rock, AR; INT Little Rock 039° and Walnut Ridge, AR, 215° radials; to Walnut Ridge. From Cunningham, KY; Pocket City, IN; INT Pocket City 046° and Hoosier, IN, 205° radials; Hoosier; INT Hoosier 025° and Brickyard, IN, l85° radials; to Brickyard. Excluding R-2403B when active.
From Fort Smith, AR; Okmulgee, OK; Pioneer, OK; Wichita, KS; INT Wichita 014° and Salina, KS, 168° radials; Salina; to Lincoln, NE.
From Will Rogers, OK; INT Will Rogers 195° and Ardmore, OK, 327° radials; Ardmore; to Bonham, TX. From Texarkana, AR; INT Texarkana 037° and Hot Springs, AR, 225° radials; to Hot Springs.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal Airways V-55, V-100, and V-277. The FAA is taking this action due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Keeler (ELX), MI, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigational aid (NAVAID). The Keeler VOR is being decommissioned in support of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.
Effective date 0901 UTC, November 27, 2025. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
A copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Brian Vidis, Rules and Regulations Group, Policy Directorate, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20597; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the National Airspace System as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.
The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2025-0141 in the
VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11J, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending VOR Federal Airways V-55, V-100, and V-277 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Keeler, MI, VOR/DME NAVAID. The airway actions are described below.
The NAVAID radials listed in the V-55 description in the regulatory text of this final rule are unchanged and stated in degrees True north.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action amending VOR Federal Airways V-55, V-100, and V-277 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Keeler, MI, VOR/DME NAVAID qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321,
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Dayton, OH; Fort Wayne, IN; Goshen, IN; to Gipper, MI. From Grand Forks, ND; INT Grand Forks 239° and Bismarck, ND, 067° radials; to Bismarck.
From Medicine Bow, WY; Scottsbluff, NE; Alliance, NE; Ainsworth, NE; to O'Neill, NE. From Waterloo, IA; to Dubuque, IA.
From Rosewood, OH; to Fort Wayne, IN.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce.
Final rule.
This final rule amends regulations of the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) to set forth the reporting requirements for the BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States (“BE-13 survey”). The BE-13 survey collects information on the acquisition or establishment of U.S. business enterprises by foreign investors, and information on expansions by existing U.S. affiliates of foreign companies. The data collected through the survey are used to measure the amount of new foreign direct investment in the United States and ensure complete coverage of BEA's other foreign direct investment statistics. BEA will change the reporting requirements of the survey to reduce respondent burden, simplify reporting, and increase the efficiency of the data collection. This mandatory BE-13 survey is required from persons subject to the reporting requirements, whether or not they are contacted by BEA.
This final rule will be effective October 3, 2025.
Amanda Budny, Chief, Direct Transactions and Positions Branch (BE-49), Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce; email
The BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, is a mandatory survey conducted by BEA under the authority of the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101-3108).
The purpose of the BE-13 survey is to collect data on the acquisition or establishment of U.S. business enterprises by foreign investors and the expansion of existing U.S. affiliates of foreign companies to establish a new facility where business is conducted. The data collected by the survey are used to measure the amount and economic significance of new foreign direct investment in the United States and assess its impact on the U.S. economy. Foreign direct investment in the United States is defined as the ownership or control, directly or indirectly, by one foreign person (foreign parent) of 10 percent or more of the voting securities of an incorporated U.S. business enterprise, or an equivalent interest of an unincorporated U.S. business enterprise, including a branch.
This final rule amends 15 CFR 801.7 to set forth the reporting requirements for the BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States. Under this rule, persons subject to the reporting requirements of the BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, are required to respond, whether or not they are contacted by BEA.
This final rule amends the regulations at 15 CFR part 801 by modifying § 801.7. Specifically, BEA changes the reporting requirements of, and adds one question to, form BE-13 Claim for Exemption. The form collects information on new foreign direct investment transactions—
BEA will increase the threshold for filing the BE-13 Claim for Exemption form from $3 million to $40 million and add one question to the form requesting the total cost of the acquisition, establishment, or expansion. BEA has determined that this increased threshold on the BE-13 Claim for Exemption, in conjunction with directly collecting the transaction cost, would be sufficient to collect the information necessary to provide data users with insightful statistics measuring the economic impact of these investments. The added question requesting the total cost should not increase the estimated respondent burden for filing the BE-13 Claim for Exemption, as that information must be known to determine if the claim for exemption is applicable. This change would reduce respondent burden and the BEA resources needed to collect and process these investments.
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 are unnecessary. This rule removes a requirement, significantly reducing overall burden, especially on small businesses, and BEA will continue to capture all investments, regardless of investment size. As stated in the preceding section, BEA is increasing the threshold for filing the BE-13 claim for exemption from $3 million to $40 million, greatly increasing the number of investments that can be reported using the BE-13 claim for exemption form. This is a significant reduction in burden for these smaller investments as the BE-13 claim for exemption form has an estimated burden time of 36 minutes, compared to estimated burden of between 72 and 150 minutes for the full BE-13A, BE-13B, and BE-13D forms.
Because some members of the public rely on this data, the transactions with a value of $40 million or less will continue to be collected on the claim for exemption, which will have one question added to directly collect transaction cost and otherwise captures the most critical variables for inclusion in data tables and BEA will have no drop in data quality. Therefore, public comment would serve no purpose and is unnecessary. There is also good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness because this rule relieves a restriction as the new claim for exemption is a shorter form that significantly reduces the survey response burden by increasing the cut-off for the BE-13 claim for exemption from $3 million per investment transaction to $40 million.
Because prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. This is a E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. This final rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under E.O. 13132. Consistent with E.O. 14294, notice is given that this final rule would be subject to a criminal liability for willful violations by individuals or knowing violations by any officer, director, employee, or agent of any corporation, as set forth in 22 U.S.C. 3105(c).
The collection-of-information in this final rule was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). OMB approved the revision of the currently approved information collection under BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, OMB control number 0608-0035.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The BE-13 survey is expected to result in the filing of approximately 3,417 reports from U.S. affiliates each year. The respondent burden for this collection of information is expected to vary because of differences in company structure, size, and complexity, but is estimated to average 0.6 hours per response. The burden includes time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Thus, the total respondent burden for this survey is estimated at 2,032 hours, compared to 3,027 hours for the previous BE-13 survey estimate. The decrease in burden hours is due to the increase in the proportion of respondents expected to file on the BE-13 Claim for Exemption.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule should be sent to both BEA via email at
Economic statistics, Foreign investment in the United States, International transactions, Penalties, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, BEA amends 15 CFR part 801 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 15 U.S.C. 4908; 22 U.S.C. 3101-3108; E.O. 11961 (3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 86), as amended by E.O. 12318 (3 CFR, 1981 Comp. p. 173); and E.O. 12518 (3 CFR, 1985 Comp. p. 348).
The BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, is conducted to collect data on the acquisition or establishment of U.S. business enterprises by foreign investors and the expansion of existing U.S. affiliates of foreign companies to establish new facilities where business is conducted. Foreign direct investment is defined as the ownership or control by one foreign investor of 10 percent or more of the voting securities of an incorporated U.S. business enterprise, or an equivalent interest of an unincorporated U.S. business enterprise, including a branch. BEA will describe the proposed information collection in a public notice and will solicit comments according to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). All legal authorities, provisions, definitions, and requirements contained in §§ 801.1 through 801.2 and §§ 801.4 through 801.6 are applicable to this survey. Specific additional rules and regulations for the BE-13 survey are given in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section. More detailed instructions are given on the report forms and instructions.
(a)
(b)
(1) A foreign direct investment in the United States relationship is created;
(2) An existing U.S. affiliate of a foreign parent establishes a new U.S. business enterprise, expands its U.S. operations, or acquires a U.S. business enterprise, or;
(3) BEA requests a cost update (Form BE-13E) for a U.S. business enterprise that previously filed Form BE-13B or BE-13D.
(4) Certain private funds are exempt from reporting on the BE-13 survey. If a U.S. business enterprise is a private fund and does not own, directly or indirectly, 10 percent or more of another business enterprise that is not also a private fund or a holding company, it is not required to file any BE-13 report except to indicate exemption from the survey if contacted by BEA.
(c)
(1) Form BE-13A—Report for a U.S. business enterprise when a foreign entity acquires a voting interest (directly, or indirectly through an existing U.S. affiliate) in that U.S. business enterprise including segments, operating units, or real estate; and
(i) The total cost of the acquisition is greater than $40 million; and
(ii) By this acquisition, the foreign entity now owns at least 10 percent of the voting interest (directly, or indirectly through an existing U.S. affiliate) in the acquired U.S. business enterprise.
(2) Form BE-13B—Report for a U.S. business enterprise when it is established by a foreign entity or by an existing U.S. affiliate of a foreign parent; and
(i) The expected total cost to establish the new U.S. business enterprise is greater than $40 million; and
(ii) The foreign entity owns at least 10 percent of the voting interest (directly, or indirectly through an existing U.S. affiliate) in the new U.S. business enterprise.
(3) Form BE-13D—Report for an existing U.S. affiliate of a foreign parent when it expands its operations to include a new facility where business is conducted, and the expected total cost of the expansion is greater than $40 million.
(4) Form BE-13E—Report for a U.S. business enterprise that previously filed Form BE-13B or BE-13D. Form BE-13E collects updated cost information and will be collected annually for three years after the year of the establishment or expansion of the U.S. business enterprise.
(5) Form BE-13 Claim for Exemption—Report for a U.S. business enterprise that:
(i) was contacted by BEA but does not meet the requirements for filing Forms BE-13A, BE-13B, or BE-13D; or
(ii) whether or not contacted by BEA, met all requirements for filing Forms BE-13A, BE-13B, or BE-13D except the $40 million reporting threshold.
(d)
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final amendment; order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is amending the food additive regulation to provide for the safe use of hydrogen peroxide in food as an antimicrobial agent, oxidizing and reducing agent, and bleaching agent, and to remove sulfur dioxide. We are taking this action in response to a food additive petition filed by Cargill, Inc. (Cargill or petitioner).
This order is effective September 3, 2025. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in the order is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 3, 2025. Either electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing on the order must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on October 3, 2025. See section VIII of this document for further information on the filing of objections.
You may submit objections and requests for a hearing as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed objections will not be considered. The
Submit electronic objections in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit an objection with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the objection 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 objections submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your objection, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit an objection with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your objections 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.” We will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our 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
Karen Hall, Office of Food Chemical Safety, Dietary Supplements, Human Foods Program, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-9195; or Keronica C. Richardson, Office of Policy, Regulations, and Information. Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2378.
In the
Hydrogen peroxide is affirmed as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) under 21 CFR 184.1366 for use as an antimicrobial agent, oxidizing and reducing agent, and bleaching agent, and to remove sulfur dioxide in specific foods at specified maximum treatment levels (46 FR 44439, September 4, 1981, and 51 FR 27172, July 30, 1986). As a condition of use, § 184.1366(d) requires that residual hydrogen peroxide be removed during the processing of food by appropriate physical and chemical means. In addition, § 184.1366(c) incorporates the requirement under § 184.1(b)(2) that a substance affirmed as GRAS with specific limitations may be used in food only within such limitations, including the category of food, functional use, and level of use, and that any additional uses require a food additive regulation. Therefore, any additional uses of hydrogen peroxide in processing food beyond those limitations set out in § 184.1366 require a food additive regulation.
The food additive regulations were subsequently amended to add § 173.356 (76 FR 11328, March 20, 2011) to approve the use of hydrogen peroxide as an antimicrobial agent in the production of modified whey by ultrafiltration methods. As a condition of use, § 173.356(b) requires that residual hydrogen peroxide be removed from the whey during processing by appropriate chemical or physical means.
The petition proposed to amend § 173.356 to provide for the use of hydrogen peroxide in food, including meat and poultry, as an antimicrobial agent, oxidizing and reducing agent, and bleaching agent, and to remove sulfur dioxide, in accordance with good manufacturing practice, provided that residual hydrogen peroxide is removed from the food during processing by appropriate chemical or physical means. We note that the current use as an antimicrobial agent in the production of modified whey listed in § 173.356 is encompassed by the broader uses proposed in this petition.
FDA reviewed data in the petition and other relevant material to evaluate the safety of the petitioned uses. Cargill discussed that hydrogen peroxide is inherently unstable and will dissociate into water and oxygen and that any measurable amounts of hydrogen peroxide would be required to be removed from food during processing by appropriate chemical or physical means (
In support of the petitioned uses of hydrogen peroxide, Cargill summarized the available toxicological data and information on hydrogen peroxide. Most of the data and information have been previously submitted to and reviewed by FDA as part of other regulatory submissions. None of these data and information raise new safety concerns regarding the use of hydrogen peroxide under the intended conditions of use. As the proposed uses are not expected to increase dietary exposure to hydrogen peroxide, FDA has no safety concerns regarding the petitioned uses of hydrogen peroxide (Ref. 2).
FDA is incorporating by reference the monograph for hydrogen peroxide from the FCC, 14th ed., 2024, which was approved by the Office of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may purchase a copy of the material from the
The FCC 14 hydrogen peroxide monograph sets forth a standard for purity and identity for hydrogen peroxide. The FCC 14 hydrogen peroxide monograph provides specifications and analytical methodologies to identify the substance and establish acceptable purity criteria.
As background, the current food additive regulation for the use of hydrogen peroxide (§ 173.356) indicates that the additive must meet the specifications of the hydrogen peroxide monograph in FCC 7. The petitioner indicated that the hydrogen peroxide petitioned in FAP 2A4833 complies with the specifications in the monograph for hydrogen peroxide in FCC 12. During our review of this petition, we noted that the most recent edition of the FCC was FCC 14. The specifications for hydrogen peroxide in FCC 14 are identical to those in both FCC 7 and FCC 12. Therefore, we are amending § 173.356(a) by adopting, and incorporating by reference, the FCC 14 hydrogen peroxide monograph.
Based on the relevant data available to FDA and information in the petition, we conclude that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the use of hydrogen peroxide in food as an antimicrobial agent, oxidizing and reducing agent, and bleaching agent, and to remove sulfur dioxide, in accordance with good manufacturing practice, and that such use will achieve its intended technical effects. Additionally, we are amending § 173.356(a) by adopting, and incorporating by reference, the FCC 14 hydrogen peroxide monograph.
In accordance with 21 CFR 171.1(h), the petition and the documents that we considered and relied upon in reaching our decision to approve the petition will be made available for public disclosure (see
We have carefully considered the potential environmental effects of this action. FDA has concluded that the action will not have a significant impact on the human environment and that an environmental impact statement is not required. FDA's finding of no significant impact and the evidence supporting that finding, contained in an environmental assessment, may be seen in the Dockets Management Staff (see
This order contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
If you will be adversely affected by one or more provisions of this order, you may file with the Dockets Management Staff (see
Any objections received in response to this order may be seen in the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at
Our review of this petition was limited to section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 348). This order is not a statement regarding compliance with other sections of the FD&C Act. For example, section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(ll)) prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food that contains a drug approved under section 505 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355), a biological product licensed under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), or a drug or biological product for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and their existence has been made public, unless one of the exemptions in section 301(ll)(1) through (4) of the FD&C Act applies. In our review of this petition, we did not consider whether section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act or any of its exemptions apply to food containing this additive. Accordingly, this order should not be construed to be a statement that a food containing this additive, if introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce, would not violate section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act. Furthermore, this language is included in all food additive orders authorizing new uses and therefore should not be construed to be a statement of the likelihood that section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act applies.
The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see
Food additives, Incorporation by reference.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under the authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 173 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348.
Hydrogen peroxide (H
(a) Hydrogen peroxide meets the specifications of Hydrogen Peroxide, Food Chemicals Codex, 14th edition, effective June 1, 2024, which is incorporated by reference into this section. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. This incorporation by reference (IBR) material is available for inspection at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact FDA at: the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; phone: 240-402-7500; email:
(b) The additive is used as an antimicrobial agent as defined in § 170.3(o)(2) of this chapter, oxidizing and reducing agent defined in § 170.3(o)(22) of this chapter, and bleaching agent, and to remove sulfur dioxide in accordance with good manufacturing practice.
(c) Residual hydrogen peroxide is removed by appropriate chemical or physical means during the processing of food where it has been used.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final action.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA or Agency) is withdrawing the proposed rule entitled “Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category,” which published in the
As of September 3, 2025, the proposed rule published on January 23, 2024, at 89 FR 4474, is withdrawn. In accordance with 40 CFR part 23, this final action shall be considered issued for the purposes of judicial review at 1 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on September 3, 2025. Under section 509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), judicial review of the Administrator's final action regarding effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards can only be done by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals within 120 days after the decision is considered issued for purposes of judicial review.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0736. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Steve Whitlock, Engineering and Analysis Division, Office of Water (4303T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-1541; email address:
The action is supported by several documents, including:
• Development Document for Final Action on the Meat & Poultry Products Point Source Category Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (Development Document), Document No. 821-R-25-001. This report summarizes the technical, engineering, and economic analyses that EPA considered in taking the final action, including cost of regulatory options, adverse non-water quality environmental impacts, effluent reductions and associated benefits, and calculation of the effluent limitations considered.
• Docket Index for Final Action for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category. This document provides a list of the additional memoranda, references, and other information the EPA considered in taking final action on the MPP ELGs.
On January 23, 2024, the EPA proposed to revise the existing technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the meat and poultry products point source category. The Agency solicited comment on possible revisions and additions to the ELGs for existing and new sources in this category. The EPA took comment on a range of options in the proposed rule. The options included more stringent effluent limitations on total nitrogen, new effluent limitations on total phosphorus, updated effluent limitations for other pollutants, new pretreatment standards for indirect dischargers, and revised production thresholds for some of the subcategories in the existing rule. Additionally, the EPA also considered effluent limitations on chlorides, establishing effluent limitations for
Informed by concerns expressed in public comments received on the proposed rule, the EPA has decided not to finalize revised ELGs or pretreatment standards for the MPP industry. Accordingly, the EPA is withdrawing the proposed rule based on its statutory discretion to determine whether such revision is “appropriate,” (CWA section 304(b)) and factors for establishing such requirements, including “such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate.” (CWA section 304(b)(1)(B); 304(b)(2)(B), 304(b)(4)(B)). In the EPA's judgment, it is not appropriate to impose additional regulation on the MPP industry, given Administration priorities and policy concerns, including protecting food supply and mitigating inflationary prices for American consumers following a protracted period of high inflation from 2020 through 2024. The MPP industry is critical to the nation's food supply, and there is a shift in national policy toward ensuring reduction of the cost of living and reinvigorating American industry. In addition, past and ongoing external stressors on this industry require sustained attention, including COVID-19 food supply and supply chain issues, inflationary pressures, highly pathogenic avian flu (HPAI), and the New World Screwworm (NWS). For all of these reasons, the EPA is exercising its statutory discretion to choose how to marshal and prioritize its resources and is not proceeding with revisions to the MPP ELGs or establishing pretreatment standards for this industry, as explained in section VI of this document. In addition, the agency's analysis of regulatory options considered shows that they would negatively impact the environment and public health in the form of increased air pollution and solid waste. This final action avoids these negative impacts because the EPA has chosen the no-rule option.
During the 60-day public comment period on the proposed rule (89 FR 4474, January 23, 2024) (from January 23, 2024, to March 25, 2024), the EPA received more than 5,000 public comment submissions from private citizens, industry representatives, technology vendors, government entities, environmental groups, and trade associations. The EPA also hosted three public hearings during the public comment period—an online hearing January 24, 2024, an in-person hearing January 31, 2024, and another online hearing March 20, 2024. These hearings had a combined total of 362 attendees, 46 of whom registered to provide comment on the proposed rule. Available documents and recordings from each public hearing include transcripts of the presentations and a list of attendees (document control number (DCN) MP01489, DCN MP01489A1, MP01489A2, DCN MP02001, DCN MP02001A1, DCN MP02001A2, DCN MP02002, and DCN MP02002A1, DCN MP02002A1).
Over more than 50 years, EPA, states, and local partners have worked collaboratively to implement the CWA and there have been significant reductions in pollution entering our nation's waterways. Under one component of CWA implementation, the EPA is to issue effluent limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards and new source performance standards for industrial dischargers. Before the passage of the Clean Water Act, the nation's surface waters were significantly polluted. The Cuyahoga River became the symbol of polluted waters when it caught fire at least a dozen times prior to the Clean Water Act's passage in 1972. Under the Act, pollution discharges have been significantly reduced and our nation's waterbodies have recovered. Waters that were once contaminated are clean and safe for wildlife and recreation. A key component of this recovery has been reductions in point-source discharges of nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, under the Act. While additional reductions in nitrogen and phosphorous loads to certain waters may further improve water quality, the Agency and its partners have generally shifted focus to non-point sources of these pollutants. The most significant sources of nitrogen and phosphorus loads to our nations waters today are non-point sources.
In taking this final action, the EPA considered revisions of the ELGs and promulgation of pretreatment standards for the MPP industry based on Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT), Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT), Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT), Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology (BADCT) for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES), and Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS). These types of effluent guidelines and standards are summarized in the preamble for the proposed regulation (89 FR 4474, January 23, 2024).
As part of the EPA ELG review process, the EPA conducted a cross-industry review of publicly available discharge monitoring report (DMR) and toxics release inventory (TRI) data from 2015 on nutrient discharges from industrial point source categories. This review identified industries, based on their discharges of nutrients in wastewater and the potential to reduce their nutrient discharges, that may be candidates for ELG development or revision and prioritized them for further review. As a result of the cross-industry review of nutrients in industrial wastewater and the further review of the MPP category, the EPA began a detailed study of the MPP industry. The goals of the MPP detailed study were to gain a better understanding of the industry and evaluate whether the ELGs should be revised. In 2021, in the Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15 (Preliminary Plan 15), the EPA announced the agency's intent to develop a rulemaking to revise the existing discharge standards for the MPP industry (USEPA. 2021. EPA-821-R-21-003).
On December 23, 2022, Plaintiffs Cape Fear River Watch, Rural Empowerment Association for Community Help, Waterkeepers Chesapeake, Waterkeeper Alliance, Humane Society of the United States, Food & Water Watch, Environment America, Comite Civico del Valle, Center for Biological Diversity, and Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a complaint alleging that the EPA's failure to revise ELGs and to promulgate pretreatment standards for the MPP category constituted failures to act by statutory deadlines in violation of the CWA and Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) (
Although the EPA was in the process of conducting the MPP rulemaking, as announced in its Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15 (86 FR 51155, September 14, 2021), the EPA had not publicly announced any specific timeline for completion. The parties initiated settlement discussions, resulting in a proposed consent decree with deadlines for completion of the rulemaking, which the EPA entered into after public notice and comment (88 FR 12930, March 1, 2023). Under the consent decree, the EPA had obligations to sign a notice of proposed rulemaking by December 13, 2023, which was completed, and to sign a decision taking final action by August 31, 2025 (Consent
The MPP point source category includes facilities “engaged in the slaughtering, dressing and packing of meat and poultry products for human consumption and/or animal food and feeds. Meat and poultry products for human consumption include meat and poultry from cattle, hogs, sheep, chickens, turkeys, ducks and other fowl as well as sausages, luncheon meats and cured, smoked or canned or other prepared meat and poultry products from purchased carcasses and other materials. Meat and poultry products for animal food and feeds include animal oils, meat meal and facilities that render grease and tallow from animal fat, bones and meat scraps” (40 CFR 432.1). For more information on how facilities were classified, see the
The EPA evaluated technologies available to control and treat wastewater generated by the MPP industry. The EPA has not identified any practical difference in types of treatment technologies between meat products and poultry products facilities. Some MPP processes result in wastewater streams with higher concentrations of pollutants, but facilities across the industry generally contain the same pollutants, including nitrogen, phosphorus, oil & grease, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), and chlorides. See the Development Document (DCN MP02006) and the proposed rule, Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category proposed rule (89 FR 4474, January 23, 2024) for more information on control and treatment technologies.
Following the publication of the MPP proposed rule, the EPA received additional data from industry and assessed comments from stakeholders on the proposal. This additional information resulted in updates to the methodologies the EPA used in the engineering, economic, and environmental assessments.
•
•
•
The EPA received 4,369 mass mail public comments and posted 810 comments to Federal Docket Management System, resulting in 611 unique comments on the proposed rulemaking. The EPA considered the comments, revised existing analysis and conducted updated analyses. For example, comments and data on rendering wastewater led the EPA to make adjustments to the engineering and economic analyses. Comments on land availability led to additional analysis on availability and costs. Full response to comments can be found in
Informed by concerns expressed in public comments received on the proposed rule, the EPA has decided not to finalize revised ELGs or pretreatment standards for the MPP industry, based on exercise of its statutory discretion and judgment that such regulations would not be appropriate, for the reasons discussed below.
Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA has broad discretion to consider the factors described here in this section in determining whether to revise existing effluent guidelines. Unlike the mandatory requirement to promulgate ELGs reflecting Best Available Technology Economically Achievable by 1989, the EPA is required to revise such ELGs only “if appropriate.”
Here, although the Act requires consideration of certain specified factors when
Accordingly, the EPA has broad discretion to consider the Administration's priorities and policy concerns discussed here in this section in determining whether it is “appropriate” to revise an ELG—and is not specifically constrained by the statutory factors that any such revised ELG must meet.
Even if the EPA's decision as to whether it is “appropriate” to revise an ELG is constrained by the statutory factors for establishing ELGs, those statutory factors expressly include “such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate.”
Based on these statutory authorities, the EPA has decided that it is not appropriate to finalize the proposed rule considering the Administration's priorities and policy concerns including protecting the food supply, mitigating inflationary pressures on food pricing for American consumers, and reinvigorating American industry.
At the core of the EPA's decision is the understanding that the MPP industry plays a critical role in the nation's food supply chain, and meat and poultry processors have faced an unprecedented disruption in operations and costs in recent years as a result of several factors, including COVID-19 food supply and supply chain issues, inflationary pressures, and the unprecedented outbreak of avian flu and New World Screwworm, as discussed below. Establishing more stringent ELGs and pretreatment standards for the MPP industry would result in further diversion of the industry's resources at a critical time, potentially reducing the number of MPP facilities due to the cumulative impacts of multiple economic stressors on the industry, thus further reducing the competitiveness of this industry. The closure or reduced capacity of MPP facilities, even if within the range of impacts typically considered to be economically achievable, could have significant impacts on the nation's food supply and pricing, as was evidenced during the COVID-19 national emergency. Additional regulation may also divert the industry's attention from focusing on measures to diversify, increase production and thus food availability and affordability, and combating avian flu and NWS, all of which are crucial to protecting the nation's food supply, mitigating higher prices and reducing the cost of living for the American public.
Recent Presidential memoranda, Executive Orders, and actions taken by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reflect the Administration's priorities and policy concerns that have implications for the MPP industry. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued a memorandum titled, “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis.” This memorandum highlights inflationary pressures that have affected industrial production and food prices in recent years and calls for action to reduce cost-of-living through deregulatory actions. As context, from 2020 through 2024, American consumers weathered significant impacts from inflationary pressures. According to USDA, U.S. food prices rose by 23.6% from 2020 to 2024, outpacing the overall consumer price index increase of 21.2% (DCN MP02048). Additionally, data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that as of March 2025 the 12-month increase in national food prices (3%) continued to outpace the 12-month increase in aggregate Consumer Price Index (2.4%). This increase follows a period of significant food price inflation, with the rate peaking at 11.4% in 2022.
The importance of ensuring food availability and affordability is a longstanding and durable goal of American policy. For example, the Food Security Act of 1985 included provisions to ensure that consumers had access to an abundant and affordable food supply. The Act highlighted the role of agriculture price support programs and their impacts to consumer costs for food and fiber. The Act addressed (
Accordingly, the EPA examined the potential food price and availability impacts of establishing more stringent ELGs for the MPP industry. The EPA found that the closure or reduced capacity of MPP facilities resulting from such regulation could have significant impacts on food prices and availability. As evidenced by the COVID-19 national emergency, closures and reduced capacity of MPP facilities disrupted the availability of food and created short- and long-term price impacts.
Public comments further support the EPA's findings regarding potential impacts of MPP facility closures and reduced capacity on food price and availability. Several public comments described how COVID-19 resulted in temporary backlogs of meat processing, which led to meat shortages at grocery stores, and higher prices for the meat that was available. Commenters stated that the COVID-19 national emergency revealed how consolidation in the industry can negatively impact food supply and pricing—and conversely, the importance of diversification in the industry to help protect against such impacts. As one commenter noted, “[s]mall and midsize meat processors are essential to economic success of multiple sectors of our overall economy. When we risk losing any processor, we risk detrimental economical outcomes.” (Kentucky Ass'n of Meat Processors, Comment EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0736-0846-A1). Facility closures that would result from the proposed regulations would reduce diversification in the industry, potentially resulting in the food price increases evidenced by the COVID-19 national emergency.
Additionally, on January 20, 2025, President Trump issued a memorandum titled, “America First Trade Policy.” This memorandum called for action to help and not hinder the competitiveness of American industry, which is relevant to the Meat and Poultry Industry that faces trade competition with foreign producers, including in Mexico, Australia, and Canada (DCN MP01465). Further, on January 31, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065; February 6, 2025). This order states, “It is the policy of my Administration to significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations to secure America's economic prosperity and national security and the highest possible quality of life for each citizen.”
In light of these priorities and policy concerns, the EPA considered the potential impacts of revised ELGs and pretreatment standards on compliance costs and competitiveness of the MPP industry in a global marketplace. The EPA's analysis of regulatory options for this final action shows that the no-rule option avoids the closure of between 10 and 93 facilities in the MPP industry (see table 14-1 of the Development Document, DCNMP02006). These closures would be associated with the short-term loss of 3,199 to 26,657 American jobs (see table 16-2 of the Development Document, DCNMP02006).
Public comments echoed the EPA's concerns regarding impacts on the competitiveness of the MPP industry.
Further, in March 2020, an outbreak of avian flu (HPAI) first occurred at a commercial turkey facility in the United States, and over the five years since then at least 1,400 outbreaks have occurred in more than 600 counties nationwide, leading to the death of some 135 million birds (DCN MP01465, DCN MP01477). Though largely affecting egg laying hens, the outbreak has also impacted broiler production and has had a pronounced effect on turkey production with 14.3 million turkeys affected since 2022 (DCN MP01490). While avian flu has been a threat in the past, this outbreak has affected more species than in past outbreaks (DCN MP01492). Thus, avian flu constitutes an ongoing economic stressor on the industry, as MPP facilities spend time, attention and resources on addressing the outbreak. Additional regulation would add to the cumulative economic impacts on this industry, potentially resulting in more closures and production slowdowns that would impact the nation's food supply and food costs while diverting
The New World Screwworm (NWS) also presents a threat to the meat and poultry sector. Once a pervasive problem for the U.S. livestock sector, the NWS was eliminated from North and Central America through a multinational effort led by the USDA in the 1960s. The value of this eradication campaign to the U.S. cattle industry has been estimated as approximately $2.3 billion per year (DCN MP02205). However, in 2022 the NWS reappeared in Panama, has since spread northward to Mexico, and is now considered to pose a serious threat to U.S. livestock producers. The NWS is particularly dangerous for the meat and poultry sector where many animals are raised in close confinement where the parasite can spread quickly. In June of this year, in an attempt to combat the further spread of the NWS, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture announced the opening of an $8.5 million sterile NWS fly dispersal facility in South Texas, and on July 9, 2025, ordered the closure of livestock trade through all southern ports of entry to prevent the spread of the parasite into the country (DCN MP02206). Like avian flu, the NWS creates economic stress and uncertainty that could potentially impact food supply, prices, and the competitiveness of the MPP industry.
Based on the cumulative consideration of Administration priorities, policy concerns, and these factors in exercise of the Agency's statutory authority, the EPA has determined that it is not appropriate to impose additional regulation on this industry. The MPP industry is critical to the nation's food supply, there is a shift in national policy toward reducing cost of living and reinvigorating American industry, and past and ongoing external stressors on this industry are requiring sustained attention—COVID-19 food supply and supply chain issues, inflationary pressures, avian flu, and NWS. In addition, the EPA found that such regulation would result in adverse non-water-quality environmental impacts, a required factor for consideration in the statute.
Therefore, the EPA is exercising its statutory discretion to choose how to marshal its resources and is not proceeding with revisions to the MPP ELGs or establishing pretreatment standards for this industry. Exercising its statutory discretion to not finalize ELGs or pretreatment standards for this sector is consistent with the Administration priorities expressed by the Presidential memoranda and Executive Orders described above.
For this final action, the EPA evaluated three regulatory options that were included in the proposed rule. For a description of these options,
The agency also evaluated a no-rule option that was represented by baseline conditions in the proposed rule and its analyses of the sector in that action. This option was inherent in the Agency's proposal, and apparent in the terminology used in the proposed rule. Specifically, the EPA's proposal indicated that the Agency was seeking comments on “possible” (defined as something that may or may not occur) revisions to the existing ELGs.
After full consideration of the statutory factors, the EPA decided not to finalize revised ELGs or pretreatment standards for the MPP industry. The EPA found that it was not appropriate to finalize Option 1, the preferred option at proposal, because the increased regulatory compliance costs could impact food supply, food prices, and the competitiveness of the MPP industry and was thus incompatible with Administration priorities and policy concerns, as discussed above. The other two proposed options would have expanded on Option 1 by including more stringent requirements that would be applied to more MPP facilities, thus making these options more incompatible than Option 1 with Administration priorities and policy concerns. The EPA's decision to withdraw the proposed rule was further supported by the non-water-quality environmental impacts associated with all of the proposed options (
Environmental protection, Meat and meat products, Poultry and poultry products, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Request for information.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) is issuing a request for information (“RFI”) to solicit public input regarding certain aspects of its energy conservation standards for manufactured housing. The public input received is anticipated to help guide DOE's further refinement of certain aspects of its standards for manufactured housing, as well as the supporting technical analysis, including anticipated costs and benefits. It may also serve as the basis for restructuring the approach and framework for standards that would apply to manufactured housing. DOE also seeks any additional information from the industry and public which may further inform the agency's views and regulatory program.
Written comments and information are requested and will be accepted on or before December 2, 2025.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
1.
2.
3.
4.
No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section III of this document.
The docket web page can be found at
Mr. Jeremy Williams, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1941. Email:
Ms. Ani Esenyan, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4798. Email:
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
Manufactured housing comprises a housing category that consists of structures constructed in a factory, built on a permanent chassis, and transportable in one or more sections that are then erected on-site.
Section 413 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-140 (December 19, 2007) (“EISA”) requires DOE to establish by regulation standards for energy efficiency in manufactured housing.
• The design and factory construction techniques of manufactured homes;
• The climate zones established in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (“the HUD Code”) rather than the climate zones under the IECC; and
• Alternative practices that result in net estimated energy consumption equal to or less than the specific IECC standards.
DOE is directed to update its standards not later than one year after any revision to the IECC.
On May 31, 2022, DOE published a final rule to establish energy conservation standards for manufactured housing pursuant to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“May 2022 Final Rule”). 87 FR 32728. These standards were based on the 2021 version of the International Energy Conservation Code (“IECC”) and comments received during interagency consultation with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, as well as from stakeholders through a variety of opportunities for public input. The adopted standards provide a set of “tiered” standards based on size that would apply the 2021 IECC-based standards to manufactured homes, which was adjusted to account for the fact that the IECC was not written for manufactured housing, with the provision that single-section manufactured homes would be subject to less stringent building thermal envelope requirements compared to multi-section manufactured homes. The tiered approach adopted by DOE was to address cost concerns by limiting the incremental cost for lower tier (
In the May 2022 Final Rule, DOE codified the energy conservation standards in a new part of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) under 10 CFR part 460, subparts A, B, and C. Subpart A presents generally the scope of the rule and provides definitions of key terms. Subpart B would establish new requirements for manufactured homes that relate to climate zones, the building thermal envelope, air sealing, and installation of insulation, based on certain provisions of the 2021 IECC. Subpart C would establish new requirements based on the 2021 IECC related to duct sealing, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”); service hot water systems; mechanical ventilation fan efficacy; and heating and cooling equipment sizing.
In the May 2022 Final Rule, DOE adopted a compliance date such that the standards would apply to manufactured homes that are manufactured on or after one year following the publication date of the final rule in the
On February 14, 2023, the Manufactured Housing Institute and the Texas Manufactured Housing Association filed a lawsuit against DOE in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas alleging that DOE violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the EISA in promulgating the May 2022 Final Rule. Among the allegations made by plaintiffs are that DOE (1) failed to consider all relevant costs, (2) acted arbitrarily and capriciously in setting a one-year compliance deadline, and (3) failed to consult with HUD about the final rule's energy standards. DOE has denied the plaintiffs' allegations, and the lawsuit remains pending.
On March 24, 2023, DOE published in the
On May 30, 2023, DOE published a final rule amending the compliance date for its manufactured housing standards delaying compliance until July 1, 2025, for Tier 2 homes, and until 60 days after
On December 26, 2023, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to establish enforcement procedures for its energy conservation standards for manufactured housing (“December 2023 NOPR”). 88 FR 88844. DOE did not propose specific test procedures or requirements for manufacturers to certify that their homes meet the energy conservation standards, but rather proposed a system by which the Department would determine compliance through review of manufacturer-provided records. The NOPR outlined DOE and manufacturer responsibilities, prohibited acts and penalties, investigation procedures, and civil enforcement procedures, including related penalties. In addition, via the NOPR, DOE concluded that the additional costs to manufacturers imposed by the proposed enforcement procedures would be minimal, and would not alter DOE's assessment of the costs resulting from the standard published in the May 2022 Final Rule. DOE received comments on the December 2023 NOPR and proposed enforcement procedures but has not issued a final rule.
On April 24, 2025, DOE published a NOPR proposing to partially amend the compliance dates for manufactured housing standards (“April 2025 NOPR”). 90 FR 17230. Specifically, DOE proposed to require compliance with the Tier 2 standards in subparts B and C beginning 180 days after publication of its final enforcement procedures. DOE did not propose to amend the compliance date for Tier 1 homes as such homes will be subject to the standards in subparts B and C beginning 60 days after publication of DOE's final enforcement procedures. DOE noted that this proposal aligns with the proposal in the March 2023 NOPR.
On July 2, 2025, DOE published a final rule to amend the compliance date for its manufactured housing energy conservation standards (“July 2025 Final Rule”). 90 FR 28873. DOE's final rule adopted the NOPR proposal and as such the earlier Tier 2 compliance date was modified to set compliance 180 days after publication of final enforcement procedures. No change was made to the Tier 1 compliance date.
Since DOE published the May 2022 Final Rule, several changes have taken place that DOE now proposes to investigate, and through this RFI to ask for feedback from stakeholders. As noted previously, in 2023 DOE issued a NOPR to establish enforcement tools to accompany the May 2022 Final Rule's energy conservation standards. DOE is still reviewing comments on the enforcement NOPR, and manufacturers are not currently required to comply with the May 2022 Final Rule. Under EISA's requirement that DOE review IECC standards as they become available, DOE must now review the potential for standards that take into account the more recent 2024 IECC standards.
In developing the May 2022 Final Rule, DOE gave careful consideration to a variety of factors, including the “first costs” related to the purchase of manufactured homes. In the May 2022 Final Rule, DOE established a set of tiered energy conservation standards that DOE believed was respectful of the industry imperative to maintain the affordability of manufactured homes while at the same time meeting DOE's obligation under EISA to establish energy conservation standards based on the most current version of the IECC standards. In the following sections, DOE presents a series of issues on which it seeks input to aid in reviewing the technical and economic analyses underlying DOE's May 2022 Final Rule in light of the changing background conditions.
Additionally, DOE seeks stakeholder input on commencing efficiency standards rulemaking for manufactured homes at this time and welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the conduct of this process that may not specifically be identified in this document. For example, DOE is interested in understanding the timing necessary for industry to comply with the 2022 Final Rule.
DOE is also revisiting the 2022 Final Rule in light of E.O. 14192 “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” and as identified in the below sections, seeks stakeholder input on reducing regulatory burden of these regulations.
Under EISA, DOE is required to update energy conservation standards following any revision to the IECC. 45 U.S.C. 17071(b)(3). Since the IECC was updated in August 2024, DOE has a legislative requirement to review energy conservation standards for manufactured housing. Under EISA, DOE is required to consider the design and factory construction techniques, the IECC standards, and cost effectiveness given the impact on purchase price and on total life-cycle construction and operating costs. 45 U.S.C. 17071(b)(1); 45 U.S.C. 17071(b)(3)(2).
Because manufacturers are not yet required to comply with the 2022 Final Rule, the Department finds that the requirement to analyze the cost-effectiveness of the IECC 2024 standard presents a question as to the proper baseline for further technical analysis. At present, manufacturers are required to comply with existing HUD requirements related to the energy efficiency of manufactured homes. Typically, when DOE performs an energy conservation standard analysis, the existing standards provide the minimum efficiency level against which proposed efficiency requirements are analyzed.
The May 2022 Final Rule incorporated analytical assumptions to determine the minimum level of efficiency for which DOE seeks further stakeholder input through the current RFI, as described in the itemized paragraphs below. These assumptions spanned a variety of issues, such as: affordability; the use of HUD climate zones; the price elasticity value to use in DOE's calculation of potential shipment impacts; whether to include certification, compliance, and enforcement costs as part of DOE's analysis; the availability of windows that meet the U-value and Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) and the availability of doors and insulation that meet U-values required by the 2022 Final Rule; and whether the tightening of a manufactured home's building envelope with regard to air leakage would impact indoor air quality by increasing the likelihood of trapping pollutants inside the building and other issues that are relevant.
EISA explicitly stated that DOE could establish efficiency standards based on the climate zones used by HUD rather than the climate zones embodied in the IECC standards. 42 U.S.C. 17071(b)(2)(B). The 2022 May Final Rule utilized the HUD climate zones to reduce the complexities and burden faced by manufacturers, and to reduce the potential confusion faced by consumers if the energy standards were based on different climate zones than other HUD requirements. 87 FR 32728, 32761.
In further researching the manufactured housing market, DOE has examined additional information from a variety of sources. Of note is information from the Urban Institute which released a report in 2023 that analyzed mortgage data from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act database covering 2022 mortgage data.
• Manufactured homeowners tend to have lower incomes than their counterparts who own site-built homes:
○ homeowners with chattel
○ homeowners with manufactured housing mortgage loans had median incomes of $65,000;
○ homeowners of site-built homes had median incomes of $101,000.
• Manufactured-housing purchasers used chattel loans in 42 percent of purchases requiring loans.
• Personal property (chattel) loans included a significant fraction (25.3 percent) of loans in which the consumers also owned (purchased) the land.
• Median loan amounts were:
○ Personal property (chattel) loans—$95,000;
○ Real property (
○ Site-built home loans—$305,000.
• Median interest rates reported were 8.0 percent for chattel loans, 5.5 percent for manufactured home real property loans, and 5.0 percent for site-built home mortgages.
• Denial rates among loan applications for chattel loans were 65.5 percent of applications, compared to 43 percent of manufactured home real property loan applications, and 10.4 percent of site-built home mortgage applications.
This data suggest that manufactured housing purchasers face substantial constraints in receiving financing compared to traditional site-built home purchasers. In turn, these constraints may make purchasers of manufactured homes more price-sensitive to potential changes that would impact the costs to construct (and purchase) a manufactured home.
U.S. Census Bureau American Housing Survey data analyzed and referenced by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)
Manufactured homeowners who finance their homes tend to pay higher interest rates than their site-built home counterparts. Chattel financing is typically offered to purchasers at a significantly higher interest rate than the rates offered to their site-built home counterparts. However, approximately one-quarter of manufactured homeowners with chattel loans own or are purchasing the land on which the manufactured home is sited and could potentially be eligible for mortgage financing but used a chattel loan. Relevant factors in the decision making include the willingness of lenders to make smaller personal property loans than mortgage lenders, the possibility that personal property lenders may be willing to loan money to people with lower credit scores than mortgage lenders, and the possibility the homeowner doesn't want to encumber the land with a lien. The Urban Institute report also noted there is a tradeoff between lower origination costs with significantly higher interest rates (chattel loans) and higher origination costs with significantly lower interest rates and greater consumer protections (mortgage).
DOE's analysis for its May 2022 Final Rule considered the economic impacts of the proposed standards on individual manufactured home purchasers. DOE's 2022 Final Rule established separate minimum efficiency standards for single- and multi-section homes, and within each of these two home classes with requirements varying across three geographic regions.
Under the statutory provision requiring the Department to develop standards for manufactured housing, the May 2022 final standards were generally based on the then-current version of the IECC (
For Tier 2, DOE considered a package of energy efficiency options that mirror the 2021 IECC, with adjustments made for the practicalities of manufacturing and transporting and setting homes up on-site. For example, because of the need to join sections in order to perform an envelope air-sealing test, DOE, working with the Manufactured Housing Working Group,
DOE encourages stakeholders to review and submit comments on the issues listed previously and on other issues that they believe warrant DOE's consideration in any potential future rulemaking on energy conservation standards for manufactured housing.
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date listed in
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. If this instruction is followed, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of the process for developing energy conservation standards and related rulemaking activities. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the comment period in each stage of the rulemaking process. Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking process. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about this process should contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program at
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this request for information.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 28, 2025, by Lou Hrkman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of petition.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that we have filed a food additive petition, submitted by Biomin GmbH, proposing that we amend our food additive regulations to provide for the safe use of zearalenone hydrolase to
The food additive petition was filed on August 6, 2025.
For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to
Lauren Howell, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive, College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-8012,
Under section 409(b)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5)), we are giving notice that we have filed a food additive petition (FAP 2324), submitted by Biomin GmbH, Erber Campus 1, 3131 Getzersdorf, Austria. The petition proposes that we amend our food additive regulations in 21 CFR part 573—Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals, to provide for the safe use of Zearalenone hydrolase to degrade zearalenone in swine food at no less than 10 U/kg complete feed (U = the five-fold enzymatic activity that hydrolyzes 1 µmol zearalenone per minute in a solution of 5 mg/L zearalenone).
The petitioner has claimed that this action is categorically excluded under 21 CFR 25.32(r) because it is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. In addition, the petitioner has stated that, to their knowledge, no extraordinary circumstances exist that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion applies, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion does not apply, we will request an environmental assessment and make it available for public inspection.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking that has been determined to be unnecessary. The notice of proposed rulemaking proposed to authorize the Department of State (State Department) to disclose returns and return information to its contractors who assist the State Department in carrying out certain responsibilities related to revoking or denying a passport of any individual certified to have a seriously delinquent tax debt.
The notice of proposed rulemaking that was published in the
Alexander Wu of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), (202) 317-6845 (not a toll-free number).
Section 7345 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), which was added to the Code by section 32101(a) of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, Public Law 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312 (2015), requires the IRS to notify the State Department about any tax debt of an individual that the IRS certifies as seriously delinquent. Section 32101(e) of the FAST Act requires the State Department to deny such individual a passport (or the renewal of a passport) if the IRS notifies the State Department that the individual has been certified as having a seriously delinquent tax debt. Section 32101(e) of the FAST Act also permits the State Department to revoke a passport previously issued to such person. The State Department procures services from outside contractors in connection with carrying out its responsibilities under the FAST Act.
Under section 6103(a) of the Code, returns and return information are confidential unless the Code otherwise authorizes disclosure. Section 6103(n) authorizes, pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary's delegate (Secretary), the disclosure of returns and return information to any person for purposes of tax administration to the extent necessary in connection with, among other things, a written contract for services. Section 6103(b)(4) defines the term “tax administration” to include “the administration, management, conduct, direction, and supervision of the execution and application of the internal revenue laws or related statutes.” Because implementation of the FAST Act relates to the administration, management, conduct, direction, and supervision of the execution and application of the internal revenue laws and related statutes, disclosure of return information for the purpose of carrying out responsibilities under the FAST Act is a tax administration purpose.
On March 13, 2018, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
The proposed regulations are unnecessary because the State Department is already authorized under § 301.6103(n)-1(a)(2)(ii) to disclose returns and return information to its contractors providing services in connection with the revocation or denial of passports pursuant to the FAST Act and section 7345, so long as the IRS authorizes the disclosure in writing and the disclosure conforms to the other provisions of § 301.6103(n)-1. Under § 301.6103(n)-1(a)(2)(ii), if an officer or employee of the Treasury Department has disclosed returns or return information to the State Department for purposes of the provision of services in furtherance of tax administration, then the State
Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 7805, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-129260-16) published in the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) publishes a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend its definitions of the terms “independent study,” “distance learning,” and “resident learning,” and to establish a new term, “standard curriculum.” These proposed amendments, which distinguish distance learning from resident learning and independent study from standard curriculum, address concerns from VA stakeholders who view independent study and distance learning as having distinct and separate meanings and clarify State Approving Agency (SAA) jurisdiction over courses taken solely by distance learning.
Comments must be received by VA on or before November 3, 2025.
You may submit comments through
Thomas Alphonso, Veterans Benefits Administration, (202) 461-9800.
On October 14, 2021, VA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend its regulations that govern State Approving Agencies' (SAA) jurisdiction for approval of courses, including online distance learning courses, to distinguish online distance learning courses from resident training and independent study-resident training courses, to clarify SAA authority and jurisdiction regarding the approval or disapproval of any course, and to clarify the adjudicatory outcomes available to an SAA when reviewing an approval application. 86 FR 57094. In response to the notice of proposed rulemaking, two commenters questioned the appropriateness of VA's categorization of online distance learning and recommended that VA “modernize” its definitions to improve oversight of distance education programs. One commenter stated that distance education is an alternative delivery mode to in-person instruction and must include regular and substantive interactions with qualified faculty. Another commenter also stated that distance learning must include regularly scheduled interaction between student and instructor, whether synchronously or asynchronously, and that the rules governing independent study are not applicable to distance learning.
Furthermore, in the past, our stakeholder partners, including SAAs and veterans' advocacy organizations, have expressed concern with the potential negative impacts of defining all distance learning as independent study. They have asserted that considering distance learning as a subset of independent study has effectively barred SAA approval of non-college degree (NCD) programs, which are not accredited, conducted via distance learning. Because VA is not authorized to approve enrollment in independent study programs unless they are accredited and lead to a standard college degree or certificate offered by an institution of higher learning, see 38 CFR 21.4267(f), under current regulations that define distance learning as independent study, VA cannot approve enrollment in NCD programs conducted via distance learning, even though such programs may be high quality and provide many vocational and economic opportunities to veterans. There is a comprehensive set of rules that govern SAA approval of non-accredited programs to ensure the integrity of the programs that are available to veterans. Specifically, 38 U.S.C. 3676(c)(1) requires that non-accredited “courses, curriculum, and instruction [be] consistent in quality, content, and length with similar courses in public schools and other private schools in the State, with recognized accepted standards.” Thus, considering distance learning as a subset of independent study limits the otherwise many worthwhile vocational and economic opportunities available to veterans.
Moreover, classifying all distance learning programs, which are often offered as programs with regularly scheduled classes, as “independent study,” when a student does not have independence over what he or she studies, is confusing for VA beneficiaries and educational institution partners, as the commenters expressed, because it contradicts the plain meaning of the term “independent study” and VA's interpretation of that term in 38 CFR 21.4267(b)(1) in implementing 38 U.S.C. 3680A(a)(4). Merriam-Webster defines “independent study” as “a course of study done by a student without an instructor or with help from an instructor but not as part of an organized class.” See
VA agrees with the points raised by commenters and stakeholders and believes it is not appropriate to continue classifying all online training as independent study merely because the training is online (
VA proposes to include four modalities of training in our regulations to encompass all possible modalities, which would require adding a new term, “standard curriculum,” at 38 CFR 21.4200(mm). We would define standard curriculum as a class in which the instructor dictates a uniform structure for all students and which would accordingly not meet the definition of independent study. Current 38 CFR 21.4267, which governs approval of independent study courses, treats “resident training” and “independent study” as mutually exclusive by describing “resident training” courses as requiring “regularly scheduled, standard class sessions” and “independent study” courses as not having “any regularly scheduled, conventional classroom or laboratory sessions.” However, educational institutions do not view these modalities as mutually exclusive, and we understand there can be an independent study program that involves some resident training. VA believes the new differentiation of standard curriculum from independent study, which would more accurately describe the different modalities of learning for purposes of more accurately approving courses, would best serve our beneficiaries, as well as our educational partners, and would help us to better administer 38 U.S.C. 3680A(a)(4) with its limitation on enrollments in independent study programs.
VA proposes adding a new definition for “independent study” at 38 CFR 21.4200(nn) that bases the classification of “independent study” on the level of autonomy a student has regarding the subject matter and content of the course and allows for periodic and substantive interaction with an instructor. We propose to allow a student to pursue independent study through either resident or distance learning. We also propose to remove the distinction between a course offered entirely by independent study and in part by independent study as unnecessary. This approach better aligns with how our educational partners, including those who commented on the proposed rule, understand the term “independent study,” and is consistent with the commonly accepted definition of that term.
Accordingly, we would remove the paragraph (a) designation and heading and paragraphs (b) and (c) from current § 21.4267 and incorporate the content of those paragraphs, which provide the definition of independent study, in the new definition of “independent study” in § 21.4200(nn) with appropriate cross references. We further propose to remove paragraphs (d) and (e) from current § 21.4267 and incorporate the examples of undergraduate and graduate resident training from those paragraphs in § 21.4200(nn)(2) as examples of training that would not be independent study. Paragraphs (f) and (g) would be retained in § 21.4267 as new paragraphs (b) and (c) since they contain course approval rules not related to the proposed definition.
We currently define the term “distance learning” in 38 CFR 21.9505 as any program that satisfies the Department of Education's (ED) definition of “distance education” in 20 U.S.C. 1003(7). ED's definition of distance learning, which involves use of technology to deliver instruction to students who are separated from the instructor to support regular and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor, synchronously or asynchronously, does not include information such as requirements related to classroom attendance, which VA needs to administer monthly housing payments under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 3313(c)(1)(B)(iii) and 38 CFR 21.9640(b)(1)(ii), monthly housing payments under the Post-9/11 GI Bill are different depending on whether a student attends any amount of any training in a classroom setting. Under section 3313(c)(1)(B)(iii) and § 21.9640(b)(1)(ii), a reduced housing allowance is paid to students who receive training solely through distance learning. We would continue to pay a reduced housing allowance to students who receive training solely through distance learning under VA's new definition for “distance learning” in § 21.4200(oo).
VA proposes to remove the current regulatory definition of “distance learning” from 38 CFR 21.9505 and add a new definition at 38 CFR 21.4200(oo), which would incorporate ED's definition of “distance education” from 20 U.S.C. 1003(7) (as referenced in § 21.9505), but add an exception stating that we will not consider training to be distance learning when the student is required to be in a physical classroom at a designated time to access the technology, instructional materials, or the like. See 38 CFR 21.4233(c)(2).
VA stakeholders view resident learning as involving any “classroom instruction” with an instructor physically co-located in the same classroom with the students, or with the student required to be in a classroom to access technology to receive distance learning instruction regardless of where the instructor is located. Conversely, stakeholders would not view correspondence training (
Additionally, we propose conforming amendments to § 21.4250(a)(3). Current § 21.4250(a)(3) provides that, if an educational institution offers a course by independent study or by correspondence, only the SAA for the State where the main campus is located may approve the course for VA training. Under this provision, because all distance learning has until now been considered independent study, the SAA for the school's main campus has had jurisdiction over approval of distance learning programs. With the changes to the definitions of “independent study” and “distance learning,” it would no longer be the case that all distance learning would be independent study and “distance learning” is not separately mentioned in § 21.4250. Thus, our regulations would not address which SAA would hold jurisdiction over distance learning programs that are not independent study. To make clear that we would continue to require the SAA for the State in which a school's main campus is located to approve all
Finally, in the proposed rule, in § 21.4250(a)(2), we inadvertently stated that if a school with a main campus in a State offers a resident course not located in the “same” State, only the SAA for the State where the school's main campus is located may approve the course. The proposal to include the word “same” was unintentional. We are now proposing to correct the error in the proposed rule and instead make no changes to current § 21.4250(a)(2).
The Department seeks feedback about how to provide flexibility to institutions that offer quality distance learning programs that are ineligible to qualify as GI Bill approved programs under the current rule but provide value to students (like remedial and vocational courses and FAA approved distance learning modules) while ensuring that we preserve program quality and integrity, protecting VA educational beneficiaries from fraudulent and predatory schools.
Before making a final decision on the proposed changes and the issuance of a final rulemaking, VA will consider all comments received during the comment period ending on December 13, 2021, in response to the October 2021 notice of proposed rulemaking, and all comments received in response to this SNPRM by the closing date. If you submitted a comment regarding the October 2021 notice of proposed rulemaking, you do not need to submit the same comment again. This SNPRM does not reopen the other proposals that were contained in the October 2021 notice of proposed rulemaking or request further comments on those proposals. VA plans to publish a final rulemaking based on this SNPRM and comments we receive in response to this notice, and on the original notice of proposed rulemaking and comments we received in response to that notice.
VA examined the impact of this rulemaking as required by Executive Orders 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993) and 13563 (Jan. 18, 2011), which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. This proposed rule is expected to be a deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192. The regulatory impact analysis associated with this rulemaking can be found as a supporting document at
The Secretary hereby certifies that this SNPRM would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). VA has determined there are no small entities involved with the approval of online distance learning courses or with the administration of VA's educational benefits. Neither SAAs nor VA, when acting in the role of a SAA, qualify as “small” per NCAIS size standards. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply.
This proposed rule would not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.
Although this action contains provisions (38 CFR 21.4250 and 21.4259) constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), no new or revised collection of information is associated with this SNPRM. The collection of information for §§ 21.4250 and 21.4259 is currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and has been assigned OMB control number 2900-0051.
The Assistance Listing numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.027-64.028, Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance; 64.032, Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve; 64.117, Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance; 64.120, Post-Vietnam Era Veterans' Educational Assistance; 64.124, All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance.
Administrative practice and procedure, Armed forces, Civil rights, Claims, Colleges and universities, Conflict of interests, Education, Employment, Grant programs—education, Grant programs—veterans, Health care, Loan programs—education, Loan programs—veterans, Manpower training programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans, Vocational education, Vocational rehabilitation.
Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on July 24, 2025, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR part 21 as set forth below:
10 U.S.C. 2141 note, ch. 1606; 38 U.S.C. 501(a), chs. 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and as noted in specific sections.
The additions read as follows:
(mm)
(nn)
(2) Notwithstanding any of the above requirements, the following courses are never considered independent study:
(i) A cooperative course (see 38 CFR 21.4233(a) and 21.4257);
(ii) A farm cooperative course (see 38 CFR 21.4233(d) and 21.4264);
(iii) A course approved as a correspondence course (see 38 CFR 21.4256);
(iv) A course of student teaching;
(v) A graduate-level class (
(A) Master's thesis,
(B) Doctoral dissertation, or
(C) Similar treatise which is prerequisite to the degree being pursued.
(oo)
(i) Instruction is delivered exclusively through the use of one or more of the technologies described in paragraph (2);
(ii) Students are physically separated from the instructor; and
(iii) There is regular and substantive interaction between the student and the instructor.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the technologies used may include—
(i) The internet;
(ii) One-way and two-way transmissions (such as through open broadcast/open-circuit, closed broadcast/closed-circuit, cable, microwave, broadband lines, fiber optics, satellite, or wireless communications devices), but not letter or mail;
(iii) Audio conferencing; or
(iv) Recorded media (such as video cassettes, CD-ROMs, DVDs).
(3) A modality of instruction for a class (
(pp)
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) If an educational institution offers a course by independent study (either resident learning or distance learning), by correspondence, or solely through distance learning, only the State approving agency for the State where the educational institution's main campus is located may approve the course for VA training.
(b)
(2)
(a)(1) A State approving agency will deny an application for approval of any course, or licensing or certification test, after reviewing the application and determining that either:
(i) The course, or licensing or certification test, fails to meet any of the requirements for approval; or
(ii) The State approving agency lacks jurisdiction under § 21.4250.
(2) With respect to any approved course, or licensing or certification test, it is incumbent upon the State approving agency to determine whether the course continues to comply with the requirements for approval and to take immediate appropriate action in each case in which the evidence of record establishes that the conduct of a course fails to comply with the requirements for approval. If so found, the State approving agency:
(i) Will suspend the approval of a course for new enrollments, or approval of a licensing or certification test, for a period not to exceed 60 days to allow the institution to correct any deficiencies; or
(ii) Will immediately withdraw the approval of the course, or licensing or certification test, if any of the requirements for approval that are not being met cannot be corrected within a period of 60 days.
(3) Upon denying an application for approval, or suspending or withdrawing an approval, the State approving agency will notify the educational institution by certified or registered letter with a return receipt secured (38 U.S.C. 3679). The notification will set forth the reasons for such denial, suspension, or withdrawal.
(b) Each State approving agency will immediately notify VA of each course, or licensing or certification test, for which it has denied an application for approval, or suspended or withdrawn the approval and set forth the reasons for such action.
(c) VA will deny an application for approval, or suspend or withdraw the approval, of courses, or licensing or certification tests, under conditions specified in paragraph (a) of this section where it functions for the State approving agency. See 38 CFR 21.4150(c).
(d) VA will immediately notify the respective State approving agency, if applicable, in each case VA suspends or withdraws approval of any school under 38 U.S.C. chapter 31.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) Except as provided in §§ 21.4252(g), 21.7120(d), and 21.7622(f) of this part, VA may not pay educational assistance for a nonaccredited course which is offered in whole or in part by independent study (as defined in § 21.4200(nn)).
(b) A State approving agency may approve a course offered by independent study only if the course—
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with its efforts to certify certain laboratories that conduct aquatic animal testing for export activities.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before November 3, 2025.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on conducting aquatic animal tests for export health certificates, contact Janet Warg, Microbiologist, Diagnostic Virology Laboratory, National Veterinary Services Laboratories, 1920 Dayton Avenue, P.O. Box 844, Ames, IA 50010; (515) 337-7879. For more information on the information collection process, contact Ms. Sheniqua Harris, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at 301-851-2528 or email:
Disease prevention is the most effective method for maintaining a healthy animal population and enhancing the ability of U.S. producers to compete in the global market of animal and animal product trade. To facilitate the export of U.S. animals and animal products, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture maintains information regarding the import health requirements of other countries for animals and animal products, including aquaculture animals, exported from the United States.
While APHIS does not currently require the approval or certification of laboratories that conduct disease tests for the export of aquaculture animals, some countries that import these animals from the United States require them to be tested for certain diseases and the test results recorded on the export certificates. In addition, the test results must originate from a laboratory approved by the competent authority of the exporting country, which is APHIS in this case. State, university, and private laboratories can voluntarily seek APHIS approval of individual diagnostic methods. Though APHIS does not have regulations for the approval or certification of laboratories that conduct tests for the export of aquaculture animals, APHIS provides this approval as a service to U.S. exporters who export aquaculture animals to countries that require this certification.
APHIS evaluates diagnostic methods for detecting aquatic animal pathogens listed by the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) in the WOAH diagnostic manual and other supporting scientific literature. APHIS lists the laboratories approved to conduct diagnostic testing in support of export health certification of aquatic species at
The approval of laboratories to conduct tests for the export of aquaculture animals requires the use of certain information collection activities including notification of intent to request approval, application for APHIS approval, protocol statement, submission and recordkeeping of sample copies of diagnostic reports, quality assurance/control plans and their recordkeeping, notification of proposed changes to assay protocols, recordkeeping of supporting assay documentation, and request for removal of approved status.
We are asking OMB to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(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 our 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a revision of a currently approved collection for the electronic reporting forms, SNAP-Ed Annual Report (Form FNS-925A) and SNAP-Ed State Plan (Form FNS-925B), as required in the 2018 Farm Bill.
Written comments must be received on or before November 3, 2025.
Comments may be sent to: Aurora Calvillo Buffington, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, 1320 Braddock Place, 5th Floor, Alexandria, VA 22314. Comments also may be submitted via email to
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Aurora Calvillo-Buffington at (703) 305-2820 or
Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
As directed by the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (“2018 Farm Bill”, Pub. L. 115-334), FNS improved the SNAP-Ed reporting process by providing States with an electronic, online reporting system. States submit their annual SNAP-Ed State Plans (FNS-925B) and SNAP-Ed Annual Reports (FNS-925A) in this system. The system provides FNS with data that are consistent across States, which facilitates data aggregation and nationwide evaluation of SNAP-Ed. This system also streamlines the submission and review process for States and FNS, for example, by using
In developing the burden estimates for this information collection, FNS categorized States into one of four burden levels (Groups A through D, where Group A represents the smallest burden level and Group D represents the largest burden level). This categorization takes into account both the State's SNAP-Ed funding allocation and the number of implementing agencies that a State must coordinate with for purposes of SNAP-Ed planning and reporting (as a proxy for the level of effort and coordination needed in a State). FNS held meetings with the consultation group on February 25 and 28, 2025. The consultation group included nine SNAP-Ed affiliated representatives responsible for submitting SNAP-Ed State plans and annual reports, representing the four State burden levels. The group provided feedback on the content, clarity, and burden estimate for this information collection. Based on this feedback, FNS has refined the burden hours for FNS forms 925A and 925B. In addition, through this notice, FNS seeks public comments on the burden estimate for this information collection.
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice announces the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) has discontinued the information collection for both the Mink Survey (OMB Control Number 0535-0212) and the Agricultural Labor Survey (OMB Control Number 0535-0109), as these collections are deemed duplicative and/or no longer necessary. This action is taken under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) as part of the government's efforts to improve efficiency and eliminate unnecessary burdens.
The discontinuation date for both collections is August 2025.
Jody McDaniel, Acting Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-2707. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from Margaret Noonan, NASS—OMB Clearance Officer, at (202) 720-2206 or at
USDA has determined it is not required or prudent to conduct the mink survey and has discontinued information collection for OMB Control Number 0535-0212.
The FLS only collects information directly from farmers and does not capture information from farm labor contractors. Given the shortage of domestic labor and the complex process to navigate visa programs for foreign workers, more and more farmers rely on farm labor contractors to supply their workforce. Data from farm labor contractors is collected by the OEWS. This is one of several reasons why the OEWS has surpassed the FLS as the best available tool for measuring farm wages on a nationwide basis.
The supporting statement included in the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Information Collection Request package for the FLS, submitted to OMB on July 25, 2024, noted that the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 requires USDA to compute parity prices of farm products. To compute these parity prices, USDA uses an index of prices paid by farmers which is composed of five indexes, one of which is an index of wage rates. Historically, USDA has used FLS data as the information source for the index of wage rates; however, USDA will use enhanced OEWS data as the source for this index.
The 2024 supporting statement at p. 1 also refers to the DOL's use of FLS data in calculating a government-mandated minimum wage rate when foreign temporary labor is employed pursuant to a visa program known as H-2A. DOL, however, has computed this rate, known as the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR), without the FLS in the past. To illustrate, DOL in rulemaking reported that the use of the FLS, coinciding with an increase in illegal immigration, had diminished its utility for AEWR purposes: “The Department chose at that time to use USDA data to set AEWRs largely because it believed that USDA's aggregation of wage data at broad regional levels would immunize the survey from the effects of any localized wage depression that might exist. 54 FR 28043. As discussed above, however, undocumented workers are substantially more dispersed throughout the agricultural sector today than they were in 1989. Not only are undocumented workers no longer confined to particularized local labor markets, but recent studies have also called into question whether the concentration of undocumented workers in particular labor markets actually causes localized wage depression. In light of these developments, the one key advantage the Department believed in 1989 was afforded by the USDA survey's broadly aggregated data—its ability to avoid localized wage depression effects—has been substantially diminished. On the other hand, the fact that undocumented workers have come to dominate the agricultural labor force in the intervening years has rendered the imprecision of USDA wage data vis-à-vis local labor market conditions a substantial drawback that may sometimes actually encourage employers to hire undocumented workers. In fact, the Department expressed concern in the 1989 rulemaking that precisely this phenomenon might develop, stating that “AEWRs, if set too high, might be a disincentive to the use of H-2A workers and U.S. workers, and could undermine efforts to eradicate the employment of illegal aliens. 54 FR 28044. Many commenters argued that the large numbers of undocumented workers in the agricultural sector adversely affects U.S. workers.
For a brief period beginning in 2008, until a change in the administration, DOL then engaged in rulemaking to replace its use of the FLS data with the DOL's OEWS data:
Having determined that the Department [of Labor] can best safeguard the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers from adverse effect by encouraging employers to replace undocumented workers with either U.S. workers or H-2A workers, and having further determined that tailoring AEWRs to local labor market conditions is the best way to foster this replacement process, the Department made two independent decisions.
The 2024 supporting statement at p. 1 also notes that the FLS had been funded by DOL (reflecting USDA's determination that the FLS was not needed), but after 2021 DOL discontinued funding the FLS.
Further, in 2023 rulemaking, DOL reported that the FLS did not capture wages for all occupations and some states lacked FLS data. 88 FR 12760, (Feb. 28, 2023). DOL thus approved and
USDA is not required by statute to rely on the FLS to collect data measuring farm labor wages. USDA has determined it is not required or prudent to conduct the FLS and has discontinued information collection for OMB Control Number 0535-0109. USDA's scarce resources must be reallocated to activities that are required by statute and useful to the Department and its customers. Substitutes like DOL's OEWS are available to supplant the FLS to the extent other agencies use the data for purposes other than that for which it was originally conceived in the 19th century. To the extent any request is received for legacy data, USDA will work to make FLS legacy data available as much as possible.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of virtual business 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 (FACA) that the Tennessee Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a virtual business meeting via Zoom on Wednesday, October 1, 2025, from 3:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. CT. For the purpose of beginning their term and to discuss their first project topics.
The meeting will take place on Wednesday, October 1st, from 3:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. CT.
•
•
Brooke Peery, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at
Committee meetings are available to the public through the videoconference link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement 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. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email Corrine Sanders, Support Services Specialist,
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments can be sent via email to Brooke Peery (DFO) at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily finds that certain hot-rolled steel flat products (hot-rolled steel) from the Netherlands were sold in the United States at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) October 1, 2023, through September 30, 2024. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review.
Applicable September 3, 2025.
Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0410.
On October 3, 2016, Commerce published in the
The products covered by this
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). We calculated export price and normal value in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, respectively. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results,
We preliminarily determine that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period October 1, 2023, through September 30, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations performed to interested parties in the preliminary results of this administrative review within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days after the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
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 administrative review, 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 via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
All submissions, including case and rebuttal briefs, as well as hearing requests, should be filed via ACCESS.
Unless the deadline is extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Upon completion of the final results of this administrative review, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by this review.
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the individually examined respondent for which it did not know that the merchandise was destined to the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate these entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
The final results of this administrative review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication in the
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of this administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable September 3, 2025.
Laura Delgado or Charles Doss, 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) 482-1468 or (202) 482-4474, respectively.
On July 15, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated a countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of imports of oleoresin paprika from India.
Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a countervailing duty investigation within 65 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) the petitioner
On August 21, 2025, the petitioner submitted a timely request that Commerce postpone the preliminary CVD determination.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT or Committee) will hold an open in-person meeting on Tuesday, October 28, 2025, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and Wednesday, October 29, 2025, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time with a virtual option for VCAT members only to ensure the ability to meet quorum.
The VCAT will meet on Tuesday, October 28, 2025, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and Wednesday, October 29, 2025, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held at the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence, 9700 Great Seneca Highway, Rockville, Maryland 20850 with an option to participate via Zoom for VCAT members only. Please note admittance instructions under the
Stephanie Shaw, VCAT, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1060, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-1060, telephone number 240-446-6000. Ms. Shaw's email address is
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1001
Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Committee's business are invited to request a place on the agenda by no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Tuesday, October 14, 2025, by contacting Stephanie Shaw at
All visitors, including NIST staff, to attend the NIST site are required to pre-register to be admitted. Limited space is available on a first-come, first-served basis for anyone who wishes to attend in person. Please submit your name, time of arrival, email address, and phone number to Stephanie Shaw,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will hold an online meeting of its Ad Hoc Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fisheries Innovation Workgroup (FIW) to discuss procedures to facilitate the development of new HMS gears and achieve the goals of the HMS Roadmap. This meeting is open to the public.
The online meeting will be held Thursday, September 25, 2025, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. and Friday, September 26, 2025, 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time, or until business for the day has been completed.
The meeting will be held online. Specific meeting information,
Kerry Griffin, Pacific Council; telephone: 503-820-2409.
The purpose of this meeting is to continue discussion of the HMS Roadmap, the HMS exempted fishing permit (EFP) process, and EFP performance goals and metrics, which go towards the development of a report for consideration at the November Pacific Council meeting.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. The EFP would allow federally permitted fishing vessels to fish outside fishery regulations in support of exempted fishing activities proposed by the Maine Department of Marine Resources. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs.
Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2025.
You may submit written comments by the following method:
•
All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing without change. All personal identifying information (
Caroline Potter, Fishery Resource Management Specialist,
The Maine Department of Marine Resources (ME DMR) submitted a complete application for an EFP to conduct commercial fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise restrict to test alternative gear retrieval systems that only use one traditional surface buoy. This EFP would exempt the participating vessels from the following Federal regulations:
This EFP would allow federally permitted vessels to test alternative gears to reduce entanglement risk to protected species, mainly the North Atlantic right whale, in trap/pot and sink gillnet fisheries. There would be two components to this EFP, a gear library component, which is an assortment of devices and technologies to retrieve gear, and a gear geolocation component.
This EFP would allow for the continued research for a project that has been conducted under previously issued EFPs. Since the start of the project, ME DMR has conducted about 2,635 trap/pot hauls as part of the gear library component. Of these, about 2,117 hauls were conducted under the most recent EFP, which became effective May 1, 2024. No hauls have been conducted with gillnet gear and six hauls, which did not use active fishing traps, have been completed as part of the gear geolocation component.
The project objectives are to: (1) collect data on deployments and retrievals of various acoustic on-demand fishing gear within the trap/pot and gillnet fisheries in the Gulf of Maine; (2) provide support and training to fishers on various on-demand technologies; (3) assess fishing areas that may be best suited for adopting the tested retrieval systems; (4) increase familiarity of on-demand gear within the trap/pot and gillnet fisheries; (5) provide feedback to on-demand fishing gear manufacturers to increase performance under commercial fishery conditions; (6) trial gear geolocation and marking systems that promote interoperability for fishers and management; and (7) compare the relative precision of various gear geolocation technologies to improve understanding of how transitioning to acoustic technologies may impact fishing behavior.
For the gear library component, participating vessels would replace one traditional surface marking with their choice of alterative gear available in the Maine Innovative Gear Library. Currently, there are several options including, but not limited to: (1) buoy and stowed rope systems (
For the geolocation component, vessels would use acoustic positioning systems from Teledyne Benthos, Ropeless Systems, Ashored, Nova Robotics, or Advanced Navigation. Each of these systems uses a surface unit to communicate with a unit on the seafloor to determine the gear's geolocation. Vessels would set up to three trawls at different distances apart, within a 1 kilometer radius. Trawls would be allowed to soak no longer than 1 hour each. Up to 10 discrete, single-day gear geolocation trials would be conducted within the fishing year, resulting in a maximum of 150 gear retrievals for the geolocation component. In instances where traps are used, they would not have fresh bait. These trials would increase trap/pot effort via short soaks and high rate of retrieval. However, catch per unit effort would be reduced. The focus of the geolocation component would be to test the acoustic positioning systems to determine the extent of difference between acoustic geolocation and surface buoy or surface GPS geolocation, as well as testing the performance of the different acoustic positioning systems in an environment where multiple acoustic signals are being transmitted simultaneously.
ME DMR researchers anticipate, for the gear library component, up to 6,240 trap/pot trawl retrievals and up to 500 gillnet string retrievals, and up to an additional 150 retrievals of trap/pot trawls for the gear geolocation component. Trap trawls would be consistent with Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) regulations. Trawls would not exceed 50 traps per trawl and the gear library component trawls would soak for no shorter than 3 days and no longer than 30 days. Gillnets would be consistent with ALWTRP and Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan regulations. Gillnets would use 15-30.5 cm mesh, would not exceed 3,200 m, and are estimated to soak for no more than 24 hours. Any legal catch would be sold to a dealer.
To maximize data collection and participation, ME DMR requests flexibility to modify the participant vessel list with the ability to list up to 65 fishermen and up to 7 gillnet fishermen on the EFP. ME DMR would submit modifications to the active participants list at least 1 month in advance of any changes.
ME DMR or partnering organizations and a representative from gear manufacturers would distribute gear and train all participants on its use. Scientific observers may accompany the participants on up to two trips per vessel, within budget and safety limitations. ME DMR would provide standardized data collection sheets to all participants. Individually identifiable data would only be made available via consent of the participants.
ME DMR has requested to exempt trap/pot participants from EFP trip reporting requirements. ME DMR states that this requirement is a barrier to recruiting fishermen for this project and is duplicative of the required electronic vessel trip reporting. This project would build on the research conducted under a previous EFP (DA23-076), which waived the EFP trip report requirement.
ME DMR has proposed the following best practices and risk management:
• Buoy lines associated with this project would contain unique white and blue markings above the required regional markings;
• Weekly mandatory gear loss reporting;
• After release, the on demand vertical line would be retrieved as quickly as possible to minimize time in the water column;
• Visual right whale sightings would be recorded on data sheets and
• Typical soak time is anticipated to be less than 14 days and no longer than 30 days (weather permitting and without unforeseen circumstances);
• Project vessels would adhere to a 10-knot speed limit when transiting dynamic management areas, transiting areas closed to vertical lines, and/or whales are observed;
• All vessels would adhere to current approach regulations that create a 500-yard (457.2-meter) buffer zone in the presence of a surfacing right whale and would depart immediately at a safe and slow speed. Hauling any fishing gear would cease once the entire string or trawl is aboard the vessel, to accommodate the regulation, and be redeployed only after it is reasonable to assume the whale has left the area;
• Law enforcement agencies, including Maine Marine Patrol and NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, would be notified of project participants and activities in advance of the project start date. Materials related to the redeployment of alternative retrieval gear systems would be provided along with this notice. Law enforcement would be able to inspect gear at any time as usual, because at least one traditional endline would be present at all times. Law enforcement would be provided with the information necessary to continue relevant enforcement operations with participant gear;
• Trap Tracker or an equivalent application would be utilized for acoustic on-demand retrieval and set positioning details and would be available to Federal, State, and corresponding enforcement personnel;
• Gear locations would be available to those who have downloaded gear marking applications, but otherwise locations would be treated with sensitivity to mitigate the possibility of gear molestation from members of the public who oppose project activities;
• Project updates would be updated through the ME DMR website for public awareness of general activities related to this EFP; and
• Premature deployments of on-demand gear would be documented and would be retrieved as soon as circumstances (
If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to a geophysical survey of the Cascadia Subduction Zone in the Northeast Pacific Ocean.
This authorization is effective September 2, 2025 through September 1, 2026.
Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Kate Fleming, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Among the exceptions is section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Specifically, NMFS will issue an IHA if it finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation”). NMFS must also prescribe requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings. The definitions of key terms, such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact,” can be found in the MMPA and the NMFS' implementing regulations (see 16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.103).
On July 21, 2025, a notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to SIO for take of marine mammals incidental to a planned geophysical survey of the Cascadia Subduction Zone in the Northeast Pacific Ocean was published in the
No substantive comments were received during the public comment period. There are no changes to the specified activity, the species taken, the proposed numbers, type, or methods of take, or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in the proposed IHA notice. No new information that would change any of the preliminary analyses, conclusions, or determinations in the proposed IHA notice has become available since that notice was published, and therefore, the preliminary analyses, conclusions, and determinations included in the proposed IHA are considered final.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the IHAs qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR) ESA Interagency Cooperation Division has issued a Biological Opinion under section 7 of the ESA, on the issuance of an IHA to SIO under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by the NMFS OPR Permits and Conservation Division. The Biological Opinion concluded that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of ESA-listed humpback whale (Central America and Mexico Distinct Population Segments), sei whale, fin whale, blue whale, sperm whale, and Guadalupe fur seal.
Accordingly, consistent with the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS has issued an IHA to SIO for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to a geophysical survey in the Cascadia Subduction Zone of the Northeast Pacific Ocean.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of request for reimplementation of incidental take regulations (ITRs); request for comments and information.
NMFS' Office of Protected Resources has received a request from the NMFS' Office of Policy for the reimplementation of ITRs governing the incidental taking of marine mammals during geophysical survey activity conducted in the Gulf of America (GOA). Pursuant to regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is announcing receipt of this request and invites the public to provide information, suggestions, and comments on the request.
Comments and information must be received no later than October 3, 2025.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2025-0638, by any of the following methods:
•
•
A copy of the NMFS Office of Policy request may be obtained online at:
Jenna Harlacher, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An incidental take authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
On January 19, 2021, we issued a final rule with regulations to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activities conducted in U.S. waters of the GOA over the course of 5 years (86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021). NMFS subsequently discovered that the 2021 rule was based on erroneous take estimates. We conducted another rulemaking using correct take estimates and other newly available and pertinent information relevant to the analyses supporting some of the findings in the 2021 final rule and the taking allowable under the regulations. We issued a final rule in April 2024, effective May 24, 2024 through April 19, 2026 (89 FR 31488, April 24, 2024). The existing ITR provides a framework for authorization of incidental take through Letters of Authorization (LOAs) upon request from individual applicants planning specific geophysical survey activities.
On August 28, 2025, NMFS Office of Protected Resources received a request from the NMFS Office of Policy for reimplementation of the current ITR. The request notes that the pending April 2026 expiration of the current ITR would affect regulatory certainty with loss of an efficient permitting framework, and that reimplementation of the existing ITR on the basis of the same specified activity defined in the initial 2021 final rule and associated estimates of incidental take evaluated in the 2024 corrective rulemaking is consistent with the MMPA and appropriate pursuant to Executive Orders 14156 “Declaring a National Energy Emergency” and 14154 “Unleashing American Energy.” NMFS has received multiple requests from industry survey operators relating to specific survey activities that would extend beyond the current expiration date, establishing the need and ongoing basis for the ITR. The requested regulations would continue the established framework from the previous regulations for authorization of incidental take through LOAs until superseded by a new ITR promulgated on the basis of a separate request.
The specified activity underlying the request for ITR reimplementation would remain unchanged from the generic program of geophysical survey activity in the central and western GOA described in the 2021 final rule. Geophysical survey activities typically involve a vessel or vessels towing an airgun or array of airguns, or other acoustic source that emits acoustic energy through the overlying water and into the seafloor. The 2021 final rule, as updated via the 2024 final rule, would be reimplemented without change, including all mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and comments concerning the request (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will convene a joint meeting of the Scientific and Statistical Committee's Salmon Subcommittee (SSC-SC) and Salmon Technical Team (STT). The Sacramento River Fall Chinook Workgroup (SRWG), Oregon and Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW and WDFW), Oregon Production Index Technical Team (OPITT), and other entities may also contribute and participate in this meeting, as appropriate.
The meeting will be held Thursday, October 9, 2025 and Friday, October 10, 2025.
This meeting will be held either online or in person at the Pacific Council office in Portland, OR. Specific meeting information, including meeting format and time and directions on how to join the meeting and system requirements will be provided in the meeting announcement on the Pacific Council's website (see
Angela Forristall, Staff Officer, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2419.
The purpose of the meeting is to conduct a salmon methodology review to discuss and review proposed changes to analytical methods used in salmon management. Topics were preliminarily identified at the April 2025 Pacific Council meeting and final topics will be selected at the September 2025 Pacific Council meeting. If time allows additional topics may be discussed, including but not limited to future Pacific Council agenda items and salmon-related topics of interest to the SSC-SC and STT. The SSC-SC and STT will report on the outcomes of the meeting to the Pacific Council at their November Council meeting.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice.
NMFS has established an annual fee of 12 dollars ($12.00) for anglers, spear fishers, and for hire fishing vessels to register under the National Saltwater Angler Registry Program.
The registration fee will be required effective September 3, 2025.
NMFS OST-12453, 1215 East West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.
Gordon C. Colvin; (240) 357-4524; email:
The final rule implementing the National Saltwater Angler Registry program, 50 CFR 600 Subpart P, was published in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of Peer Review Workshop for the NOAA Fisheries' Fishing Effort Survey Calibration Model.
NOAA Fisheries Office of Science and Technology will host a two-day virtual workshop with the opportunity for partner and public comment for the independent peer review of the proposed Fishing Effort Survey (FES) calibration model methodology. The model is proposed for use to update the historical recreational fishing estimates produced using the FES to the scale of the improved FES anticipated for implementation in January 2026. Pending peer review results and associated next steps, calibrated estimates using the peer-reviewed calibration model are anticipated to be available for use in subsequent stock assessments and fisheries management decisions in spring 2026. See
The calibration peer review workshop will be held virtually Sept. 23 and 24, 2025, from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. EDT and from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. EDT, respectively. The established times may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the peer review process. Such adjustments may result in the meeting being extended from or completed prior to the times established by this notice.
This is a virtual meeting. The meeting will be live streamed. Individuals may register to virtually attend the workshop by going to the following links:
•
•
Registration is required. The web connection details will be provided to the registrant upon registering. If you have issues with registering, please contact Dr. Katherine Papacostas (see
Dr. Katherine Papacostas, MRIP program manager; 301-427-8210 or email:
NOAA Fisheries' Office of Science and Technology has commissioned an independent, expert peer review to assess the quality and credibility of the proposed calibration model to be used to update the historical recreational fishing estimates produced using the current FES to the scale of the improved FES anticipated for implementation in January 2026.
As part of the Agency's continuous evaluation and improvement process, NOAA Fisheries has been researching improvements to the FES, which is a key survey component of the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) that estimates recreational fishing effort—specifically, the number of fishing trips taken by shore and private boat anglers from Maine to Mississippi and in Hawaii. The current FES mail survey design was implemented in 2018 and replaced the legacy Coastal Household Telephone Survey (CHTS) to address declining response rates and coverage issues associated with landline telephone surveys.
Throughout 2024, NOAA Fisheries conducted a large-scale study (
To assure continuity and comparability of recreational fishing effort estimates through survey design changes, NOAA Fisheries' team of statistical consultants developed a calibration model. This model updates historical estimates produced by the current FES to estimates that would have been produced had the improved design been in place prior to 2026. This updated calibration model incorporates and builds upon the peer-reviewed model developed to calibrate the historical estimate time series from the CHTS to the current FES.
The objective of this peer review is to evaluate the effectiveness and suitability of the proposed calibration model for re-estimating historical estimates of private boat and shore fishing effort. It is a vital step in NOAA Fisheries' commitment to enhancing the quality and reliability of recreational fishing data. Insights gained from the peer review will inform the finalization of the calibration model and guide its application in updating historical effort estimates, ensuring fisheries stock assessment and management continue to be based on statistically robust and consistent catch and effort data. The final peer review report outlining findings and recommendations is anticipated to be completed and submitted to NOAA Fisheries in late fall 2025.
Day 1 of the workshop focuses on technical presentations and discussion regarding objectives of the peer review; the 2024 FES study; background on calibration purpose and needs; and a walkthrough of the updated calibration model methodology, assumptions, and model outputs. In addition, partners and the public will have the opportunity to raise questions and concerns regarding the presented information. Day 2 of the workshop includes a Q&A with the calibration model developer and panel-only sessions for initial model assessment discussions and report planning.
See attached agenda and peer review performance work statement for further information.
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 hybrid meeting of its Joint Skate and Monkfish Committees to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 17, 2025 at 9 a.m. Webinar registration URL information:
This meeting will take place at Hampton Inn, 20 Hotel Drive, South Kingstown, RI 02879, Phone: (401) 788-3500.
Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Joint Skate and Monkfish Committees will meet to discuss Specifications Actions Based on outcomes of the 2025 monkfish and skate data updates and recommendations of the Scientific and Statistical Committee, receive a progress update on developing overfishing limits, acceptable biological catches, and associated specifications. They will review Joint Plan Development Team tasking on monkfish and skate fishery effort and overlaps. The Committees plan to recommend final preferred alternatives to the Councils on: Monkfish Framework 17: Fishing Year (FY) 2026-2028 specifications and defaults for FY 2029 and 2030. Skate Specifications: FY 2026-2027 and defaults for FY 2028-2030. They will receive an overview of the Joint New England and Mid-Atlantic Councils' Alternative Gear-Marking Framework. Discuss Council priorities for monkfish and skate-related work in 2026. They will also review input provided by the Advisory Panels. 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, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of proposed changes to the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; correction.
On August 20, 2025, the DoD published a notice titled U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Proposed Rules Changes. Subsequent to publication of the notice, the DoD discovered three typographical errors. This notice corrects these errors. All other information in the August 20, 2025 notice remains the same.
This correction is effective on September 3, 2025.
Malcolm H. Squires, Jr., Clerk of the Court, telephone (202) 761-1448.
On August 20, 2025 (90 FR 40592-40593), the DoD published a notice titled U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Proposed Rules Changes.
On page 40593, in the first column, in the third line, “Apellate” is changed to read “Appellate”.
On page 40593, in the first column, in the 14th and 15th lines,
On page 40593, in the first column, in the 33rd line, “Apellate” is changed to read “Appellate”.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 3, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities 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
Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
Notice of Parker-Davis Project proposed 2028 resource pool power allocations and request for comment.
Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), a Federal Power Marketing Administration of the Department of Energy (DOE), announces its Parker-Davis Project (P-DP) proposed 2028 resource pool power allocations. WAPA developed the proposed power allocations under its Final 2028 P-DP Power Marketing Plan and Call for 2028 Resource Pool Applications (Final 2028 Plan), published in the
The comment period on this notice of proposed power allocations begins today and ends October 20, 2025. WAPA will accept comments by email or delivered by common carrier such as U.S. mail. WAPA reserves the right not to consider comments received or postmarked after the close of the comment period.
A single public information and comment forum about the proposed 2028 resource pool power allocations will be held virtually on October 3, 2025, beginning at 1 p.m. MST and concluding when comments are complete, or no later than 4 p.m. MST. Information for the virtual meeting may be found on WAPA's Desert Southwest Region (DSW) website at least 14 days prior to the event at
Oral and written comments may be presented at the public comment forum. A transcript of oral comments made at this forum will be available from the court reporter and on DSW's website identified previously. WAPA will accept written comments at any time during the comment period.
After all public comments have been considered, WAPA will publish the P-DP Final 2028 Resource Pool Power Allocations in the
Submit written comments about the proposed 2028 resource pool power allocations to: Scott R. Lund, Regional Manager, Desert Southwest Region, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005-6457, or email:
Jennifer Henn, Power Marketing Advisor, Desert Southwest Region, Western Area Power Administration, phone: (602) 812-2348, or email:
WAPA published the Final 2028 P-DP Power Marketing Plan (Final 2028 Plan) on November 12, 2024 (89 FR 88999) to define how WAPA will market hydropower from the P-DP beginning October 1, 2028, and ending September 30, 2048. The current marketing plan and contracts expire on September 30, 2028. As part of the Final 2028 Plan, WAPA adjusted each existing preference contractor's Contract Rate of Delivery (CROD) by applying a pro rata share of an anticipated 3,750-kilowatt (kW) capacity increase at Davis Dam Unit 3 and then reduced the adjusted CROD by two percent to create a resource pool. The resulting resource pool included 5,259 kW of summer season capacity, including 748 kW of summer season withdrawable capacity, and 4,041 kW of winter season capacity, including 146 kW of winter season withdrawable capacity, for allocation to new allottees. Allocations from the resource pool were offered to entities using the Eligibility Criteria and Allocation Criteria for Resource Pool Allocations described in the Final 2028 Plan. WAPA would return excess resource pool capacity to existing contractors by pro rata share if necessary. Per the Final 2028 Plan, resource pool applications were due by January 31, 2025.
In response to the call for resource pool applications, WAPA received four applications for the 2028 resource pool. WAPA used a two-step process to determine proposed power allocations from the 2028 resource pool. First,
WAPA determined that two of the four applicants did not meet the Eligibility Criteria requirements and therefore were ineligible to receive an allocation. One application came from a preference entity that has an existing Federal hydropower contract with WAPA. Therefore, as addressed in responses to comments in the Final 2028 Plan, it does not qualify for the P-DP 2028 resource pool. The second application came from an entity that does not meet the utility status requirement. Electric utility status means the applicant has responsibility to meet load growth, has a distribution system, and is ready, willing, and able to purchase P-DP Federal power from WAPA on a wholesale basis for resale to retail customers. The applicant does not have a distribution system and, as a result, does not qualify for the P-DP 2028 resource pool.
WAPA is proposing allocations for the two entities that met all Eligibility Criteria requirements. The proposed 2028 resource pool allocations are preliminary and may change based on comments received. After reviewing and considering comments, WAPA will publish a notice of Final 2028 Resource Pool Allocations in the
The proposed 2028 resource pool allottees and proposed capacity allocations for firm electric service (FES) are listed in the following table:
WAPA's proposed resource pool allocations will not use the entire resource pool capacity. After adjusting each existing P-DP contractor's CROD by applying the anticipated 3,750 kW increase in marketable capacity, reducing the adjusted CROD by two percent, and then redistributing remaining resource pool capacity to existing contractors by pro rata share, the net effect to each existing contractor's current CROD would be an increase of approximately 0.67 percent in the summer and approximately 0.87 percent in the winter. The proposed CROD adjustments for existing contractors are posted on DSW's website at
All allocations, including the new resource pool allocations, will be based on P-DP marketable capacity deemed to be available effective October 1, 2028.
WAPA will apply the principles of the Power Marketing Initiative (PMI) (10 CFR 905.30 through 905.37) to P-DP for the forthcoming marketing period. Energy associated with the new resource pool will be based on a pro rata share of the allottee's seasonal CROD and published in the form of Quarterly Energy, as defined in the Final 2028 Plan.
WAPA solely determines the terms, conditions, rates, or charges of its power contracts. Each allottee is responsible for obtaining transmission arrangements beyond WAPA's system for delivery of Federal power to the allottee's load. WAPA must receive a letter of commitment from each allottee's serving utility or transmission provider by January 31, 2028, confirming the allottee will be able to receive the benefit of WAPA's 2028 resource pool, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by WAPA. Upon request, WAPA may assist an allottee in obtaining transmission arrangements for delivery of power.
Allottees will be required to execute an electric service contract no later than May 31, 2028, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by WAPA. Electric service contracts will be effective upon WAPA's signature, and service will begin on October 1, 2028, and continue through September 30, 2048.
The Final 2028 Plan was established under the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101,
WAPA has determined this proposed action fits within the following categorical exclusions listed in appendix B of 10 CFR part 1021: B4.1 (Contracts, policies, and marketing and allocation plans for electric power) and B4.4 (Power marketing services and activities). Categorically excluded projects and activities do not require preparation of either an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment.
WAPA has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 28, 2025,
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; 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 November 3, 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.
47 CFR 76.1704 requires that proof of performance test required by 47 CFR 76.601 shall be maintained on file at the operator's local business office for at least five years. The test data shall be made available for inspection by the Commission or the local franchiser, upon request. If a signal leakage log is being used to meet proof of performance test recordkeeping requirement in accordance with § 76.601, such a log must be retained for the period specified in 47 CFR 76.601(d). 47 CFR 76.1717 states that an operator shall be prepared to show, on request by an authorized representative of the Commission or the local franchising authority, that the system does, in fact, comply with the technical standards rules in part 76, subpart K.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment concerning two recurring statutory obligations under the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act (TRACED Act). First, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the extensions granted by the Commission for implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication framework should be revised or extended. Second, the Bureau seeks comment to inform the Commission's second triennial assessment of the efficacy of the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication framework as a tool to combat illegal robocalls.
Comments are due on or before October 3, 2025, and reply comments are due on or before October 20, 2025.
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
•
•
○ Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
○ Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
○ Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
○ Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
For further information about the
This is a summary of the Bureau's
In the TRACED Act, Congress instructed the Commission to “assess any burdens or barriers” to the implementation of STIR/SHAKEN that certain providers might face, and “upon a public finding of undue hardship,” authorized the Commission to delay STIR/SHAKEN implementation deadlines “for a reasonable period of time.” In its initial assessment conducted in 2020 [88 FR 43446-01], the Commission granted three categorical implementation extensions based on undue hardship, and it added a third undue hardship extension in 2023. Pursuant to the TRACED Act, providers also have a continuing extension for the portions of their networks that rely on technology that cannot initiate, maintain, or terminate session internet protocol (SIP) calls. Because this extension was not granted on the basis of undue hardship, we do not address it further in this Public Notice. Additionally, providers that lack control over the network infrastructure necessary to implement STIR/SHAKEN are exempt from implementing STIR/SHAKEN. As this is not an undue hardship extension, we also do not address it further in this Public Notice. Only two such extensions remain for (1) providers that cannot obtain the Service Provider Code (SPC) token necessary to participate in STIR/SHAKEN, and (2) small voice service providers that originate calls via satellite using North American Numbering Plan (NANP) numbers. The extension for services scheduled for section 214 discontinuance expired on June 30, 2022, and the extension for non-facilities-based and facilities-based small voice service providers ended on June 30, 2022, and June 30, 2023, respectively.
The TRACED Act further instructs the Commission to annually “consider revising or extending” any extension granted due to undue hardship, including whether an extension remains necessary. To comply, the Commission has directed the Bureau to annually “reevaluate” and “revise or extend” any such extension “as necessary.” As part of this evaluation, the Bureau may lengthen a granted extension and it can also decrease, but not expand, the scope of entities that are entitled to such an extension.
Pursuant to the TRACED Act and section 64.6304(f) of the Commission's rules, we seek comment to enable our annual reevaluation of the remaining STIR/SHAKEN undue hardship implementation extensions. When considering whether a hardship is “undue” under the TRACED Act, and whether an extension is for a “reasonable amount of time,” the Commission has found it appropriate to balance the hardship of compliance due to “the burdens and barriers to implementation” faced by a provider or class of providers with the benefit to the public of implementing STIR/SHAKEN expeditiously. With that in mind, we seek comment on whether the Bureau should revise or extend the two remaining extensions.
In its most recent annual evaluation, the Bureau declined to terminate or modify the extension so staff could assess the number of providers still claiming the extension in their most recent Robocall Mitigation Database submissions and the merit of those claims. To supplement this assessment, we seek comment on the types and number of providers that remain unable to obtain a token and the barriers to token access for these providers, in light of the changes to the Token Access Policy. Is there anything that can be done to make tokens available to these providers? Does the extension remain necessary?
Section 4(b)(4) of the TRACED Act directs the Commission to, every three years, “assess the efficacy of the technologies used for [the] call authentication frameworks” implemented pursuant to the TRACED Act and “based on the assessment . . . revise or replace the call authentication frameworks . . . if the Commission determines it is in the public interest to do so.” The Commission must submit to Congress “a report on the findings of the assessment” and any actions taken by the Commission “to revise or replace the call authentication frameworks.” Before conducting the assessment under the TRACED Act, the Commission is required to provide public notice and an opportunity to comment. The Commission submitted its first such triennial report to Congress on December 20, 2022, finding that STIR/SHAKEN is effective at authenticating caller ID information. Through this Public Notice, the Bureau seeks comment to inform the Commission's second triennial assessment on the efficacy of STIR/SHAKEN, which remains the only call authentication framework currently implemented pursuant to the TRACED Act.
In the
In the three years that have passed since the Commission conducted its first triennial assessment, providers have gained more experience implementing the STIR/SHAKEN framework. The Commission has also adopted rules expanding STIR/SHAKEN implementation obligations to cover gateway providers and non-gateway intermediate providers, in addition to voice service providers. Gateway providers were required to implement STIR/SHAKEN by June 30, 2023, and non-gateway intermediate providers that receive unauthenticated calls directly from domestic originating providers were required to authenticate those calls using STIR/SHAKEN as of December 31, 2023. Now, all providers with control over the network infrastructure necessary to authenticate calls are required to implement STIR/SHAKEN for SIP calls unless subject to an exemption or extension. With these developments in mind, we seek comment on how well STIR/SHAKEN effectuates the authentication of caller ID information today. Are there ways STIR/SHAKEN could be more effective at authenticating caller ID information? Do any specific factors limit STIR/SHAKEN's efficacy, and what solutions might resolve these issues? Have there been other developments, such as industry changes or evolution in technologies, that affect the efficacy of STIR/SHAKEN, and how should any such developments be factored into our assessment? Do any commenters believe the Commission should revise STIR/SHAKEN or replace it with a different framework? We also seek comment on the efficacy of STIR/SHAKEN under any alternative standard proposed by commenters.
Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (the “Commission”) by Southern International Co., Ltd. (the “Complainant”) against Daynamez Group of Companies LLC (the “Respondent”). Complainant states that the Commission has subject-matter jurisdiction over the complaint pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 41301 and 46 CFR 502.61(c).
Complainant is a limited liability company and ocean transportation intermediary organized and operating under the laws of Vietnam with its principal place of business located in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Complainant identifies Respondent as a limited liability company organized and operating under the laws of the state of Virginia with its principal place of business located in Fairfax, Virginia.
Complainant alleges that Respondent violated 46 U.S.C. 41102(c); 41104(a)(2) and (a)(3); and 41105(1). Complainant alleges these violations arose from Respondent's failure to remit payment to relevant carriers for the shipping of 558 containers contracted by Complainant, repeated misappropriation of funds, and other acts or omissions by Respondent.
An answer to the complaint must be filed with the Commission within 25 days after the date of service.
The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's electronic Reading Room at
The Commission hereby gives notice of filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreements to the Secretary by email at
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (“Act”) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and of the Board's Regulation LL (12 CFR 238.31) to acquire shares of a savings and loan holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
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 18, 2025.
A.
1.
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 October 3, 2025
A.
1.
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice of publication of Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority 2026 proposed budget; request for public comment.
The Federal Trade Commission publishes the 2026 proposed budget of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority and seeks public comment on whether the Commission should approve, disapprove, or modify the proposed budget.
Comments must be filed on or before September 17, 2025.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Comment Submissions part of the
Sarah Botha (202-326-2036), Special Counsel for HISA, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.
The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act, enacted on December 27, 2020, and amended on December 29, 2022, directs the Federal Trade Commission to oversee the activities of a private, self-regulatory organization called the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (“HISA” or the “Authority”). In March 2023, the Commission issued rules setting forth the procedure whereby the Commission approves, disapproves, or modifies the Authority's proposed annual budget. Under these rules, the Authority must first publish a proposed budget on its own website and invite public comments.
After the Authority submits its proposed budget and supporting materials to the Commission, and if the Secretary determines the submission comports with the requirements of the 16 CFR 1.150(c), the Secretary publishes the Authority's proposed budget in the
On August 1, 2025, the Authority forwarded to the Commission a Notice of Filing of HISA Budget, together with appendices furnishing detailed information pertinent to its 2026 budget proposal (as required by 16 CFR 1.150(c)). The Notice of Filing of HISA Budget is reproduced below. The appendices to which it refers have been collected and reproduced as a supporting document on the docket for this publication at
The Secretary concluded that the Authority's proposed 2026 budget submission complies with the requirements of 16 CFR 1.150(c), and therefore issues this document and invites comments from the public on the Authority's 2026 budget. Comments should address the decisional criteria set forth in 16 CFR 1.151(c) and whether any line items should be modified.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 17, 2025. Write “HISA 2026 Budget, Matter No. P222100” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your State—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including the
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we strongly encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “HISA 2026 Budget, Matter No.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with 16 CFR 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the
The text that follows is the Notice of Filing of HISA Budget that the Authority submitted to the Commission. The appendices to which it refers have been collected and reproduced as a supporting document on the docket for this publication at
Pursuant to the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 (the “Act”) and the Federal Trade Commission's (the “Commission”) rule on Oversight of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority, notice is hereby given that on August 1, 2025, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (“HISA” or the “Authority”) filed with the Commission the Authority's proposed 2026 budget. This Notice of Filing of the HISA Budget (the “Notice”) provides the contents of the submission as set forth in 16 CFR part 1 Subpart U.
I.
II.
III.
• 2026 Assessments by State (attached as Appendix 8).
• 2026 Assessments by Track (attached as Appendix 9).
Appendix 8 and Appendix 9 display the estimated amount required from each State Racing Commission as calculated under the Methodology for Determining Assessments.
The 2026 HISA Budget includes the following revenue line items:
• Racetrack Safety Fines Income—this consists of fines levied for violations of the Racetrack Safety Program.
• ADMC Fines Income—this consists of fines paid for violations of the Anti-Doping and Medication Control Program.
• Lab Test Income—this consists of the money paid to HISA to cover the cost of B Sample testing, claimed horse testing, and clearance testing.
• Interest Income—This consists of interest income from HISA's Money Market Savings account.
• Other Revenue—this consists of payments made by certain racetracks to reimburse HISA for paying for the cost of Racetrack Safety Program compliance (there is an offsetting expense).
Please note that no loans are contemplated to be procured by HISA in 2026.
IV.
•
•
•
•
•
V.
The proposed 2026 HISA Summary budget (Appendix 1) is a compilation of the following departmental budgets: Racetrack Safety (Appendix 2); Veterinary Services (Appendix 3); Anti-Doping and Medication Control (Appendix 4); HIWU (Appendix 5); Technology (Appendix 6); and Administration (Appendix 7). A summary of these departmental budgets is set forth below:
1. The 2026 Racetrack Safety budget (Appendix 2) funds the implementation of the Racetrack Safety Program as set forth in Rule Series 2000 and as originally approved by order of the Commission dated March 3, 2022.
a.
Salary levels for each position are based on market rates, while Employee Benefits consist primarily of a HISA contribution to cover a portion of employee health insurance and a 401(k) match that is consistent with market practice. The salaries budget provides for six Racetrack Safety employees. As of July 31, 2025, the Racetrack Safety Program has six employees. For all employees of the Authority, the Director of Operations, Research, and Strategy, an individual who does not have a conflict of interest with regard to the hiring of other open positions, reviews and documents compensation based on industry norms for similar positions prior to setting and to offering other open positions. Where needed, the Director of Operations, Research, and Strategy relies upon an outside search agency to help determine compensation for other open positions.
b.
These meetings are necessary to promote the health and safety of both Covered Horses and Riders.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Pay rates are based on market rates for similar positions. All of these independent contractor relationships will increase the knowledge base and/or education level of participants in Covered Horseraces.
h.
i.
2. The 2026 Veterinary Services budget (Appendix 3) ensures that the veterinary care component of the Racetrack Safety Program is effectively implemented and administered nationally.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
3. The 2026 Anti-Doping and Medication Control budget (Appendix 4) supports the implementation of the ADMC Protocol. The budget consists of the following items:
a.
i. Arbitral Body—this covers the fees to be paid to arbitrators who preside over cases involving equine anti-doping violations.
ii. Independent Adjudication Panel (IAP)—this covers the fees paid to members of the IAP, who hear cases involving equine controlled medication violations.
iii. Furosemide Study—this covers the fees to be paid in 2026 for the Furosemide study that is required by the Act.
b.
i.
HIWU shares 7 staff with DFS in the areas of Information Technology, Finance, and Human Resources. This arrangement produces cost savings, obviating the need for HIWU to retain full-time employees to provide these services.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
The guidance provided by these subject matter experts will result in a safer sport run on a more level playing field.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
c.
It is important to note that the ADMC Collection Costs and Lab Testing line items represent 48.21% of the total budget of the Authority.
4. The 2026 Technology budget (Appendix 6) supports the building and development of all IT systems needed to properly and efficiently manage the Racetrack Safety and ADMC programs. The budget consists of the following items:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
5. The 2026 Administration budget (Appendix 7) consists of the general and administrative staff and expenditures that are needed to conduct HISA's business. This budget consists of:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.
p.
i. Directors & Officers Policy with Employment Practices Liability Coverage.
ii. Cyber insurance.
iii. General Liability insurance with Terrorism Coverage.
All of these policies were competitively shopped by a broker to get the lowest rate possible.
q.
r.
s.
i. Consulting fees to independent contractors assisting HISA with consulting projects and board and executive functions.
ii. $75,000 contingency fund set aside for unexpected expenses.
These items will ensure that HISA has high-quality employees who are well-trained to properly serve its constituents.
Please note that the 2026 HISA budget contemplates the repayment of $0 of loans; it does not assume that any funding shortfall will be incurred. VI.
VII.
The proposed budget is consistent with and serves the goals of the Act in a prudent and cost-effective manner. The proposed budget allocates the funding necessary for the successful implementation by HISA of the requirements of the Act. The budget has been carefully analyzed and is narrowly tailored to the various regulatory activities of HISA as contemplated by the Act. As demonstrated herein, the anticipated revenues are sufficient to meet its anticipated expenditures.
By direction of the Commission.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by November 3, 2025.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
The ICR that provided HHS the authority to collect the necessary information to enable web-brokers and issuers using the Classic DE and EDE pathways to submit a request to deviate from the manner in which standardized plan options are differentially displayed on
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the General Hospital and Personal Use Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee (the Committee). The general function of the Committee is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA. In addition, the Committee will meet to discuss and provide advice to FDA on devices used in pandemic preparedness and response to satisfy, in part, a requirement under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (FDORA). The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment.
The meeting will be held virtually on October 8, 2025, from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
This meeting will be held, and all meeting participants will be heard, viewed, captioned, and recorded for this advisory committee meeting via an online teleconferencing and/or video conferencing platform. Answers to commonly asked questions about FDA advisory committee meetings may be accessed at:
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2025-N-0008. The docket will close on November 10, 2025. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Comments received on or before September 24, 2025, will be provided to the Committee. Comments received after this date will be taken into consideration by FDA. In the event that the meeting is cancelled, FDA will continue to evaluate any relevant applications or information, and consider any comments submitted to the docket, as appropriate.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” FDA 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
Evella Washington, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2404, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
The meeting presentations will be heard, viewed, captioned, and recorded through an online teleconferencing and/or video conferencing platform.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at the time of the advisory committee meeting. Background material and the link to the online teleconference and/or video conference meeting will be available at
The meeting will include slide presentations with audio and video components to allow the presentation of materials in a manner that most closely resembles an in-person advisory committee meeting.
For press inquiries, please contact the HHS Press Room at
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact CDR Daniel Bailey at
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 1001
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that NUTRACORT (hydrocortisone) topical gel, 1%, was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for NUTRACORT (hydrocortisone) topical gel, 1%, if all other legal and regulatory requirements are met.
Beth Holck, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6280, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7133,
Section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(j)) allows the submission of an ANDA to market a generic version of a previously approved drug product. To obtain approval, the ANDA applicant must show, among other things, that the generic drug product: (1) has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, route of administration, strength, conditions of use, and (with certain exceptions) labeling as the listed drug, which is a version of the drug that was previously approved, and (2) is bioequivalent to the listed drug. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
Section 505(j)(7) of the FD&C Act requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (21 CFR 314.161). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
NUTRACORT (hydrocortisone) topical gel, 1%, is the subject of ANDA 084698, held by Healthpoint Ltd., and initially approved on January 6, 1976. NUTRACORT is indicated for relief of the inflammatory and pruritic manifestations of corticosteroid-responsive dermatoses.
In a letter dated August 26, 1993, Galderma Laboratories, Inc., notified FDA that NUTRACORT (hydrocortisone) topical gel, 1%, was being discontinued, and FDA moved the drug product to the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book.
Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C., submitted a citizen petition dated February 17, 2025 (Docket No. FDA-2025-P-0441), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether NUTRACORT (hydrocortisone) topical gel, 1%, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that NUTRACORT (hydrocortisone) topical gel, 1%, was not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that NUTRACORT (hydrocortisone) topical gel, 1%, was withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of NUTRACORT (hydrocortisone) topical gel, 1%, from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have reviewed the available evidence and determined that this drug product was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list NUTRACORT (hydrocortisone) topical gel, 1%, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by October 3, 2025.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Section 801(e)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 381(e)(2)) provides for the exportation of an unapproved device under certain circumstances if the exportation is not contrary to the public health and safety and it has the approval of the foreign country to which it is intended for export. Requesters must communicate (either directly or through a business associate in the foreign country) with a representative of the foreign government to which they seek exportation, and written authorization must be obtained from the appropriate office within the foreign government approving the importation of the medical device. An alternative to obtaining written authorization from the foreign government is to accept a notarized certification from a responsible company official in the United States stating that the product is not in conflict with the foreign country's laws. This certification must include a statement acknowledging that the responsible company official making the certification is subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1001. This statutory provision makes it a criminal offense to make a false or fraudulent statement knowingly and willingly, or make or use a false document, in any manner within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States. The respondents to this collection of information are companies that seek to export medical devices. FDA's estimate of the reporting burden is based on the experience of FDA's medical device program personnel.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by October 3, 2025.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10 a.m.-12 p.m., 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
FDA's guidance document entitled “Medical Device Accessories—Describing Accessories and Classification Pathways” (December 2017) (available at
The FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 (FDARA) changed how FDA regulates medical device accessories. Specifically, section 707 of FDARA added section 513(f)(6) of the FD&C Act to the statute and requires that FDA, upon request, classify existing and new accessories notwithstanding the classification of any other device with which such accessory is intended to be used. This means that the classification of an accessory may not be the same as its parent device, depending on the risks of the accessory when used as intended and the level of regulatory controls necessary for reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the accessory. Until an accessory is distinctly classified, its existing classification will continue to apply. This provision does not preclude a manufacturer from submitting a De Novo request for an accessory under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Depending on an accessory's regulatory history, there are different submission types, tracking mechanisms, and deadlines:
(1) Existing accessory types are those that have been identified in a classification regulation or granted marketing authorization as part of a 510(k) (section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k), premarket application (PMA) (section 515 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e), or De Novo (section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act) request (approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0120, 0910-0231, and 0910-0844, respectively). Manufacturers with marketing authorization for an existing accessory may request appropriate classification through a new stand-alone premarket submission (Existing Accessory Request). Upon request, FDA is required to meet with a manufacturer or importer to discuss the appropriate classification of an existing accessory prior to submitting a written request. Existing Accessory Requests will be initially tracked as “Q-submissions” (approved under OMB control number 0910-0756). FDA has a statutory deadline of 85 calendar days to respond to an Existing Accessory Request.
(2) New accessory types are those that have not been granted marketing authorization as part of a 510(k), PMA, or De Novo request. Manufacturers may include new accessories in a 510(k) or PMA with the parent device (New Accessory Request). New Accessory Requests will have the same deadline as the 510(k) or PMA. Therefore, new accessory types should follow the applicable Medical Device User Fee Amendments of 2017 deadline for the parent submission. The decision for New Accessory Requests will be separate from the decision for the marketing application.
For both Existing and New Accessory Requests, manufacturers must request proper classification of their accessory in the submission and include draft special controls, if requesting classification into class II. The processes that we use to classify an accessory will be like those used for De Novo requests. If FDA grants the Accessory Request, FDA must issue an order establishing a new classification regulation for the accessory type. If FDA denies the Accessory Request, FDA must issue a letter with a detailed description and justification for our determination.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by October 3, 2025.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Under section 1003(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 393(b)(2)), we are authorized to conduct research relating to foods and to conduct educational and public information programs relating to the safety of the nation's food supply. In the past, FDA has conducted two separate surveys, a Food Safety Survey and a Health and Diet Survey, to measure consumers' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about food safety and nutrition issues. These surveys have been conducted every 3 to 5 years since the 1980s. In the
The 2025 FSANS will be both a paper-and-pencil and web-based survey. Respondents will be contacted by postal mail, using an addressed-based sampling frame. Once contacted, respondents will be encouraged to take the survey online. A paper-and-pencil version of the survey will be mailed to those who do not initially take the web-based version of the survey. One randomly selected adult from each sampled household will be invited to participate in the survey using the Hagen-Collier method.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
FDA's burden estimate is based on the Agency's prior experience with food safety and nutrition surveys. We will use a cognitive interview screener with 75 individuals to recruit prospective interview participants for a total of 18 individuals. We estimate that it will take each screener respondent approximately 5 minutes (0.083 hours) to complete the cognitive interview screener, for a total of 6 hours. We will conduct cognitive interviews with 18
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, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of availability.
The Coast Guard announces the availability of Office of Engineering and Design Standards (CG-ENG) Policy Letter 02-25, titled “Watch Monitoring Devices on Small Passenger Vessels, Interim Rule Clarification.” The policy letter describes how the U.S. Coast Guard will enforce the night watch monitoring device requirements added by the Fire Safety of Small Passenger Vessels interim rule.
The policy letter announced in this notice was issued on July 29, 2025.
Items mentioned as being available in the docket, including CG-ENG Policy Letter 02-25 and the interim rule, can be found on
For information about this document call or email Lieutenant Commander Shannon Andrew, Office of Engineering and Design Standards (CG-ENG), 202-372-1384,
The Coast Guard announces the availability of CG-ENG Policy Letter 02-25. The new policy clarifies the Coast Guard's interpretation of regulatory changes for night watch monitoring devices promulgated in the interim rule titled, Fire Safety of Small Passenger Vessels, published December 27, 2021 (86 FR 73160).
The interim rule implemented requirements mandated by the Elijah E. Cummings Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2020, which amended title 46 U.S. Code section 3306(n). Section 3306(n) directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to prescribe fire safety regulations for “covered small passenger vessels,” defined as small passenger vessels with overnight accommodations for passengers or operating on an oceans or coastwise route, excluding fishing vessels and ferries.
In particular, the interim rule required covered small passenger vessels to meet the requirements in 46 CFR 122.410 and 185.410 for night watch monitoring devices. CG-ENG developed Policy Letter 02-25 to provide clarity and uniformity to the enforcement of those sections.
A copy of CG-ENG Policy Letter 02-25 issued on July 29, 2025 is available in the docket where indicated in the
This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 46 U.S.C. 3306(n).
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of issuance of a certificate of alternative compliance.
The Coast Guard announces that the Chief of Prevention Division, Southeast District has issued a certificate of alternative compliance from the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), for the M/V FLOR DE MAGA (O.N. 1345508). We are issuing this notice because its publication is required by statute. Due to the construction and placement of the forward and aft masthead lights, M/V FLOR DE MAGA cannot fully comply with the light provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with the vessel's design and construction. This notification of the issuance of these certificates of alternative compliance promotes the Coast Guard's marine safety mission.
The Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the M/V FLOR DE MAGA was issued on August 20, 2025.
For information or questions about this notice call or email Lieutenant Katherine Yoho, Southeast District Inspections and Investigations Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 305-415-7149, email
The United States is signatory to the International Maritime Organization's International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), as amended. The special construction or purpose of some vessels makes them unable to comply with the light, shape, or sound signal provisions of the 72 COLREGS. Under statutory law, however, specified 72 COLREGS provisions are not applicable to a vessel of special construction or purpose if the Coast Guard determines that the vessel cannot comply fully with those requirements without interfering with the special function of the vessel.
The owner, builder, operator, or agent of a special construction or purpose vessel may apply to the Coast Guard District Office in which the vessel is being built or operated for a determination that compliance with alternative requirements is justified,
The Chief of Prevention Division, Southeast District, U.S. Coast Guard, certifies that the M/V FLOR DE MAGA (O.N. 1345508) is a vessel of special construction or purpose, and that, with respect to the positions of the forward and aft masthead lights, it is not possible to comply fully with the requirements of the provisions enumerated in the 72 COLREGS, without interfering with the normal operation, construction, or design of the vessel's car deck. The Chief of Prevention Division, Southeast District, U.S. Coast Guard, further finds and certifies that the lights are configured in closest possible compliance with the applicable provisions of the 72 COLREGS.
This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice.
The Coast Guard announces that it will impose conditions of entry on vessels arriving from the Republic of Suriname. Conditions of entry are intended to protect the United States from vessels arriving from foreign ports or places that have been found to have ineffective antiterrorism measures.
The policy announced in this notice is effective on September 17, 2025.
For information about this document please contact Mr. Edward Munoz, Division Chief of International Port Security Program, USCG, at email
The authority for this notice is 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 46 U.S.C. 70110 (“Maritime Transportation Security Act”), and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1(II)(97.f), Revision No. 01.4. As delegated, 46 U.S.C. 70110(a) authorizes the Coast Guard to impose conditions of entry on vessels arriving in U.S. waters
With this notice, the current list of countries assessed and not maintaining effective antiterrorism measures is as follows: Cambodia, Cameroon, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), Equatorial Guinea, Gambia (The), Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Madagascar, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Timor-Leste, Venezuela, and Yemen. The current Port Security Advisory is available at:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of issuance of a certificate of alternative compliance.
The Coast Guard announces that the Chief of Prevention Division, Southeast District has issued a certificate of alternative compliance from the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), for the M/V LA PRECIOSA (O.N. 1345509). We are issuing this notice because its publication is required by statute. Due to the construction and placement of the forward and aft masthead lights, M/V LA PRECIOSA cannot fully comply with the light provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with the vessel's design and construction. This notification of the issuance of these certificates of alternative compliance promotes the Coast Guard's marine safety mission.
The Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the M/V LA PRECIOSA was issued on August 20, 2025.
For information or questions about this notice call or email Lieutenant Katherine Yoho, Southeast District Inspections and Investigations Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 305-415-7149, email
The United States is signatory to the International Maritime Organization's International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), as amended. The special construction or purpose of some vessels makes them unable to comply with the light, shape, or sound signal provisions of the 72 COLREGS. Under statutory law, however, specified 72 COLREGS provisions are not applicable to a vessel of special construction or purpose if the Coast Guard determines that the vessel cannot comply fully with those requirements without interfering with the special function of the vessel.
The owner, builder, operator, or agent of a special construction or purpose vessel may apply to the Coast Guard District Office in which the vessel is being built or operated for a determination that compliance with alternative requirements is justified,
The Chief of Prevention Division, Southeast District, U.S. Coast Guard, certifies that the M/V LA PRECIOSA (O.N. 1345509) is a vessel of special construction or purpose, and that, with respect to the positions of the forward and aft masthead lights, it is not possible to comply fully with the requirements of the provisions enumerated in the 72 COLREGS, without interfering with the normal operation, construction, or design of the vessel's car deck. The Chief of Prevention Division, Southeast District, U.S. Coast Guard, further finds and certifies that the lights are configured in closest possible compliance with the applicable provisions of the 72 COLREGS.
This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of issuance of a certificate of alternative compliance.
The Coast Guard announces that the Chief of Prevention Division, Southeast District has issued a certificate of alternative compliance from the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), for the M/V ISLA DEL ENCANTO (O.N. 1345510). We are issuing this notice because its publication is required by statute. Due to the construction and placement of the forward and aft masthead lights, M/V ISLA DEL ENCANTO cannot fully comply with the light provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with the vessel's design and construction. This notification of the issuance of these certificates of alternative compliance promotes the Coast Guard's marine safety mission.
The Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the M/V ISLA DEL ENCANTO was issued on August 20, 2025.
For information or questions about this notice call or email Lieutenant Katherine Yoho, Southeast District Inspections and Investigations Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 305-415-7149, email
The United States is signatory to the International Maritime Organization's International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), as amended. The special construction or purpose of some vessels makes them unable to comply with the light, shape, or sound signal provisions of the 72 COLREGS. Under statutory law,
The owner, builder, operator, or agent of a special construction or purpose vessel may apply to the Coast Guard District Office in which the vessel is being built or operated for a determination that compliance with alternative requirements is justified,
The Chief of Prevention Division, Southeast District, U.S. Coast Guard, certifies that the M/V ISLA DEL ENCANTO (O.N. 1345510) is a vessel of special construction or purpose, and that, with respect to the positions of the forward and aft masthead lights, it is not possible to comply fully with the requirements of the provisions enumerated in the 72 COLREGS, without interfering with the normal operation, construction, or design of the vessel's car deck. The Chief of Prevention Division, Southeast District, U.S. Coast Guard, further finds and certifies that the lights are configured in closest possible compliance with the applicable provisions of the 72 COLREGS.
This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.
Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Agreement.
The Department of Homeland Security is publishing the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Uganda for Cooperation in the Examination of Protection Requests, signed at Kampala on July 29, 2025 (the “Agreement”). The text of the Agreement is set out below.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will be submitting 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. The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until November 3, 2025.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1653-0038 in the body of the correspondence, the agency name and Docket ID ICEB-2021-0001. All comments received will be posted without change to
(1)
If you have questions related to this collection, call or email Sharon Synder, Student and Exchange Visitor Program, 703-603-3400 or 1-800-892-4829, email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The Form I-17 will be revised to collect previous school codes associated with the school and/or owner, school website links, emergency contact information for the school, and additional information on school ownership, as well as to remove the fax number field, which is now obsolete. SEVP will be redesigning the “Program of Study” page on the Form I-17 to better capture the educational level, degree, program of study, time necessary to complete the program, assigned Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) code, and mode of instruction. In addition, SEVP will require schools to indicate whether a program of study is conducted predominantly online, in a hybrid or low residency format and whether Curricular Practical Training is a component of a program of study. Other updates to the Form I-17 will allow DSOs to select “weeks” as an academic term length, require DSOs to provide separate numbers for domestic and international students when listing the “Average Annual Number of Students,” allow DSOs to list annual costs by program of study or degree level, allow DSOs to provide additional contact information, require DSOs to indicate whether they work full-time or part-time, and change a DSO's “Title” to “Job Title,” to better collect information on their position at the school.
The Form I-20 will be revised to collect contact and other information on legal Guardians of minor F and M students, the date of graduation/degree awarded, clarifying details on the source and type of the financial support for the F and M student, as well information to indicate whether a student is engaging in online education, on-campus employment, and whether any employment or training is being conducted on-site or remotely.
(5)
(6)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until November 3, 2025.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1653-0037 in the body of the correspondence, the agency name and Docket ID ICEB-2009-0004. All comments received will be posted without change to
(1)
If you have questions related to this collection, call or email Sharon Snyder, Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), 703-603-3400 or 1-800-892-4829, email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until November 3, 2025.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1653-0022 in the body of the correspondence, the agency name and Docket ID ICEB-2019-0008. All comments received will be posted without change to
If you have questions related to this revision, please contact: Carl Albritton, ERO Bond Management Unit, (202) 732-5918,
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting 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. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until October 3, 2025.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, John R. Pfirrmann-Powell, Acting Deputy Chief, telephone number (240) 721-3000 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(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,
E.O. 14161, “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats,” directs implementation of uniform vetting standards and necessitates the collection of all information necessary for a rigorous vetting and screening of all grounds of inadmissibility or bases for the denial of immigration-related benefits.
This collection of information is necessary to comply with section 2 of the E.O. to establish screening and vetting standards and procedures to enable USCIS to assess an alien's eligibility to receive an immigration-related benefit from USCIS. This data collection is also used to validate an
USCIS will collect biographic information on immigration information collection instruments and systems. USCIS will update its forms and systems to collect additional information from individuals who seek admissibility or other benefits when that information is not already collected.
U.S. Government departments and agencies involved in screening and vetting, to include USCIS, identified 24 data elements that would constitute a new baseline threshold of data to be collected for identity verification and national security vetting. For USCIS, these data elements will be added to certain immigration benefit request forms where the information is not already collected. The 24 core data elements are as follows:
The following seven (7) data elements are biographic identifiers used to help USCIS confirm both an individual's identity as it relates to the submitted application and to other records. These biographic identifiers are also used by USCIS and screening partners to help confirm or disprove an association between an applicant and information of interest and the strength of that association in the context of the underlying information.
The following data elements are a unique numeric identifier issued to a single individual that USCIS uses to help confirm both a person's identity and for DHS records. They are also used by USCIS and screening partners to help find, confirm, or disprove an association between an applicant, the strength of that association, or to provide other information about the individual that may be important in the adjudication. Applicants will be asked to provide current passport/travel/national identity document information, country of issuance, issue date, and expiration date, as applicable. Other USCIS forms request more information on passports or travel documents to include expired documents and passports containing a U.S. visa. The questions related to passport information are requested depending on benefit eligibility and national security needs. If additional information is needed for this data element, USCIS will revise the applicable OMB approved information collection under the form's control number and not add the additional questions using this generic approval.
The following 16 data elements are used by USCIS (1) to provide official correspondence to an applicant, and/or (2) as secondary data elements to help confirm a subject's identity as it relates to the submitted application and to other records, and/or (3) to, internally and with screening partners, help confirm or disprove an association between an applicant and information of interest, and the strength of that association in the context of the underlying information.
Applicant information is collected to maintain a record of persons applying for specific immigration benefits, and to help determine whether these applicants are eligible to receive the benefits for which they are applying. The information provided through USCIS forms is also analyzed—along with other information that the Secretary of Homeland Security determines is necessary, including information about other persons included on the USCIS forms—against various security and law enforcement databases to identify those applicants who may pose a security or public-safety risk to the United States.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
• The estimated total number of annual respondents for the information collection N-400 is 909,700 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.77 hours.
• The estimated total number of annual respondents for the information collection I-131 is 1,006,844 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.77 hours.
• The estimated total number of annual respondents for the information collection I-192 is 68,050 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.78 hours.
• The estimated total number of annual respondents for the information collection I-485 is 1,060,585 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.73 hours.
• The estimated total number of annual respondents for the information collection I-589 is 203,379 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.93 hours.
• The estimated total number of annual respondents for the information collection I-590 is 53,100 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.77 hours.
• The estimated total number of annual respondents for the information collection I-730 is 13,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 4.27 hours.
• The estimated total number of annual respondents for the information collection I-751 is 153,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.77 hours.
• The estimated total number of annual respondents for the information collection I-829 is 1,010 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.80 hours.
(6)
(7)
Inter-American Foundation.
Notice.
On May 9, 2025, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14294, Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations. Section 7 of the Executive Order requires each agency to publish guidance in the
Nicole Stinson, Associate General Counsel, Inter-American Foundation, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 300 South, Washington, DC 20004, at (202) 683-7117.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The plats of surveys for the lands described in this notice are scheduled to be officially filed 30-calendar days after the date of this publication in the BLM Montana/Dakotas State Office, Billings, Montana. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the BLM Montana/Dakotas State Office, Division of Energy, Minerals, & Realty, Branch of Fluid Minerals, Billings, Montana and Bureau of Indian Affairs, Great Plains Region, Aberdeen, South Dakota are necessary for the management of these lands.
A person or party who wishes to protest this decision must file a notice of protest in time for it to be received in the BLM Montana/Dakotas State Office no later than close of regular business on October 3, 2025.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the BLM Montana/Dakotas State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101, upon required payment. The plats may be viewed at this location at no cost.
Thomas L. Laakso, BLM Chief Cadastral Surveyor for North Dakota; telephone: (406) 896-5125; email:
The lands surveyed are:
A person or party who wishes to protest an official filing of a plat of survey identified earlier must file a written notice of protest with the BLM Chief Cadastral Surveyor for North Dakota at the address listed in the
If a notice of protest of the plat(s) of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing or during the 10-calendar-day grace period provided in 43 CFR 4.401(a) and the delay in filing is waived, the official filing of the plat(s) of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. Upon receipt of a timely protest, and after a review of the protest, the authorized officer will issue a decision either dismissing or otherwise resolving the protest. A plat of survey will then be officially filed 30 days after the protest decision has been issued in accordance with 43 CFR part 4.
If a notice of protest is received after the date described in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your protest, you should be aware that your entire protest—including your personally identifiable information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of significant change.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is soliciting comments on significant changes to the Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA) for Greater Sage-grouse Rangewide Planning released in November 2024. The environmental consequences of the proposed changes have been analyzed as part of the RMPA/environmental impact statement (EIS) process. Following consideration of any comments on these changes, the BLM will issue Records of Decision (ROD) for the Approved RMPAs for Idaho, Montana/Dakotas, Nevada/California, Utah, and Wyoming.
Written comments on the changes to the proposed plan amendment will be accepted until October 3, 2025.
The document identifying significant changes, the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, and all associated documents are available on the BLM ePlanning project website at:
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
Stephanie Rice, telephone: (907) 308-9464; email:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft RMPA and Draft EIS on March 15, 2024, which initiated a 90-day public comment period. Following issuance of the Proposed RMPA and Final EIS on November 15, 2024, the BLM completed a 30-day protest period for the Proposed RMPA and published a protest resolution report on January 10, 2025. The BLM completed a 60-day Governor's consistency review for BLM managed lands in the planning area for the states of California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, and Wyoming, and issued Records of Decision and Approved RMPAs in January 2025 for Greater Sage-grouse Rangewide Planning in Oregon and Colorado. The governor's consistency review period is ongoing for Utah. In response to information received during the protest periods and Governors' consistency reviews, and based on additional policy discussions, the BLM has determined that it will make changes to the Proposed RMPAs for Idaho, Montana/Dakotas, Nevada/California, Utah, and Wyoming.
The BLM has determined that it will clarify and make changes to the adaptive management language in the Proposed RMPAs for Idaho, Montana/Dakotas, Nevada/California, Utah, and Wyoming to better align with state policies and programs to manage sage-grouse populations. The BLM has removed the designation for priority habitat management areas (PHMA) with limited exceptions as a distinct subset of PHMAs to improve consistency with state and local plans. All habitat management areas that were designated as PHMA with limited exceptions will primarily be designated as PHMA and will be subject to the management actions and direction for PHMA in the Proposed RMPAs for Idaho, Montana/Dakotas, Nevada/California, and Wyoming. The Nevada/California and Idaho Proposed RMPAs changed the seasonal habitat benchmark for perennial grass height during nesting/early brood rearing from a quantitative standard to a qualitative standard based on recent research and to account for habitat variability across the states. The habitat management area boundaries for the Utah Proposed RMPA will be updated to more closely align with the State of Utah Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Plan and minimize sage-grouse habitat management areas outside of the State of Utah's Sage-grouse Management Areas. The Nevada Proposed RMPA will change the allocation for major rights of way in general habitat management areas (GHMA) from avoidance to open to align more closely with how GHMA is managed in BLM California. This notice initiates a 30-day public comment period on these changes (43 CFR 1610.2(e)).
Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised 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. Further information regarding the changes can be found at
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of coal lease sale.
Notice is hereby given that Federal coal resources in lands in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, will be offered for competitive lease by sealed bid in accordance with the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended. The lease sale will cover tracts described in two Lease-by-Applications, and separate bids must be submitted for Lease-by-Application (LBA) ALES-055797 and/or ALES-056519 coal resources.
Sealed bids must be received by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern States State Office Public Room on or before 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) on September 30, 2025. The lease sale will be held at 10:00 a.m. ET on September 30, 2025.
The lease sale will be held at the BLM Eastern States State Office, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041. Sealed bids must be submitted to the BLM Eastern States State Office, at this same address.
Stewart Boyd, Solids Mineral Lead, Eastern States State Office, by telephone at 859-880-2844, or by email at
This sale is being held in response to two coal LBAs filed by Warrior Met Coal, for coal leases covering tracts in ALES-055797 and ALES-056519. Bidders may submit a bid for either one of the leases or both leases. A separate bid is required for each lease. A single bid covering both leases will not be accepted. The Federal coal lease parcels to be offered, underlying privately-owned surface lands in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, are contained in the tracts located on the following described lands:
The areas described for the ALES-055797 tract aggregate 5,704.52 acres, according to the official plats of the surveys of the said lands, on file with the BLM.
The areas described for the ALES-056519 tract aggregate 8,346.015 acres, according to the official plats of the surveys of the said lands, on file with the BLM.
Per both the ALES-055797 and ALES-056519 LBAs, the coal proposed to be mined by underground mining methods is in the Black Warrior Coal Basin, Mary Lee Group, and the coal seams proposed to be mined are the Mary Lee and Blue Creek. Both coal seams are considered a metallurgical-grade coal product.
Per the ALES-055797 LBA, the total coal, including the Mary Lee and Blue Creek coal seams, varies between 29 and 79 inches. The average depth of the coal seam in the Federal lease area is approximately 1,600 feet. The ALES-056519 LBA tract contains approximately 16.9 million tons of Federal recoverable coal.
Per the ALES-056519 LBA, the total coal, including the Mary Lee and Blue Creek coal seams, varies between 24 and 78 inches. The average depth of the coal seam in the Federal lease area is approximately 1,220 feet. The ALES-056519 LBA tract contains
The tracts will each be leased, separate leases for each LBA, to the qualified bidder of the highest cash amount, provided that the high bid for each tract meets or exceeds the BLM's estimate of the fair market value (FMV) of that tract. The minimum bid for each tract is $100 per acre or fraction thereof per 43 CFR 3422.1(c)(2). This regulatory minimum bid is not intended to represent FMV. The authorized officer will determine if the bids meet FMV.
The sealed bids should be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, or be hand delivered to the Public Room, Eastern States State Office (see
Prior to lease issuance, the high bidder, if other than the applicant, must pay the BLM the cost recovery fee, in addition to all processing costs incurred by the BLM after the date of this sale notice (43 CFR 3473.2(f)). As of August 4, 2025, the cost-recovery fee for each LBA is approximately $120,000 and will increase up until issuance of the lease.
Leases issued because of this offering will require payment of an annual rental of $3 per acre, or fraction thereof, and a royalty payable to the United States pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 207(a)) as amended.
Bidding instructions for the tracts offered and the terms and conditions of the two proposed coal leases are included in the “Detailed Statement of Coal Lease Sale,” with copies available at the Eastern States State Office (see
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of intent; request for comments.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) will prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate a range of alternatives for potential one-year water transfer activities subject to proposal, review, and approval on an annual basis (the “Proposed Action”). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority (SLDMWA) will prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the same range of potential north-to-south water transfer activities (the “Project”) concurrent with the EIS preparation. A joint EIS/EIR will be prepared to examine the effects of water transfers between willing buyers and sellers when circumstances allow. To afford an informational opportunity for comprehensive environmental review otherwise unavailable to the public, Reclamation's responsibilities are defined under Federal law and it is serving as the Lead Agency for the “Proposed Action” under NEPA and SLDMWA is the Lead Agency under CEQA for the “Project.” Reclamation is requesting comments on alternatives and effects, as well as on relevant information, studies, or analyses with respect to the proposed action.
Submit written comments on the scope of the EIS/EIR on or before October 3, 2025.
Three public scoping meetings will be held by Reclamation and SLDMWA to inform interested parties about the proposed project alternatives and to solicit comments on the scope and content of the EIS/EIR. The meetings will be held both virtually and in-person. The dates and locations of the meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through the local media, newspapers, and the project website listed in the
Send written comments on the proposed content and scope of the EIS/EIR to Nicole Johnson, Bureau of Reclamation, California-Great Basin Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825; by email at
The dates and locations of the three public scoping meetings, along with links to attend virtually, will be posted to the project website at (
Nicole Johnson, Bureau of Reclamation, California-Great Basin Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825; email
Hydrologic conditions, climatic variability, and regulatory requirements that govern the operation of water projects commonly affect water supply availability in California. This variability can strain water availability in areas that are dependent on the delivery of Central Valley Project (CVP) supplies to meet most, if not all, of the water demand. Historically, water entities have implemented one-year water transfers to supplement decreased water supplies and meet existing demand. These transfers have become a common tool in water resource planning. Reclamation and SLDMWA jointly conduct a comprehensive environmental analysis of a range of
A water transfer involves an agreement between a willing seller and a willing buyer, and available infrastructure capacity to convey water between the two parties. To make water available for transfer, the willing seller must take an action to reduce the consumptive use of water (such as idling cropland or pumping groundwater in lieu of using surface water) or releasing additional water from reservoir storage. This water would be conveyed to the buyers' service area for beneficial use. The EIS/EIR will evaluate potential environmental impacts of a large number of transfers and will conservatively assume that the entire range of transfer methods included in each alternative would occur each year over a defined timeframe. Actual water transfers occur far less frequently and in much smaller volumes. Water transfers would only be used to help meet existing demands and would not serve any new demands in the buyers' service areas. The range of alternatives for potential one-year water transfer activities to be evaluated in the EIS/EIR would not directly or indirectly affect growth beyond what is already planned.
Each potential transfer must be proposed, reviewed, and approved on an annual basis. In all instances, the potential transfer activities to be studied in the EIS/EIR, if and when they are proposed, are subject to individual review and approval on an annual basis based on real-time assessment of hydrologic conditions, regulatory requirements, and other operation limitations.
Reclamation's primary purpose in reviewing a range of alternatives for potential one-year water transfer activities is to facilitate and approve the voluntary one-year transfers of water from willing sellers, located primarily upstream of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta), to willing buyers, located primarily south of the Delta, and in the San Francisco Bay Area, in accordance with law, policy, rules, regulations, and contracts then in effect. The transferred water is needed by water users that are at risk of experiencing water shortages and who require these supplemental water supplies to meet anticipated demands.
The project area includes the potential Seller Service Area, primarily upstream of the Delta and the east side of the San Joaquin River, and the Buyer Service Area, primarily south of the Delta and in the San Francisco Bay Area. Sellers include water rights holders on the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers or their tributaries, including the Feather, Yuba, American, Stanislaus, and Merced rivers. Most transfers would need to move through the Delta to be delivered to buyers. Potential buyers are located south and west of the Delta, and include the Contra Costa Water District, the East Bay Municipal Utility District, and eight member agencies of SLDMWA.
NEPA and CEQA require an EIS and EIR, respectively, to identify a reasonable range of alternatives and provide guidance on the identification and screening of such alternatives. Reclamation, in collaboration with SLDMWA, reviewed the purpose and need/project objectives statement and previous studies in their initial effort to develop conceptual alternatives. This process identified an initial list of more than twenty-two measures that could, in part, contribute to the purpose and need/project objectives. Reclamation and SLDMWA then developed and applied a set of screening considerations to determine which measures should move forward for further analysis and be considered as action alternatives. These preliminary alternatives will be reevaluated after the public scoping period to consider any additional measures or alternatives recommended through the public scoping process.
The EIS/EIR will consider a range of reasonable alternatives, consistent with 43 CFR 46.415(b) and 43 CFR 46.420(b) and (c), including a No Action Alternative. The preliminary range of potential project alternatives identified by Reclamation, in collaboration with SLDMWA, for analysis in the EIS/EIR are described below.
This alternative combines all potential transfer methods that met the purpose and need and were carried forward through the screening process. Transfer methods included in the Full Range of Transfers Alternative are:
•
•
•
•
•
Transfers would only be implemented through agreements between willing sellers and buyers. The upper limit for transfers in any one year would be consistent with the transfer volumes in the current Biological Opinion for the Coordinated Long-term Operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project. Through-Delta transfers would be limited to the transfer window provided by Reclamation and DWR, typically July 1 through November 30, unless pumping capacity is restricted by Reclamation and DWR. This alternative proposes a variety of methods that buyers and sellers can select from to implement in a given transfer year. Some methods in this alternative may not be implemented if there are no willing sellers or buyers interested in that particular method. Reclamation's role would be to approve and facilitate transfers that comply with Federal and State law and would not include
This alternative would consider a subset of the methods that met the purpose and need and were carried forward through the screening process. Methods in the No Cropland Idling/Shifting Transfers Alternative include conservation, groundwater substitution, and reservoir release transfers.
This alternative would consider a subset of the methods that met the purpose and need and were carried forward through the screening process. Methods in the No Groundwater Substitution Transfers Alternative include conservation, cropland idling, crop shifting, and reservoir release transfers.
Public and agency input during the scoping process for the EIS/EIR may identify other alternatives for consideration. These will be evaluated in comparison to the preliminary range of alternatives identified above. In addition, in accordance with the requirements of both NEPA and CEQA, the EIS/EIR will evaluate a No Action/No Project Alternative. A No Action/No Project Alternative will be defined to characterize current and reasonably foreseeable future environmental conditions, given the continued operation of water resource projects or facilities, such as the SWP and CVP, in combination with planned water resource projects or facilities that are approved or are authorized but not yet implemented.
The EIS/EIR will describe the reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the proposed action and the alternatives, and the significance of those effects. The EIS/EIR will also evaluate the cumulative impacts of the project when considered in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.
The EIS/EIR will include a detailed analysis and will focus on potential environmental impacts, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
These issue areas will be discussed in the EIS/EIR, and reasonable mitigation measures will be recommended to avoid, minimize, or compensate for adverse effects caused by the proposed action or alternatives.
NEPA [42 U.S.C. 4321
Reclamation and SLDMWA will review and consider comments received during scoping and will prepare a scoping report. After the Draft EIS/EIR is completed, anticipated in 2025, Reclamation will publish a notice of availability (NOA) and request public comments on the Draft EIS/EIR. After the public comment period ends, Reclamation will then develop the Final EIS and anticipates making the Final EIS/EIR available to the public in 2026. Reclamation may issue a Record of Decision (ROD) no sooner than 30 days after the Final EIS/EIR is released.
Before including your name, address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
If special assistance or interpretation is required to participate in the public
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to grant a joint motion to terminate the remand investigation in its entirety based on settlement. The remand investigation is terminated.
Lynde Herzbach, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3228. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On October 28, 2020, the Commission instituted this investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), based on a complaint filed by Lashify, Inc. of Glendale, California (“Lashify”).
The Commission later amended the complaint and NOI to substitute CVS Pharmacy, Inc. of Woonsocket, Rhode Island in place of named respondent CVS Health Corporation and Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. of Bolingbrook, Illinois in place of named respondent Ulta Beauty, Inc.
The Commission later terminated the investigation as to claims 2-4 and 7 of the '388 patent and claims 6-8, 12, 18-19, 25-26, and 29 of the '984 patent based on Complainant's partial withdrawal of the complaint.
The Commission later terminated Rachael Gleason d/b/a Avant Garde Beauty Company from the investigation based on a Consent Order.
The Commission later determined that Lashify failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '388 patent, thus terminating that patent from the investigation.
On October 6, 2022, the Commission issued a final determination finding no violation of section 337 as to any Asserted Patent and terminated the investigation. 87 FR 62455-56 (Oct. 14, 2022). Specifically, with respect to the '984 patent, the Commission determined to: (1) find that Lashify has failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement; and (2) take no position regarding whether claims 1, 9, 23, and 27 of the '984 patent are invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. The Commission further found that Lashify failed to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for any of the Asserted Patents.
Lashify timely appealed the Commission's final determination to the Federal Circuit.
On March 5, 2025, the Federal Circuit vacated the Commission's determination as to the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for all three Asserted Patents and affirmed the Commission's determination that Lashify failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '984 patent.
The Commission filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, which the Court denied on June 25, 2025.
On July 2, 2025, the Court issued its formal mandate returning jurisdiction to the Commission for further proceedings.
On July 30, 2025, the Commission issued a notice seeking written submissions regarding what further proceedings must be conducted on remand. Comm'n Notice (July 30, 2025).
On August 7, 2024, the two remaining respondents, Qingdao Hollyren
The Commission has determined that the motion complies with the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(b)(1) (19 CFR 210.21(b)(1)), and that there are no extraordinary circumstances that would prevent the requested termination. The Commission also finds that granting the motion would not be contrary to the public interest pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(2) (19 CFR 210.50(b)(2)). Accordingly, the Commission hereby grants the motion.
The remand investigation is terminated.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on August 28, 2025.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210.
By order of the Commission.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Chief Evaluation Office (CEO)-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 October 3, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Nicole Bouchet by telephone at 202-693-0213, or by email at
The Chief Evaluation Office of DOL seeks approval of this generic clearance to allow DOL to conduct a variety of formative data collections. Under this generic clearance, DOL would engage in a variety of formative data collections with researchers, practitioners, technical assistance providers, service providers and potential participants throughout the field to fulfill the following goals: (1) inform the development of DOL research, (2) maintain a research agenda that is rigorous and relevant, (3) ensure that research products are as current as possible and (4) inform the provision of technical assistance. DOL envisions using a variety of techniques including semi-structured discussions, focus groups, surveys, and telephone or in-person interviews in order to reach these goals. The findings from this data collection can inform and support future and current research but that are not highly systematic or intended to be statistically representative or otherwise generalizable. 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.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget.
Notice of rescissions proposed pursuant to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
Pursuant to section 1014(d) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, enclosed for publication in the
The rescissions proposal package is available on-line on the OMB home page at:
Jason Hoffman, 252 Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, Email address:
In accordance with section 1012(a) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 683(a)), I herewith report 15 rescissions of budget authority, totaling $4.9 billion.
The proposed rescissions affect programs of the Department of State as well as the U.S. Agency for International Development and International Assistance Programs.
The details of these rescissions are set forth in the attached enclosure.
August 28, 2025.
This proposal would rescind $521 million of the $1.5 billion appropriated in FY 2025 for the Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) account. The CIO account provides funding for the assessed contributions to the United Nations (UN), UN-Affiliated organizations, and various other international organizations that do not support major U.S. policies or priorities or have been operating contrary to American interests for many years. For example, the Pan American Health Organization, which receives CIO funding, is the regional arm of the World Health Organization, and was accused of forced labor and human trafficking of Cuban doctors. Further, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), also a recipient of CIO funding, facilitated a global tax deal, committing America to extraterritorial jurisdiction of American-made income.
This proposal is consistent with Executive Order 14199, “Withdrawing the United States from and Ending Funding to Certain United Nations Organizations and Reviewing United States Support to All International Organizations.” The rescission would eliminate funding for the UN regular budget, and other organizations such the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
Other examples of activities funded by this account include:
• $2.3 million for desert locust risk reduction in the Central Region and Horn of Africa.
• $1.5 million for marketing paintings of Ukrainian women artists and a museum dedicated to recognizing the historical role of Ukrainian female artists.
This proposal would rescind $393 million of the $1.2 billion appropriated in FY 2025 for the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account, which was defunded in the President's FY 2026 Budget. The CIPA account provides payments for the U.S. share of United Nations (UN) peacekeeping assessments. UN peacekeeping has been fraught with waste and abuse, as evidenced by the ongoing sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic. There have been thousands of credible allegations of sexual abuse and other crimes against UN peacekeepers from across the world, including when UN personnel who solicited underage girls in Kosovo that resulted in them being kidnapped, tortured, and prostituted. The UN has failed to address this issue by punishing the perpetrators of these heinous crimes. UN Peacekeepers were also the source of the cholera outbreak in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake, costing billions and causing lasting harm. Reports have also estimated that billions in peacekeeping contracts (over 40 percent) were implicated in significant corruption schemes. The rescission would be a first step to engaging in strong reforms across the UN.
Other examples of activities funded by this account include:
• In 2023, 43 people were killed during demonstrations against the Democratic Republic of the Congo Mission (MONUSCO) and DRC presidential candidates have threatened to remove the UN peacekeeping mission from the DRC.
• The Mali mission (MINUSMA's) failure to retain host country consent and protect civilians is another stain on the UN's tattered history of peacekeeping.
This proposal would rescind $2 million of the $274 million appropriated in FY 2020 for the Democracy Fund (DF). The DF account is intended to fund democracy promotion activities of the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development. In practice, DF activities undermine American values, weaken the perception of America abroad, interfere with the sovereignty of other countries—including U.S. allies, and bankroll corrupt leaders. For example, this account funded gender responsive governance and activities geared toward strengthening information integrity, equality, and democracy for LGBTQI+ populations. The rescission would return funding from wasteful foreign assistance programs to taxpayers in alignment with America First foreign policy.
Other examples of activities funded by this account include:
• $2.7 million to advance “inclusive democracy” in South Africa through the Democracy Works Foundation, which has published articles such as “The Problem with Whiteness,” and “The Problem with White People.” One article claims that White South Africans are “not even aware” of the “hostility they unleash” against black people; another lauds terrorism and communism as an effective means of deconstructing White Afrikaner identity.
• $4 million for the “New Alliance for Global Equality” to advance “global LGBTQI+ awareness.”
• $500,000 to support women in elections in the Maldives.
This proposal would rescind $56,107 of the $274 million appropriated in FY 2020 for the Democracy Fund (DF). The DF account is intended to fund democracy promotion activities of the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development. In practice, DF-funded activities weaponized programs that undermine American values, weaken perception of America abroad, interfere with the sovereignty of other countries, including U.S. allies, and bankroll the evasion by corrupt leaders of their responsibilities to their citizens. For example, this account funded gender responsive governance and activities geared toward strengthening information integrity, equality, and democracy for LGBTQI+ populations. The rescission would return funding from wasteful foreign assistance programs to taxpayers in alignment with America First foreign policy.
Other examples of activities funded by this account include:
• $2.7 million to advance “inclusive democracy” in South Africa through the Democracy Works Foundation, which has published articles such as “The Problem with Whiteness,” and “The Problem with White People.” One article claims that White South Africans are “not even aware” of the “hostility they unleash” against black people; another lauds terrorism and communism as an effective means of deconstructing White Afrikaner identity.
• $4 million for the “New Alliance for Global Equality” to advance “global LGBTQI+ awareness.”
• $500,000 to support women in elections in the Maldives.
This proposal would rescind $188 million of the $340 million appropriated in FY 2024 for the Democracy Fund (DF). The DF account is intended to fund democracy promotion activities of the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development. In practice, DF-funded activities weaponized programs that undermine American values, weaken perception of America abroad, interfere with the sovereignty of other countries, including U.S. allies, and bankroll the evasion by corrupt leaders of their responsibilities to their citizens. For example, this account funded gender responsive governance and activities geared toward strengthening information integrity, equality, and democracy for LGBTQI+ populations. The rescission would return funding from wasteful foreign assistance programs to taxpayers in alignment with America First foreign policy.
Other examples of activities funded by this account include:
• $2.7 million to advance “inclusive democracy” in South Africa through the Democracy Works Foundation, which has published articles such as “The Problem with Whiteness,” and “The Problem with White People.” One article claims that White South Africans are “not even aware” of the “hostility they unleash” against black people; another lauds terrorism and communism as an effective means of deconstructing White Afrikaner identity.
• $4 million for the “New Alliance for Global Equality” to advance “global LGBTQI+ awareness.”
• $500,000 to support women in elections in the Maldives.
This proposal would rescind $132 million of the $340 million appropriated in FY 2024 for the Democracy Fund (DF). The DF account is intended to fund democracy promotion activities of the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development. In practice, DF-funded activities weaponized programs that undermine American values, weaken perception of America abroad, interfere with the sovereignty of other countries, including U.S. allies, and bankroll the evasion by corrupt leaders of their responsibilities to their citizens. For example, this account funded gender responsive governance and activities geared toward strengthening information integrity, equality, and democracy for LGBTQI+ populations. The rescission would return funding from wasteful foreign assistance programs to taxpayers in alignment with America First foreign policy.
Other examples of activities funded by this account include:
• $2.7 million to advance “inclusive democracy” in South Africa through the Democracy Works Foundation, which has published articles such as “The Problem with Whiteness,” and “The Problem with White People.” One article claims that White South Africans are “not even aware” of the “hostility they unleash” against black people; another lauds terrorism and communism as an effective means of deconstructing White Afrikaner identity.
• $4 million for the “New Alliance for Global Equality” to advance “global LGBTQI+ awareness.”
• $500,000 to support women in elections in the Maldives.
This proposal would rescind $110 million of the $410 million appropriated in FY 2024 for the Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account, which was largely defunded in the President's FY 2026 Budget. The PKO account is intended to support peacekeeping and stabilization operations and to counter extremist threats, including for the United Nations (UN) Support Office in Somalia peacekeeping mission. In practice, this account is a slush fund used to support projects well beyond a core security focus, including hybrid energy power generation pilot projects in Nepal and South Sudan, at the expense of American taxpayers.
Annually, $71 million of PKO's funds have been allocated to the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI) to ready other country's militaries to support UN peacekeeping. Not only are we overpaying in U.S. assessed contributions, we are paying twice to pick up global slack. Programs undergoing termination include:
• Nearly $11 million for armored personnel carriers for Uruguay's quick reaction force.
• Nearly $4 million for infrastructure and facilities at the Zambia Training Center.
• Nearly $3 million for barracks for Kazakhstan peacekeepers.
• Over $500,000 for a women's body armor pilot program.
The rescission would eliminate programs but will not impact the United States' commitment to the Egyptian-Israeli Treaty of Peace through U.S. contributions to the Multinational Force and Observers.
This proposal would rescind $326 million of the $410 million appropriated in FY 2025 for the Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account, which was largely defunded in the President's FY 2026 Budget. The PKO account is intended to support peacekeeping and stabilization operations and to counter extremist threats, including for the United Nations (UN) Support Office in Somalia peacekeeping mission. In practice, this account is a slush fund used to support projects well beyond a core security focus, including hybrid energy power generation pilot projects in Nepal and South Sudan, at the expense of American taxpayers.
Annually, $71 million of PKO's funds have been allocated to the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI) to ready other country's militaries to support UN peacekeeping. Not only are we overpaying in U.S. assessed contributions, we are paying twice to pick up global slack. Programs undergoing termination include:
• Nearly $11 million for armored personnel carriers for Uruguay's quick reaction force.
• Nearly $4 million for infrastructure and facilities at the Zambia Training Center.
• Nearly $3 million for barracks for Kazakhstan peacekeepers.
• Over $500,000 for a women's body armor pilot program.
The rescission would eliminate programs but will not impact the United States' commitment to the Egyptian-Israeli Treaty of Peace through U.S. contributions to the Multinational Force and Observers.
This proposal would rescind $3 million of the $410 million appropriated in FY 2024 for the Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account, which was largely defunded in the President's FY 2026 Budget. The PKO account is intended to support peacekeeping and stabilization operations and to counter extremist threats, including for the United Nations (UN) Support Office in Somalia peacekeeping mission. In practice, this account is a slush fund used to support projects well beyond a core security focus, including hybrid energy power generation pilot projects in Nepal and South Sudan, at the expense of American taxpayers.
Annually, $71 million of PKO's funds have been allocated to the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI) to ready other country's militaries to support UN peacekeeping. Not only are we overpaying in U.S. assessed contributions, we are paying twice to pick up global slack. Programs undergoing termination include:
• Nearly $11 million for armored personnel carriers for Uruguay's quick reaction force.
• Nearly $4 million for infrastructure and facilities at the Zambia Training Center.
• Nearly $3 million for barracks for Kazakhstan peacekeepers.
• Over $500,000 for a women's body armor pilot program.
The rescission would eliminate programs but will not impact the United States' commitment to the Egyptian-Israeli Treaty of Peace through U.S. contributions to the Multinational Force and Observers.
This proposal would rescind $6 million of the $410 million appropriated in FY 2024 for the Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account, which was largely defunded in the President's FY 2026 Budget. The PKO account is intended to support peacekeeping and stabilization operations and to counter extremist threats, including for the United Nations (UN) Support Office in Somalia peacekeeping mission. In practice, this account is a slush fund used to support projects well beyond a core security focus, including hybrid energy power generation pilot projects in Nepal and South Sudan, at the expense of American taxpayers.
Annually, $71 million of PKO's funds have been allocated to the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI) to ready other country's militaries to support UN peacekeeping. Not only are we overpaying in U.S. assessed contributions, we are paying twice to pick up global slack. Programs undergoing termination include:
• Nearly $11 million for armored personnel carriers for Uruguay's quick reaction force.
• Nearly $4 million for infrastructure and facilities at the Zambia Training Center.
• Nearly $3 million for barracks for Kazakhstan peacekeepers.
• Over $500,000 for a women's body armor pilot program.
The rescission would eliminate programs but will not impact the United States' commitment to the Egyptian-Israeli Treaty of Peace through U.S. contributions to the Multinational Force and Observers.
This proposal would rescind $3,360 of the $3 billion appropriated in FY 2017 for Development Assistance (DA). The DA account is intended to fund programs that work to promote resilient societies, but in practice has done the opposite. Many DA programs conflicted with American values, interfered with the sovereignty of other countries, and bankrolled corrupt leaders' evasion of their responsibilities to their citizens, all while providing no clear benefit to Americans. Projects like electric busses in Rwanda, are of negative value to American taxpayers and American foreign policy interests. The rescission would align with the Administration's efforts to return funding from wasteful U.S. Agency for International Development programs to the American taxpayers. The remaining balance proposed for rescission are for activities that have completed their goals and are no longer needed for their intended purpose.
Other examples of activities funded by this account include:
• $24.6 million to build climate resilience in Honduras.
• $38.6 million for biodiversity and low-emissions development in West Africa.
• $13.4 million for civic engagement in Zimbabwe.
This proposal would rescind $7 million of the $3.4 billion appropriated in FY 2020 for Development Assistance (DA). The DA account is intended to fund programs that work to promote resilient societies, but in practice has done the opposite. Many DA programs conflicted with American values, interfered with the sovereignty of other countries, and bankrolled corrupt leaders' evasion of their responsibilities to their citizens, all while providing no clear benefit to Americans. Projects like electric busses in Rwanda are of negative value to American taxpayers and American foreign policy interests. The rescission would align with the Administration's efforts to return funding from wasteful U.S. Agency for International Development programs to the American taxpayers.
Other examples of activities funded by this account include:
• $2 million for “green economic opportunities” in Honduras.
• $5 million for localization, inclusion, and sustainability in Kenya.
This proposal would rescind $32 million of the $3.5 billion appropriated in FY 2021 for Development Assistance (DA). The DA account is intended to fund programs that work to promote resilient societies, but in practice has done the opposite. Many DA programs conflicted with American values, interfered with the sovereignty of other countries, and bankrolled corrupt leaders' evasion of their responsibilities to their citizens, all while providing no clear benefit to Americans. Projects like baking and beauty therapy in Zimbabwe and land administration in Malawi, are of negative value to American taxpayers and American foreign policy interests. The rescission would align with the Administration's efforts to return funding from wasteful U.S. Agency for International Development programs to the American taxpayers.
Other examples of activities funded by this account include:
• $550,000 for holistic monitoring, evaluation, and learning in North Macedonia.
• $60,000 for listening tours on local development in Timor-Leste.
• $12,000 for Telling the USAID story in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
This proposal would rescind $7 million of the $4.4 billion appropriated in FY 2023 for Development Assistance (DA). The DA account is intended to fund programs that work to promote resilient societies, but in practice has done the opposite. Many DA programs conflicted with American values, interfered with the sovereignty of other countries, and bankrolled corrupt leaders' evasion of their responsibilities to their citizens, all while providing no clear benefit to Americans. Projects like, electric busses in Rwanda, are of negative value to American taxpayers and American foreign policy interests. The rescission would align with the Administration's efforts to return funding from wasteful U.S. Agency for International Development programs to the American taxpayers. The remaining balance for rescission is part of a “Flexible Fund” to support private sector partnerships overseas created under the Biden Administration.
Other examples of activities funded by this account include:
• A partnership with the Green Climate Fund, for the Barbados Blue-Green Bank for climate change mitigation.
• Supporting ecotourism in Peru.
• $650,000 for micro-insurance for smallholder farmers and microbusinesses in Colombia for climate disaster response.
This proposal would rescind $3.2 billion of the $3.9 billion appropriated in FY 2024 for Development Assistance (DA). The DA account is intended to fund programs that work to promote resilient societies, but in practice has done the opposite. Many DA programs conflicted with American values, interfered with the sovereignty of other countries, and bankrolled corrupt leaders' evasion of their responsibilities to their citizens, all while providing no clear benefit to Americans. The rescission would align with the Administration's efforts to return funding from wasteful U.S. Agency for International Development programs to the American taxpayers.
Other examples include:
• $24.6 million to build climate resilience in Honduras.
• $38.6 million for biodiversity and low-emissions development in West Africa.
• $13.4 million for civic engagement in Zimbabwe.
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Notice.
The Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, requires the Millennium Challenge Corporation to publish a report that identifies countries that are “candidate countries” for Millennium Challenge Account assistance during Fiscal Year 2026. The report is set forth in full below.
This report to Congress is provided in accordance with section 608(a) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 7701, 7707(a) (the Act).
The Act authorizes the provision of assistance through the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) for countries that enter into a Millennium Challenge Compact with the United States to support policies and programs that advance the progress of such countries to achieve lasting economic growth. The Act requires MCC to take a number of steps in selecting countries with which MCC will seek to enter into a compact, including determining the countries that will be eligible countries for fiscal year (FY) 2026 based on (a) a country's demonstrated commitment to (i) just and democratic governance, (ii) economic freedom, and (iii) investments in its people; (b) the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth in the country; and (c) the availability of funds to MCC. These steps include the submission to the congressional committees specified in the Act and publication in the
• The countries that are “candidate countries” for FY 2026 based on their per capita income levels and their eligibility to receive assistance under U.S. law and countries that would be candidate countries but for specified legal prohibitions on assistance (section 608(a) of the Act);
• The criteria and methodology that the MCC Board of Directors (the Board) will use to measure and evaluate the relative policy performance of the “candidate countries” consistent with the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) of section 607 of the Act in order to determine “eligible countries” from among the “candidate countries” (section 608(b) of the Act); and
• The list of countries determined by the Board to be “eligible countries” for FY 2026, identification of such countries with which the Board will seek to enter into compacts, and a justification for such eligibility determination and selection for compact negotiation (section 608(d) of the Act).
This report is the first of three required reports listed above.
The Act requires the identification of all countries that are candidate countries for purposes of eligibility for MCC compact assistance for FY 2026 and the identification of all countries that would be candidate countries for purposes of eligibility for MCC compact assistance but for specified legal prohibitions on assistance. Under sections 606(a) of the Act, a country is considered a candidate country for FY 2026 if it:
• has a per capita income that is not greater than the World Bank's threshold for initiating the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development graduation process for such fiscal year ($7,855 gross national income per capita for FY 2026);
• is not ineligible to receive United States economic assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (the Foreign Assistance Act), by reason of the application of the Foreign Assistance Act or any other provision of law.
Pursuant to section 606(b) of the Act, the Board identified the following countries as candidate countries under the Act for FY 2026. In so doing, the Board referred to the prohibitions on assistance to countries for FY 2025 under the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025, contained in Division F of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2024 (Pub. L. 118-47) (FY 2025 SFOAA).
Countries that would be considered candidate countries for purposes of eligibility for MCC compact assistance for FY 2026 but are ineligible to receive United States economic assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act by reason of the application of any provision of the Foreign Assistance Act or any other provision of law are listed below. This list is based on legal prohibitions against economic assistance that apply as of August 6, 2025.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Countries identified above as candidate countries, as well as countries that would be considered candidate countries but for the applicability of legal provisions that prohibit U.S. economic assistance, may be the subject of future statutory restrictions or determinations, or changed country circumstances, that affect their legal eligibility for assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act by reason of application of the Foreign Assistance Act or any other provision of law for FY 2026.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is noticing the termination of the Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor (VBWR) Facility Operating License, No. DPR-1, located near Sunol, California. The VBWR is co-located at the site with the Empire State Atomic Development Associates (ESADA) Vallecitos Experimental Superheat Reactor (EVESR), license No. DR-10. Due to the shared siting of the facilities, the termination of the VBWR license includes an exemption from the requirement to meet certain dose criteria at the site as all remaining residual radioactivity has been transferred to the co-located EVESR license, and will be evaluated when that license is terminated.
The license termination for DPR-1 and the associated exemption were issued on August 27, 2025.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0092 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:
•
•
•
Chris Allen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6877; email:
The VBWR is a boiling water reactor located at the Vallecitos Nuclear Center (VNC), in Sunol, California and is licensed as a power reactor under part 50 of title 10 of the
The General Electric Company (GE) was issued a license by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to construct and operate the VBWR on May 14, 1956. Developmental Power Reactor (DPR) license number 1 (DPR-1) was issued to GE on August 31, 1957, and full power was attained on October 19, 1957. The VBWR ceased operations on December 9, 1963, and was defueled on December 24 that same year. GE was issued a license to possess but not operate the VBWR reactor on September 9, 1965. The AEC issued GE an order to dismantle the VBWR on July 25, 1966, however, major dismantlement activities at the VBWR did not occur until the years 2007-2008 with the removal of most of the contaminated
On September 7, 2023, as supplemented by letters dated September 15, 2023, October 31, 2023, and March 25, 2024, GEH submitted a license amendment request (LAR) to the NRC to approve a License Termination Plan (LTP) to support termination of NRC license DPR-1. The LTP detailed efforts to identify and characterize the residual radioactivity associated with the VBWR reactor building. The LTP also explained that final decontamination of the VBWR facility would be accomplished after control of the remaining VBWR structures and components had been transferred to the control of the EVESR license. The NRC requested public comments on VBWR's LTP and held a public meeting to discuss the LTP. There were no public comments received on the LTP. The NRC also published an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact on the LTP. On November 27, 2024, the NRC approved the VBWR LTP.
By order dated April 25, 2024, the NRC approved the direct transfer of ownership of the VNC, including all NRC licensed facilities, from GEH to NorthStar Vallecitos, LLC (NSV). On March 12, 2025, the NRC was notified that the sale of the VNC facilities from GEH to NorthStar Vallecitos would be completed on March 14, 2025. Subsequently, on March 14, 2025, the NRC issued License No. DPR-1 to NSV.
By letter dated February 3, 2025, NSV applied to the NRC to terminate the NRC license for the VBWR. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.12, NSV also requested an exemption from the 10 CFR 50.82(a)(11)(ii) requirements that the VBWR final radiation survey and associated documentation demonstrate that the facility meets the criteria for license termination in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E. NSV requested the exemption because the remaining VBWR facility and residual radioactivity have been transferred to the EVESR license, which is a co-located facility, and thus, the part 20, subpart E criteria will have to be met when the EVESR facility decommissions. The VBWR license termination is being sought to ensure compliance with the requirement in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3) for power reactors to terminate their licenses within 60 years of the permanent cessation of operations.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(1), the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when 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. However, the Commission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present. Special circumstances are described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2).
As stated earlier in this notice, 10 CFR 50.12 allows the NRC to grant exemptions from 10 CFR part 50 requirements if it makes certain findings. As further discussed later in this notice, the NRC staff has determined that special circumstances exist to grant the exemption. In addition, granting the licensee's proposed exemption will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; other laws, or the Commission's regulations. Therefore, the granting of the exemption request is authorized by law.
NSV identified three factors that demonstrate the requested exemption does not result in an undue risk to public health and safety: (1) the exemption does not create a new accident precursor or result in an increase in the probability of any postulated accident, an increase in the consequences of postulated accidents, (2) result in any change to the types or amounts of effluents that may be released offsite or be allowed to remain on site, or (3) result in an increase of cumulative occupational or public doses for the site. Because the VBWR structures and residual radioactivity have been transferred under the EVESR license held by NSV, full decommissioning of the VBWR will occur with the final decommissioning of the co-located EVESR which is planned for April 2030 in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(11)(ii). Because there is no facility, radioactive components, or residual radioactivity remaining on the VBWR license, the NRC staff concludes that the requested exemption does not (1) create a new accident precursor or increase the probability or consequence of postulated accidents, (2) change the type or amount of effluents released or allowed to remain on site, or (3) result in an increase of cumulative occupational or public dose. As a result, NRC determined that granting the exemption poses no undue risk to public health and safety.
NSV stated that the common defense and security is not impacted by the requested exemption because it does not alter the scope or implementation of the NorthStar Vallecitos Physical Security Plan and does not affect any other requirements related to the security of the facility. The exemption requested relief from providing final radiation surveys and associated documentation demonstrating that the VBWR facility meets the criteria for license termination in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E as required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(11)(ii). Since 10 CFR part 20, subpart E identifies criteria for public safety, granting the exemption request does not impact the common defense and security.
Paragraph 50.12(a)(2) of 10 CFR states, in part:
The Commission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present. Special circumstances are present whenever- . . . (ii) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule;
The purpose of the final radiation survey and associated documentation, including an assessment of dose contributions associated with parts released for use before approval of the license termination plan, submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(11)(ii), is to protect the public health and safety by demonstrating that the facility and site have met the criteria for decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E. With approval of the EVESR amendment, the remaining VBWR reactor building, and any associated residual radioactivity, have been transferred to the authority of the EVESR license. Because of this, NSV must submit a final status survey and associated documentation as part of the EVESR license termination that demonstrates compliance with the 10 CFR 50.82(a)(11) requirements for release of the 300 Area which includes both the EVESR and the remaining transferred VBWR facilities. As such, compliance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(11)(ii) is not necessary to satisfy the underlying purpose of the rule because
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), the granting of an exemption from the requirements of any regulation in Chapter I of 10 CFR meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion provided that (1) there is no significant hazards consideration, (2) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, (3) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure, (4) there is no significant construction impact, (5) there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents, and (6) the requirements from which an exemption is sought are among those identified in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi). NSV asserted that the exemption sought relief from scheduling requirements which is category G under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi). As discussed in section 5.1 of the SER, the NRC concluded that the exemption request satisfies the categorical exclusion criteria in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25).
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is titled, “Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste in Geologic Repositories.”
Submit comments by November 3, 2025. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods, however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0193 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized as follows.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? Please explain your answer.
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate? Please explain your answer.
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is seeking public comment on a draft regulatory issue summary (RIS) that discusses the review performance and reporting requirements for a combined license application review in accordance with the requirements in Section 207 of the ADVANCE Act (Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act of 2024). NRC regulations provide requirements for the issuance of combined licenses.
Submit comments by September 18, 2025. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Carolyn Lauron, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2736; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0808 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC's mission is to protect public health and safety and advance the Nation's common defense and security by enabling the safe and secure use and deployment of civilian nuclear energy technologies and radioactive materials through efficient and reliable licensing, oversight, and regulation for the benefit of society and the environment. The NRC is committed to reviewing all license applications in an effective and efficient manner and employing risk informed approaches to inform the scope of the NRC staff review.
Executive Order (E.O.) 14300, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” issued May 23, 2025, requires the NRC to reform and modernize its regulations to include a “deadline of no more than 18 months for final decision on an application to construct and operate a new reactor of any type, commencing with the first required step in the regulatory process.” The NRC will comply with the review timeline in the E.O.
The NRC staff conducted public meetings on December 12, 2024, and January 28, 2025, to receive comments, feedback, and ideas on how the NRC should implement the requirement in ADVANCE Act Section 207. In addition, the NRC staff conducted a meeting on March 4, 2025, to solicit feedback on its approach for developing the draft RIS, “Combined License Review Performance and Reporting.” A summary of the public comments, feedback, and ideas received and considered in the development of the draft RIS may be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML25033A001 (package), ML25041A145, and ML25066A073 (package), respectively.
The NRC is requesting public comments on the draft RIS. All comments that are to receive consideration in the final RIS must be submitted electronically or in writing as indicated in the
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determined that this draft RIS is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “Operators' Licenses.”
Submit comments by November 3, 2025. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods;
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0013 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized as follows.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? Please explain your answer.
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate? Please explain your answer.
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, NRC Form 646, “Formal Discrimination Complaint” and NRC Form 655, “EEO Counselor's Report.”
Submit comments by November 3, 2025. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0038 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized as follows.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? Please explain your answer.
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate? Please explain your answer.
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, NRC Form 396, “Certification of Medical Examination by Facility Licensee.”
Submit comments by November 3, 2025. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0011 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized as follows.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? Please explain your answer.
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate? Please explain your answer.
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Final guide; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing Revision 3 to Regulatory Guide (RG), 1.87, “Acceptability of ASME Code, Section III, Division 5, “High Temperature Reactors.”” This regulatory guide (RG) describes an approach that is acceptable to the staff of the NRC to assure the mechanical/structural integrity of components that operate in elevated temperature environments and that are subject to time-dependent material properties and failure modes. It endorses, with exceptions and limitations, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (BPV) Code (ASME Code) Section III, “Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components,” Division 5, “High Temperature Reactors,” and several related Code Cases.
Revision 3 to RG 1.87 is available on September 3, 2025.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0203 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:
•
•
•
Revision 3 to RG 1.87 and the regulatory analysis may be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML25176A084 and ML24275A267, respectively.
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them.
Ramón L Gascot Lozada, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, telephone: 301-415-2004; email:
The NRC is issuing a revision in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, to explain techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and to describe information that
The proposed Revision 3 to RG 1.87 was issued with a temporary identification of Draft Regulatory Guide, DG-1436 (ADAMS Accession No. ML24275A266). This revision (Revision 3) updates the guidance to endorse, with exceptions and limitations, the 2023 Edition of ASME Code Section III, Division 5, as a method acceptable to the staff for the materials, mechanical/structural design, construction, testing, and quality assurance of mechanical systems and components and their supports in high-temperature reactors. This revision removes conditions from Revision 2 of the RG that have been addressed in the 2023 version of the Code. This revision also endorses, with exceptions and limitations, the Code Cases N-812-1, N-861-2, N-862-2, N-872, N-898-1, N-924 and N-940.
The NRC published a notice of the availability of DG-1436 in the
This RG is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
The NRC staff may use this RG as a reference in its regulatory processes, such as licensing, inspection, or enforcement. However, the NRC staff does not intend to use the guidance in this RG to support NRC staff actions in a manner that would constitute backfitting as that term is defined in section 50.109 of title 10 of the
A member of the public may, at any time, submit suggestions to the NRC for improvement of existing RGs or for the development of new RGs. Suggestions can be submitted on the NRC's public website at
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determined that this RG is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) regarding colocation services and fees to update the list of included data products. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those 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 parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule regarding colocation services and fees to update the list of included data products (“Included Data Products”).
Currently, the table of Included Data Products in Colocation Note 4 sets forth the market data feeds that Users
The Exchange filed to establish an “NYSE Texas Order Imbalances”
The Exchange does not charge for connectivity to the Included Data Feeds. Accordingly, it would not charge for connectivity to the NYSE Texas Feed.
The proposed changes would not apply differently to distinct types or sizes of market participants. Rather, they would apply to all Users equally. As is currently the case, the purchase of any colocation service, including connectivity to the NYSE Texas Feed, would be completely voluntary and the Fee Schedule would be applied uniformly to all Users.
FIDS does not expect that the proposed rule change will result in new Users.
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that customers would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable and would perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, because adding the NYSE Texas Feed would increase the number of Included Data Products available to Users for no additional charge. All Users that voluntarily select to access the LCN or IP network would not be subject to a charge above and beyond the fee paid for the relevant LCN or IP network access. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable because the change would mean that a User would have the option of adding connectivity to additional market data feeds without paying additional charges.
Adding the NYSE Texas Feed to the list of Included Data Products would allow a User to connect to the NYSE Texas Feed if it wished but would not require it to do so. As now, a User would be able to determine which Included Data Products, if any, to which it connects, based on what would best serve its needs, tailoring the service to the requirements of its business operations.
By adding the NYSE Texas Feed, the proposed change would ensure that the list of Included Data Products was up to date. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable and would perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, as it would ensure that the description of Included Data Products was complete, ensuring that it is accessible and transparent, and providing market participants with clarity as to what connectivity is included in the purchase of access to the LCN and IP networks.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers because adding the NYSE Texas Feed would increase the number of Included Data Products available to Users for no additional charge. All Users that voluntarily select to access the LCN or IP network would not be subject to a charge above and beyond the fee paid for the relevant LCN or IP network access. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the change would mean that a User would have the option of adding connectivity to an additional market data feed without paying additional charges.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory since, as is true now, the proposed change would not apply differently to distinct types or sizes of Users but would apply to all Users equally. Moreover, adding the proposed additional Included Data Product would allow a User to connect to the NYSE Texas Feed if it wished, but would not require it to do so. As now, a User would be able to determine which Included Data Products, if any, to which it connects, based on what would best serve its needs, tailoring the service to the requirements of its business operations.
By adding the NYSE Texas Feed, the proposed change would ensure that the list of Included Data Products was up to date. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, as it would ensure that the description of Included Data Products was complete, ensuring that it is accessible and transparent, and providing market participants with clarity as to what connectivity is included in the purchase of access to the LCN and IP networks.
For the reasons above, the proposed changes do not unfairly discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements, terms, and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposal will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because adding the NYSE Texas Feed would increase the number of Included Data Products available to Users for no additional charge. All Users that voluntarily select to access the LCN or IP network would not be subject to a charge above and beyond the fee paid for the relevant LCN or IP network access. Accordingly, the change would mean that a User would have the option of adding connectivity to an additional market data feed without paying additional charges.
Adding the proposed additional Included Data Product would allow a User to connect to the NYSE Texas Feed if it wished, but would not require it to do so. In this way, the proposed changes would enhance competition by, as now, enabling a User to determine to which Included Data Products, if any, it connects, based on what would best serve its needs, tailoring the service to the requirements of its business operations.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, as with the other Included Data Products, it believes it is not the exclusive method to connect to the NYSE Texas Feed. As alternatives to connecting to the NYSE Texas Feed as an Included Data Product, a User may connect to the market data feed through another User or through a connection to an Exchange access center outside the data center, third party access center, or third party vendor.
By adding the NYSE Texas Feed, the proposed change would ensure that the list of Included Data Products was up to date. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed addition to the description of Included Data Products would make the description more accessible and transparent. In this manner, the proposed change would provide market participants with clarity as to what connectivity is included in the purchase of access to the LCN and IP networks, thereby enhancing competition by ensuring that all Users have access to the same information regarding the Included Data Products.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 14, 2025, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“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 April 14, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form 1-SA (17 CFR 239.92) is used to file semiannual reports by Tier 2 issuers under Regulation A, an exemption from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (“BDCs”) and closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment entities.
Calamos Aksia Alternative Credit and Income Fund, Calamos Aksia Private Equity and Alternatives Fund, Calamos Aksia Hedged Strategies Fund, Aksia LLC, Aksia CA LLC, 599 Fund LLC, and certain of their wholly-owned subsidiaries as described in Schedule A to the application, and certain of their affiliated entities as described in Schedule B to the application.
The application was filed on May 8, 2025, and amended on August 19, 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:
Adam Large, Senior Special Counsel, Toyin Momoh, Senior Counsel, or Daniele Marchesani, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' first amended application, dated August 19, 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)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.35E (Auctions) regarding Auction Imbalance Information and make related conforming changes. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those 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 parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.35E (Auctions) regarding the calculation of auction imbalance information disseminated by the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange
The Exchange does not propose any change to its use of the Indicative Match Price as the price at which auctions would take place but believes that disseminating Auction Imbalance Information based on the Auction Reference Price instead of the Indicative Match Price would provide market participants with enhanced Auction Imbalance Information. Specifically, whereas the Indicative Match Price is representative of the price at which an auction would take place at a given time, the Auction Reference Price may offer market participants more information on the imbalance in the market for a security because it would reflect, for example, the midpoint of the Auction NBBO
The Exchange notes that this proposed change would align its calculation of Auction Imbalance Information with the process of its affiliate, New York Stock Exchange, LLC (“NYSE”).
The Exchange proposes the following changes to NYSE American Rule 7.35E to effect the changes described above.
Rule 7.35E(a) sets forth definitions of terms used in Rule 7.35E. Rule 7.35E(a)(7) defines “Imbalance” as the number of buy (sell) shares that cannot be matched with sell (buy) shares at the Indicative Match Price at any given time and, unless otherwise specified, includes the non-displayed quantity of Reserve Orders eligible to participate in the applicable auction.
Rule 7.35E(a)(7)(A) currently defines “Total Imbalance” as the net Imbalance of all buy (sell) shares at the Indicative Match Price for all orders that are eligible to trade in the applicable auction. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.35E(a)(7)(A) to replace Indicative Match Price with Auction Reference Price, such that the Total Imbalance (which is disseminated as part of the Auction Imbalance Information) would reflect the net Imbalance calculated at the Auction Reference Price, for the reasons noted above. As also noted above, this proposed change to the definition of Total Imbalance to be calculated based on the Auction Reference Price would promote consistency with the NYSE Total Imbalance, which is calculated based on the analogous Imbalance Reference Price. The Exchange further notes that this proposed change would distinguish the Total Imbalance from the Imbalance. Whereas these two terms currently have essentially the same meaning, this proposed change would define Total Imbalance as the Imbalance calculated at the Auction Reference Price, and Imbalance would continue to be calculated at the Indicative Match Price.
Rule 7.35E(a)(7)(B) currently defines “Market Imbalance” as the imbalance of any remaining buy (sell) Market Orders that are not matched for trading in the applicable auction. The Market Imbalance is published as part of the Auction Imbalance Information and is also used for other purposes, such as to determine whether to extend the Re-Opening Time for a Trading Halt Auction.
Rule 7.35E(a)(8) defines “Indicative Match Price” as the best price at which the maximum volume of shares, including the non-displayed quantity of Reserve Orders, is tradable in the applicable auction, subject to the Auction Collars. Rule 7.35E(a)(8)(D) currently provides that, if there is a BBO but no Matched Volume, the Indicative Match Price and Total Imbalance for the Auction Imbalance Information will be either the side of the BBO that has the higher volume or, if the volume of the BB equals the volume of the BO, the BB. The Exchange publishes the Indicative Match Price in this manner to continue to attract interest to participate in the auction. The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 7.35E(a)(8)(D) to provide that, if there is no Matched Volume, the Indicative Match Price for the Auction Imbalance Information will be set to zero. The Exchange believes that this proposed change would improve the transparency of the Auction Imbalance Information with respect to the Indicative Match Price and is logical because, if there is no Matched Volume, an auction would not take place.
Rule 7.35E(a)(9) currently defines “Matched Volume” as the number of buy and sell shares that can be matched at the Indicative Match Price at any given time. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.35E(a)(9) to define Matched Volume as the number of buy and sell shares that can be matched at the Indicative Match Price at any given time except for purposes of Auction Imbalance Information. For Auction Imbalance Information, the Exchange proposes that Matched Volume will mean the number of buy and sell shares that can be matched at the Auction Reference Price at any given time. This proposed change is consistent with the change described above to the definition of Market Imbalance. Like Market Imbalance, Matched Volume is published as part of the Auction Imbalance Information but is also considered for other purposes in connection with auction processing.
Rule 7.35E(d) describes the Closing Auction, which is conducted at the end of the Core Trading Session. Rule 7.35E(d)(2) provides that the Closing Auction Imbalance Freeze will begin ten minutes before the scheduled time for the Closing Auction. Rule 7.35E(d)(2)(A) currently provides that LOC Orders and MOC Orders that are on the same side of the Imbalance, would flip the Imbalance, or would create a new Imbalance will be rejected.
Subject to effectiveness of this proposed rule change, the Exchange will implement this change no later than in the fourth quarter of 2025 and announce the implementation date by Trader Update.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed change would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the public interest because it would amend Rule 7.35E to reflect the dissemination of Auction Imbalance Information based on the Auction Reference Price rather than the Indicative Match Price. As noted above, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would provide market participants with enhanced Auction Imbalance Information and allow market participants to better respond to imbalances in the market for a security, thereby promoting auction quality on the Exchange to the extent such information results in auctions taking place at prices closer to where securities are trading in the market. The Exchange believes that the proposed change would thus remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system because it is intended to provide market participants with information on the imbalance in the market for a security that could encourage additional liquidity in auctions conducted on the Exchange.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes to Rules 7.35E relating to LOC, MOC, LOO, and MOO Orders based on the Auction Reference Price would similarly remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market because they would, consistent with the proposed changes to the Auction Imbalance Information, provide for the validation of such orders based on the Total Imbalance (which is in turn based on the Auction Reference Price). These proposed changes would ensure that LOC, MOC, LOO, and MOO Orders continue to be validated based on publicly disseminated imbalance information, and would not change the current process by which the Exchange validates these orders. The Exchange also believes the proposed change to Rule 7.35E(a)(8)(D) relating to the Indicative Match Price when there is a BBO but no Matched Volume would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system because it would promote transparency with respect to the Indicative Match Price while continuing to provide market participants with price information
The Exchange further notes that this proposed change would align its calculation of publicly disseminated auction imbalance information with the current process on NYSE, thereby promoting consistency across the operation of affiliated exchanges to the benefit of market participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As noted above, the Exchange believes that the proposed change could instead encourage competition by improving the quality of auction imbalance information disseminated by the Exchange.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSEAMER-2025-52 and should be submitted on or before September 24, 2025.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The current parties to the Symbology Plan are BOX Exchange, LLC, Nasdaq BX, Inc., Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., Cboe Exchange, Inc., NYSE Texas, Inc, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., Investors Exchange, LLC, Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc., MEMX LLC, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, MIAX PEARL, LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE National, Inc., NYSE Arca, Inc., and Nasdaq PHLX LLC. The proposed amendment to the Symbology Plan would add 24X as a party to the Symbology Plan. A self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) may become a party to the Symbology Plan if it satisfies the requirements of Section I(c) of the Plan. Specifically, an SRO may become a party to the Symbology Plan if: (i) it maintains a market for the listing or trading of Plan Securities
The Exchange has submitted a signed copy of the Symbology Plan to the Commission in accordance with the requirement set forth in the Symbology Plan regarding new parties to the plan. Additionally, 24X has represented that it maintains a market for the listing or trading of Plan Securities. Finally, 24X has represented that it has become a party to any contract with the Processor.
The foregoing proposed Symbology Plan amendment has become effective pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(iii)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the Amendment is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 18, 2025, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On April 17, 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, 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to adopt a provision that the Exchange will not review a compliance plan (a “Plan”) submitted by a listed company that is below compliance with a continued listing standard if the company owes any unpaid fees to the Exchange as of the date of the letter in which the Exchange informs the company of its non-compliance (the “Deficiency Letter”) and as disclosed by the Exchange in the Deficiency Letter. If a company fails to pay in full all outstanding listing or annual fees disclosed in the Deficiency Letter by the company's compliance plan submission deadline date, suspension and delisting procedures will commence promptly in accordance with Sections 1010 and 1202 of the Company Guide. Similarly, at the beginning of each calendar year fiscal quarter during the Plan Period (as defined below), the Exchange will disclose to the company in writing the amount of all unpaid listing and annual fees owed by the company to the Exchange as of the end of the just-completed quarter. If the company does not pay in full all of the outstanding fees disclosed in such report within 45 days of the date of receipt of such report, suspension and delisting procedures will commence promptly in accordance with Sections 1010 and 1202. A company will also not be deemed back into compliance prior to the completion of its Plan Period unless it has paid in full all of the outstanding fees disclosed in the most recent such report and suspension and delisting procedures will commence promptly in accordance with Sections 1010 and 1202 if such company has not paid in full all of the outstanding fees disclosed in the most recent such report as of the plan end date. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those 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 parts of such statements.
Section 1009 (“Continued Listing Evaluation and Follow-Up”) of the NYSE American Company Guide (“Company Guide”) provides that when the Exchange identifies a listed company as being below certain continued listing criteria set forth in Sections 1001 through 1006 of the Company Guide (and not able to otherwise qualify under an initial listing standard), the Exchange will notify the company of such non-compliance by letter and provide the company with an opportunity to provide the Exchange with a Plan advising the Exchange of action the company has taken, or will take, that would bring it into conformity with continued listing standards within 18 months of receipt of the letter.
If the Exchange accepts the Plan, the Exchange will review the company for compliance with the Plan on a quarterly basis. If the company does not show progress consistent with the Plan, the
The Exchange staff has to undertake a significant amount of work in reviewing and analyzing each Plan submitted by a noncompliant company. In addition, the review of quarterly updates with respect to each Plan requires significant additional work by Exchange staff. In connection with an initial Plan review and each subsequent update, the staff engages in a detailed review and analysis of the company's filed financial and other disclosures, as well as supplemental documentation submitted by the company in support of the Plan or to evidence progress in successful implementation of the Plan. The staff is required to become deeply informed about the business and financial condition and the prospects of the company, including any material risks faced by the company. In order to achieve this level of understanding, the staff typically engages in multiple detailed conversations with management in addition to the extensive documentary review that is undertaken. This process requires significant expenditure of staff resources, including the significant involvement of senior staff members.
Given the significant work required to review and analyze Plans, as well as to undertake the required quarterly review with respect to a Plan, the Exchange believes it is especially important to ensure that companies that wish to have a Plan accepted or continued by the Exchange have paid all outstanding annual and listing fees (as set forth in Section 140
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 1009 to provide that the Exchange will not review a Plan submitted by a listed company that is below compliance with a continued listing standard if the company owes any unpaid fees to the Exchange as of the date of the Deficiency Letter and as disclosed by the Exchange in the Deficiency Letter. This proposal is modeled on substantially similar amendments recently adopted to Sections 802.02 and 802.03 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual.
The Exchange notes that companies that are delayed in submitting their periodic reports to the SEC may be granted a compliance period of up to 12 months from the extended due date of the delayed filing under Section 1007 of the Company Guide. However, the Exchange does not propose to require the payment of outstanding fees before granting or extending compliance periods under Section 1007. The Exchange does not expend a similar amount of effort in reviewing and approving compliance periods for late filers to that required in reviewing Plans for quantitative non-compliance, as the issues involved are generally narrower and more technical in nature and do not require a review of a compliance plan that encompasses all of a company's business and financial condition. The Exchange also notes that companies that are delayed in filing their periodic reports are often in good financial health and do not present significant risks of quantitative non-compliance or of being delisted without paying their outstanding fees.
Section 1003(h) of the Company Guide applies to a listed issuer that is not compliant with the provisions of Section 811 of the Company Guide (“Erroneously Awarded Compensation”) (referred to as a “clawback requirement delinquency”) and provides a process for an issuer subject to a clawback requirement delinquency to come back into compliance with Exchange rules that is similar to the process set forth in Section 1007 of the Company Guide described above. However, the Exchange does not propose to apply the proposed provision with respect to the payment of outstanding fees before granting or extending compliance periods under Section 1003(h). While the Exchange does not yet have very much experience in applying Section 1003(h), the Exchange does not anticipate that it will generally expend a similar amount of effort in reviewing and approving compliance periods for clawback delinquencies to that required in reviewing Plans for quantitative non-compliance, as the Exchange expects the issues involved in clawback delinquencies to generally be narrower and more technical in nature and to not require a review of a compliance plan that encompasses all of a company's business and financial condition.
In addition to the detail provided immediately above, the Exchange notes that Sections 1003(h) and 1007 already contain specified timelines to cure noncompliance arising thereunder. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the procedures for plan submission detailed in Section 1009 are applicable to companies that are noncompliant with the requirements of Sections 1003(h) or 1007. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to add language to Section 1009 stating that such section is not applicable to events of noncompliance with Sections 1003(h) or 1007.
In addition to the aforementioned changes, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 1009 of the Company Guide to conform language related to its suspension and delisting procedures. Therefore, throughout Section 1009, the Exchange proposes to clarify the
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change furthers the protection of investors in that it will help the Exchange to ensure that it has sufficient resources to fund its regulatory activities relating to the review and approval and the ongoing monitoring of Plans submitted by companies that are below continued listing standards.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed requirement is unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange notes that the proposal would only require listed companies to pay fees that were already due and payable and ensure payment of those fees in connection with a process that is resource-intensive and costly for the Exchange.
The Exchange also notes that companies that are delayed in submitting their periodic reports to the SEC may be granted a compliance period of up to 12 months from the extended due date of the delayed filing under Section 1007 of the Company Guide. However, the Exchange does not propose to adopt a similar provision with respect to the payment of outstanding fees before granting or extending compliance periods under Section 1007. The Exchange does not expend a similar amount of effort in reviewing and approving compliance periods for late filers to that required in reviewing Plans for quantitative non-compliance, as the issues involved are generally narrower and more technical in nature and do not require a review of a compliance plan that encompasses all of a company's business and financial condition. The Exchange also notes that companies that are delayed in filing their periodic reports are often in good financial health and do not present significant risks of quantitative non-compliance. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange does not believe that the proposal is unfairly discriminatory on the grounds that it is not applied to companies that are non-compliant with Section 1007.
Section 1003(h) of the Company Guide applies to a listed issuer that is not compliant with the provisions of Section 811 of the Company Guide (“Erroneously Awarded Compensation”) (referred to as a “clawback requirement delinquency”) and provides a process for an issuer subject to a clawback requirement delinquency to come back into compliance with Exchange rules that is similar to the process set forth in Section 1007 of the Company Guide described above. However, the Exchange does not propose to apply the proposed provision with respect to the payment of outstanding fees before granting or extending compliance periods under Section 1003(h). While the Exchange does not yet have very much experience in applying Section 1003(h), the Exchange does not anticipate that it will generally expend a similar amount of effort in reviewing and approving compliance periods for clawback delinquencies to that required in reviewing Plans for quantitative non-compliance, as the Exchange expects the issues involved in clawback delinquencies to generally be narrower and more technical in nature and to not require a review of a compliance plan that encompasses all of a company's business and financial condition. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange does not believe that the proposal is unfairly discriminatory on the grounds that it is not applied to companies that are non-compliant with Section 1003(h).
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(7) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed amendments would simply require listed companies to pay fees to the Exchange that were already due and payable under applicable Exchange rules. Specifically, the Exchange believes it is fair to require listed companies to pay all outstanding listing and annual fees before the Exchange approves a Plan or required periodic review of a Plan, as listed companies are already required by Exchange rules (as set forth in Section 140
As the proposal would not result in any change in the cost of a listing on the Exchange, the Exchange does not believe that it imposes any additional burden on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Market Data Fees section of the Fee Schedule to adopt a fee for real-time access to DEEP+, which is currently offered free of charge.
In September 2024 the Exchange filed an immediately effective rule filing with the Commission to amend IEX Rule 11.330 to add DEEP+ and provide that for an initial incentive period DEEP+ would be provided free of charge for all purposes. IEX also modified the Fee Schedule to add DEEP+ to the table of Market Data Fees and to indicate that DEEP+ would be offered free of charge for an initial incentive period.
The Exchange now proposes to amend the Market Data section of the Fee Schedule to adopt a new fee for the DEEP+ real-time market data feed, referred to therein as DEEP+ Feed (Real-Time). As proposed, the Exchange proposes to adopt a monthly fee of $3,500 per month for real-time access to DEEP+ that would cover all uses of the feed, as discussed below. The Exchange is not proposing to adopt any fee for delayed access to DEEP+.
A single fee covering all uses of the market data feed is consistent with the Exchange's current fee structure for its other real-time market data products, which also have single, unitary fees.
In general, the Exchange believes that exchanges, in setting fees of all types, should meet very high standards of transparency to demonstrate why each new fee or fee increase meets the Exchange Act requirements. The Exchange believes this high standard is especially important when an exchange imposes fees for its own depth of book market data because each exchange is the exclusive source of its own depth of book market data.
The Exchange believes the proposed fee is reasonable when compared with the aggregate fees charged by other exchanges for comparable market data products, notwithstanding that the other exchanges may have different market data product fee structures. More specifically, as described in the Statutory Basis section, the proposed fee is lower than the aggregate fees charged by other exchanges with similar market share as IEX for comparable market data products and materially lower than the fees charged by exchanges with higher market share than IEX for comparable market data products.
The Exchange plans to implement the proposed fee change on October 1, 2025, subject to effectiveness of this proposed rule change, in order to provide an opportunity to Data Subscribers to update their subscriptions to suit their particular market data needs. On July 1, 2025, the Exchange announced the planned implementation of the proposed fee for real-time access to DEEP+ on October 1, 2025, subject to the filing and effectiveness of an SEC rule filing.
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee of $3,500 per month for real-time access to DEEP+ is reasonable because it is less than the fees charged by many other exchanges for comparable market data products and, more specifically, less than the fees charged by other exchanges with similar or lower market share
As described in the Purpose section, the proposed fee for real-time access to DEEP+ would be an all-inclusive access fee with no additional usage fees. Other exchanges charge fees in addition to an access fee or internal distribution fee depending on how the subscriber is using the data, such as for internal trading purposes, external distribution and/or per user fees. As described more fully below, IEX believes that its proposed all-inclusive fee is lower than the aggregate fees charged by other exchanges with similar or lower market share for similar data products notwithstanding the different fee structures used by such other exchanges.
Currently the most prevalent use of DEEP+ is for non-display purposes, such as internal algorithmic trading or operating a trading venue. The Exchange requires Data Subscribers to regularly report their usage of IEX Market Data.
As summarized in the table below, the proposed fee of $3,500 per month would be lower than fees charged by exchanges with similar or lower market share as IEX for non-display usage of their comparable market data feeds. A more detailed discussion of the comparison follows.
The remaining DEEP+ subscribers that do not use the data feed for internal non-display or non-display trading platform purposes are external distributors of the DEEP+ data feed that distribute the data feed in real-time to unaffiliated third-parties, without controlling the entitlement to and display of the data feed.
As summarized in the table below, the proposed fee of $3,500 per month would be within the range of fees charged by exchanges with lower market share than IEX for external distribution of their comparable market data feeds. A more detailed discussion of the comparison follows.
The proposed fee would be lower than the fees charged by NYSE National and NYSE American, which each charge $4,000, comprised of a $2,500 access fee and a $1,500 redistribution fee for such purpose. The proposed fee would be higher than the fees charged for external distribution for comparable market data products by MEMX and MIAX Pearl, both of which have lower market share than IEX. MEMX and MIAX Pearl each charge a single external distribution fee of $2,500 and do not charge an access fee for external distribution.
Based on reporting from the Exchange's current Data Subscribers, as described above, none of the Exchange's Data Subscribers use the real-time DEEP+ data feed solely for display
With respect to external display use, none of the Exchange's current Data Subscribers report that they redistribute real-time DEEP+ to nonaffiliates for display use by such recipients. Any such future redistribution of either the NYSE National or NYSE American comparable data feed would be subject to an access fee, a redistribution fee, plus per user fees for any display use totaling at least $4,000 per month, more than IEX's proposed monthly fee of $3,500.
Moreover, the Exchange believes that display use of an order-by-order market data product such as real-time DEEP+ would typically be accessed from a product of a commercial data vendor, such as Bloomberg or Refinitiv, rather than directly from a national securities exchange for economic reasons, given that display-only usage does not necessarily require direct access to a low-latency data feed.
The Exchange believes that its proposed fee for real-time access to the DEEP+ data feed is reasonable, fair, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes the proposed fee for the market data feed is fair and equitable because it is optional and applies uniformly to all Data Subscribers, irrespective of their relationship with the Exchange (
Moreover, the $3,500 monthly fee would apply equally to all Data Subscribers. The decision to subscribe to real-time access to DEEP+ or any other market data feed offered by IEX is within the control of any particular market participant, and each market participant has the ability to choose the market data product (or combination of products) best suited to its business objectives. Each Data Subscriber would be subject to the same comparatively low fee and can also receive the same data on a 15-minute delayed basis for no fee or a similar data feed (
Accordingly, based on the foregoing analysis, IEX believes that the proposed fee for real-time access to DEEP+ is consistent with the Act.
IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Use of real-time DEEP+ is optional. As discussed in the Statutory Basis section, each Data Subscriber would be subject to the same comparatively low fee and can also receive the same data on a 15-minute delayed basis for no fee or a similar data feed (
Further, as discussed in the Statutory Basis section, the proposed fee is within the range of fees charged by other exchanges for comparable market data products and less than the fees charged for such products by exchanges with similar or lower market share than IEX. Thus, IEX does not believe that the proposed relatively low fee would operate as a barrier to entry, or impose a significant cost burden, on smaller Members or Data Subscribers.
The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As discussed in the Statutory Basis section, other exchanges charge higher fees for comparable market data products. Market participants are not required to subscribe to any market data feed. The proposed fee is designed to enhance IEX's competitiveness by offering real-time access to DEEP+ at a reasonable price and lower than the fees charged by competing exchanges with similar or lower market share for comparable market data products. Moreover, competing exchanges are free to adopt comparable fee structures subject to the Commission rule filing process.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 14, 2025, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
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, as modified by Amendment No. 2. 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 of applications for deregistration under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.
The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of August 2025. A copy of each application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the applicable file number listed below, 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
The Commission:
Shawn Davis, Assistant Director, at (202) 551-6413 or Chief Counsel's Office at (202) 551-6821; SEC, Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-8010.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) regarding colocation services and fees to update the list of included data products. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those 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 parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule regarding colocation services and fees to update the list of included data products (“Included Data Products”).
Currently, the table of Included Data Products in Colocation Note 4 sets forth the market data feeds that Users
NYSE Texas, Inc. filed to establish an “NYSE Texas Order Imbalances” proprietary market data product (the “NYSE Texas Feed”).
The Exchange does not charge for connectivity to the Included Data Feeds. Accordingly, it would not charge for connectivity to the NYSE Texas Feed.
The proposed changes would not apply differently to distinct types or sizes of market participants. Rather, they would apply to all Users equally. As is currently the case, the purchase of any colocation service, including connectivity to the NYSE Texas Feed, would be completely voluntary and the Fee Schedule would be applied uniformly to all Users.
FIDS does not expect that the proposed rule change will result in new Users.
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that customers would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable and would perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, because adding the NYSE Texas Feed would increase the number of Included Data Products available to Users for no additional charge. All Users that voluntarily select to access the LCN or IP network would not be subject to a charge above and beyond the fee paid for the relevant LCN or IP network access. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable because the change would mean that a User would have the option of adding connectivity to additional market data feeds without paying additional charges.
Adding the NYSE Texas Feed to the list of Included Data Products would allow a User to connect to the NYSE Texas Feed if it wished but would not require it to do so. As now, a User would be able to determine which Included Data Products, if any, to which it connects, based on what would best serve its needs, tailoring the service to the requirements of its business operations.
By adding the NYSE Texas Feed, the proposed change would ensure that the list of Included Data Products was up to date. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable and would perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, as it would ensure that the description of Included Data Products was complete, ensuring that it is accessible and transparent, and providing market participants with clarity as to what connectivity is included in the purchase of access to the LCN and IP networks.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers because adding the NYSE Texas Feed would increase the number of Included Data Products available to Users for no additional charge. All Users that voluntarily select to access the LCN or IP network would not be subject to a charge above and beyond the fee paid for the relevant LCN or IP network access. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the change would mean that a User would have the option of adding connectivity to an additional market data feed without paying additional charges.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory since, as is true now, the proposed change would not apply differently to distinct types or sizes of Users but would apply to all Users equally. Moreover, adding the proposed additional Included Data Product would allow a User to connect to the NYSE Texas Feed if it wished, but would not require it to do so. As now, a User would be able to determine which Included Data Products, if any, to which it connects, based on what would best serve its needs, tailoring the service to the requirements of its business operations.
By adding the NYSE Texas Feed, the proposed change would ensure that the list of Included Data Products was up to date. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, as it would ensure that the description of Included Data Products was complete, ensuring that it is accessible and transparent, and providing market participants with clarity as to what connectivity is included in the purchase of access to the LCN and IP networks.
For the reasons above, the proposed changes do not unfairly discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements, terms, and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposal will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because adding the NYSE Texas Feed would increase the number of Included Data Products available to Users for no additional charge. All Users that voluntarily select to access the LCN or IP network would not be subject to a charge above and beyond the fee paid for the relevant LCN or IP network access. Accordingly, the change would mean that a User would have the option of adding connectivity to an additional market data feed without paying additional charges.
Adding the proposed additional Included Data Product would allow a User to connect to the NYSE Texas Feed if it wished, but would not require it to do so. In this way, the proposed changes would enhance competition by, as now, enabling a User to determine to which Included Data Products, if any, it connects, based on what would best serve its needs, tailoring the service to the requirements of its business operations.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
By adding the NYSE Texas Feed, the proposed change would ensure that the list of Included Data Products was up to date. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed addition to the description of Included Data Products would make the description more accessible and transparent. In this manner, the proposed change would provide market participants with clarity as to what connectivity is included in the purchase of access to the LCN and IP networks, thereby enhancing competition by ensuring that all Users have access to the same information regarding the Included Data Products.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 107(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Act”), notice is hereby given that on [Date of Form 19b-4 Submission], the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“Board” or “PCAOB”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the Board. The PCAOB has designated such proposed rule change as “constituting a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or
The Board is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to delay the effective date of QC 1000,
The new effective date would apply to the following standards, rules, and forms:
• New quality control standard QC 1000,
• New PCAOB Rule 3400,
• New PCAOB Rule 2203A,
• Amended and retitled AS 2901,
• New ethics standard EI 1000,
• New AS 1310,
• Amendments to AS 1215,
The proposed rule change would also delay the effective date of the rescission of (i) Rule 3400T,
Until Rule 3400T is rescinded on December 15, 2026, the following interim quality control standards will remain in effect: QC Section 20,
In the Board's filing with the Commission, the Board described the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined as specified in Item IV below. The Board has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In the Board's May 24, 2024 Form 19b-4 filing seeking Commission approval of the new and amended standards, rules, and forms identified in Item I above, the Board stated that, if approved by the SEC, those standards, rules, and forms would take effect on December 15, 2025 (with initial evaluations of quality control systems to be performed as of September 30, 2026, and initial reporting to the PCAOB on PCAOB Form QC by November 30, 2026). Firms would have been permitted at any point following SEC approval to elect to comply with the requirements of QC 1000 before the December 15, 2025 effective date (except as to reporting to the PCAOB on the evaluation of the quality control system). The Commission approved the new and amended standards, rules, and forms on September 9, 2024.
During the rulemaking process, the Board sought and received comments on the appropriate effective date. When the Board adopted the new and amended standards, rules, and forms identified in Item I above, the Board stated its belief, taking into account those comments, that a December 15, 2025 effective date would strike an appropriate balance between the benefits to investors of having QC 1000 take effect as promptly as practicable, while allowing sufficient time for registered public accounting firms to design and implement robust, QC 1000-compliant quality control systems.
As the effective date approaches, however, the Board has needed to consider information, from various sources, to the effect that some firms have encountered implementation challenges that may, as a practical
Having considered that information, the Board delayed the effective date of the new and amended standards, rules, and forms described in PCAOB Release No. 2024-005 for one year, to December 15, 2026 (with initial evaluations of quality control systems to be performed as of September 30, 2027, and initial reporting to the PCAOB on PCAOB Form QC by November 30, 2027). The Board stated that it believes that an additional year is sufficient time for firms that have encountered implementation challenges to overcome those challenges. In adopting the proposed rule change, the Board considered the potential costs associated with a one-year delay of the effective date—which would postpone the benefits to investors and other stakeholders from having the new and amended standards, rules, and forms in effect—and the significant costs that could result from incomplete or faulty implementation of the new requirements if firms were not allowed sufficient time to comply.
The Commission previously determined that the new and amended standards should apply to audits of emerging growth companies (“EGCs”), as that term is defined in Section 3(a)(80) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Board does not believe that an additional determination is necessary in order for the proposed rule change, which merely postpones the effective date for the new and amended standards, rules, and forms, to apply to the audits of EGCs.
The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Title I of the Act.
The Board does not believe that the proposed rules would result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of Title I of the Act.
The Board did not solicit or receive written comments on this proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of Title I of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rules are consistent with the requirements of Title I of the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Office of the Chief Accountant, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 527, Exchange Liability, to provide a one-time accommodation payment to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On June 3, 2025, the Exchange experienced system difficulties as a result of the Operational Error, which caused the Exchange's simulation/testing environment to connect to the MIAX Sapphire production ports and inject data into the MIAX Sapphire matching engines in the live trading environment. Upon discovery of this issue, trading in all symbols on the Exchange was halted at 11:49 a.m.
Since the June 3, 2025 Operational Error, Members compiled their trade data showing losses as a result of the Operational Error and the Exchange canceling all trades during the specific timeframe described above. The Exchange reviewed the events of June 3, 2025 with the goal of proposing a fair and equitable accommodation policy that is consistent with the Exchange Act and MIAX Sapphire's self-regulatory obligations. The Exchange believes this proposal reflects MIAX Sapphire's effort to: (i) identify the categories of investors and Members that the Operational Error caused objective, discernible harm, and the type and scope of such harm; and (ii) propose an objectively reasonable and balanced regulatory plan for accommodating Members and their investor customers for such harm by providing a payment in excess of the Exchange's current rules regarding limitation of liability. MIAX Sapphire has undertaken this effort notwithstanding the liability protections afforded by its contractual limitations of liability and Exchange Rule 527—the rule that MIAX Sapphire proposes to modify.
The Exchange's current limitation of liability rules, described in detail below, limit the maximum amount of compensation Members are able to receive from the Exchange arising out of a system issue that impacts the use or enjoyment of the facilities or services afforded by the Exchange, such as the Operational Error. In the interest of protecting Members and their investor customers,
This type of accommodation plan is not without precedent. In 2012, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) experienced system difficulties in the Nasdaq halt and imbalance cross process in connection with the initial public offering (“IPO”) of Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”). In response, Nasdaq filed with the Commission a proposal to establish an accommodation policy providing compensation for impacted investors in excess of Nasdaq's then-applicable limitation of liability rules, which proposal was approved by the Commission.
Exchange Rule 527(a) describes the general limitations on liability of the Exchange, its directors, officers, committee members, limited liability company members, employees or agents. Exchange Rule 527(a) provides, in relevant part, that except as provided in paragraph (b) of Exchange Rule 527 or otherwise expressly provided in the Exchange's rules, neither the Exchange nor its directors, officers, committee members, limited liability company members, employees or agents shall be liable to Members or persons associated therewith for any loss, expense, damages, or other claims arising out of the use or enjoyment of the facilities or services afforded by the Exchange, including the interruption in or failure or unavailability of such facilities or services, or any action taken or omitted in respect to the business of the Exchange. Exchange Rule 527(a) provides limited exceptions to these limitations in connection with Exchange employee acts where the extent of such loss, expense, damages or claims are attributable to the willful misconduct, gross negligence, bad faith or fraudulent or criminal acts of the Exchange or its officers, employees or agents acting within the scope of their authority.
Exchange Rule 527(b) further describes exceptions to the Exchange's general limitation of liability rule that allows for the payment of compensation to Members for Exchange System
Subparagraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of Exchange Rule 527 set forth the limits for claims made by Members, individually and in the aggregate, related to Exchange System issues that impact the use or enjoyment of the facilities of the Exchange. The liability limits provided for in Exchange Rules 527(b)(1)-(3) are as follows: (1) as to any one or more claims made by a single Member growing out of the use or enjoyment of the facilities afforded by the Exchange on a single trading day, the Exchange shall not be liable in excess of the larger of $100,000 or the amount of any recovery obtained by the Exchange under any applicable insurance maintained by the Exchange; (2) as to the aggregate of all claims made by all Members growing out of the use or enjoyment of the facilities afforded by the Exchange on a single trading day, the Exchange shall not be liable in excess of the larger of $250,000 or the amount of the recovery obtained by the Exchange under any applicable insurance maintained by the Exchange; and (3) as to the aggregate of all claims made by all Members growing out of the use or enjoyment of the facilities afforded by the Exchange during a single calendar month, the Exchange shall not be liable in excess of the larger of $500,000 or the amount of the recovery obtained by the Exchange under any applicable insurance maintained by the Exchange.
Exchange Rule 527(c) provides that if all of the claims arising out of the use or enjoyment of the facilities afforded by the Exchange cannot be fully satisfied because, in the aggregate, they exceed the applicable maximum amount of liability provided for in subparagraph (b) of Exchange Rule 527, then such maximum amount shall be allocated among all such claims arising on a single trading day or during a single calendar month, as applicable, based upon the proportion that each claim bears to the sum of all claims. Subparagraph (c) further provides that in order for claims to be included in this allocation, Members must submit written notice of their claim to the Exchange no later than the opening of trading on the next business day following the day on which the use or enjoyment of Exchange facilities giving rise to the claim occurred.
As described above, due to the Operational Error on June 3, 2025, the Exchange determined to cancel all trades executed on MIAX Sapphire between 11:18 a.m. and 11:33 a.m. Upon learning of the Operational Error, members of the Exchange's Regulatory Operations Department contacted all Members to discuss the Operational Error, the Exchange's proposed method of remedying trades based on erroneous simulation/testing environment data, and the manner in which Members should submit claims for compensation. Members were advised to immediately contact their customers and to compile execution reports for trades made during the timeframe of the Operational Error as well as execution reports for “replacement trades”
After receipt of all Members' claims over the course of several weeks, Exchange officials reviewed each claimed loss by validating the canceled trade execution prices reported during the timeframe of the Operational Error and the execution prices of the subsequent replacement trades. For trading losses that resulted from a Member executing the replacement trade on MIAX Sapphire, the Exchange: (A) first validated that the canceled trade took place on MIAX Sapphire during the timeframe of the Operational Error based on the Member's MPID;
For trading losses that resulted from a Member executing the replacement trade on an away-exchange, the Exchange: (A) first validated that the canceled trade took place on MIAX Sapphire during the timeframe of the Operational Error based on the Member's MPID; (B) validated the claimed execution price of the canceled trade; and (C) validated the execution price of the replacement trade by comparing such price against the closing or opening price of the option, depending on the time of execution, as well as the size of the replacement trade in comparison to the original trade that was canceled. The measure of loss was calculated based on the difference between the net execution price of the canceled trade and the execution price of the replacement trade.
The Exchange determined to use the closing or opening price of the series of options for replacement trades executed on away-exchanges as an initial check to determine whether the claimed replacement trade execution price was within a reasonable range for that particular series of options. As described above, the Exchange issued an alert to inform all Members that it would cancel all trades during the
The Exchange now proposes to amend Exchange Rule 527 to provide a one-time accommodation payment for Members with claims arising from the Operational Error that the Exchange experienced on June 3, 2025 that exceed the limitations provided for in Exchange Rule 527(b)(1)-(3), including the amount of compensation on a per-Member basis. The modifications proposed in this rule change are not intended to and do not affect the limitations of liability set forth in the Exchange's agreements or Commission-sanctioned rules, or those limitations or immunities that bar claims for damages against MIAX Sapphire as a matter of law. Rather, as noted above, they reflect the Exchange's determination to adopt a fair and equitable accommodation policy that takes into account the impacts of the Exchange's Operational Error on Members and their investor customers.
The Exchange proposes to establish new paragraph (e), which will state that notwithstanding paragraphs (b)(1)-(3) and paragraph (c)
Proposed subparagraph (e)(1) of Exchange Rule 527 will provide that all claims for compensation under this paragraph (e) shall arise solely from realized trading losses from executions that occurred on the Exchange on June 3, 2025 between 11:18 a.m. and 11:33 a.m. Eastern Time that the Exchange subsequently canceled pursuant to Exchange Rule 523, causing Members to execute a new trade on the Exchange or at an away-exchange to replace the canceled trade. The measure of loss was determined by the Exchange pursuant to proposed subparagraphs (e)(1)(i)-(ii), described below.
Proposed subparagraph (e)(1)(i) of Exchange Rule 527 will provide that for trading losses that resulted from a Member executing the replacement trade on MIAX Sapphire, the Exchange: (A) first validated that the canceled trade took place on MIAX Sapphire during the timeframe of the Operational Error based on the Member's MPID; (B) validated the claimed execution price of the canceled trade; (C) validated that the replacement trade took place on MIAX Sapphire; and (D) validated the execution price of the replacement trade. The measure of loss was calculated based on the difference between the net execution price of the canceled trade and the replacement trade.
Proposed subparagraph (e)(1)(ii) of Exchange Rule 527 will provide that for trading losses that resulted from a Member executing the replacement trade on an away-exchange, the Exchange: (A) first validated that the canceled trade took place on MIAX Sapphire during the timeframe of the Operational Error based on the Member's MPID; (B) validated the claimed execution price of the canceled trade; and (C) validated the execution price of the replacement trade by comparing such price against the closing or opening price of the option, depending on the time of execution, as well as the size of the replacement trade in comparison to the original trade that was canceled. The measure of loss was calculated based on the difference between the net execution price of the canceled trade and the replacement trade.
Proposed subparagraph (e)(1)(iii) of Exchange Rule 527 will provide that for purposes of this proposed Exchange Rule 527(e), unless stated otherwise, the term “replacement trade” shall be construed to mean the new trade executed by a Member on MIAX Sapphire or at an away-exchange that was executed to replace the original trade that was canceled by MIAX Sapphire during the timeframe of the Operational Error.
Proposed subparagraph (e)(2) of Exchange Rule 527 will state that in no event shall the Exchange make any payments on claims pursuant to proposed paragraph (e) until the rule proposal filed with the Commission setting forth the amount of eligible claims becomes effective and final. The Exchange proposes to make all payments for approved claims in cash.
Proposed subparagraph (e)(3) will provide that payments to Members under proposed paragraph (e) are contingent upon the submission to the Exchange of an attestation within 14 calendar days after the effective date of the rule proposal described in proposed paragraph (e)(2), detailing the information described in proposed
Proposed subparagraph (e)(4) of Exchange Rule 527 will provide that all payments to Members under proposed paragraph (e) will be contingent upon the execution and delivery to the Exchange of a release by the Member of all claims by it or its affiliates
The accommodation payment policy proposed herein is a voluntary step taken by the Exchange to provide a substantial and rare accommodation to its Members and their customers, and participation in the program is likewise voluntary on the part of Members. The Exchange believes this type of occurrence warrants the establishment of an accommodation plan because, prior to the Operational Error, neither the Exchange nor any of its affiliates experienced a systems issue similar to that of the Operational Error. The Exchange believes that it would be inequitable to approve the Exchange's voluntary program without also allowing it to establish conditions that promote certainty and finality.
The Exchange notes that it has received all claims that apply to the Operational Error and that no new additional claims will be accepted, subject to any final adjustments due to late discovery up to the time of payment of such claims. As described above, immediately following the June 3, 2025 Operational Error, the Exchange's Regulatory Operations Department spoke to each Member to discuss the Operational Error, the Exchange's proposed method of remedying trades based on erroneous simulation/testing environment data and the manner in which Members should submit claims for compensation. The Exchange independently verified each Member's claim and confirmed the loss amount with each Member prior to submitting this rule filing. The Exchange believes its proposal is designed to implement a fair and equitable accommodation policy that takes into account the impacts of the Operational Error on the investing public and Exchange Members.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposal to expand its accommodation policy in this unique set of circumstances will balance several important goals in keeping with the foregoing statutory objectives. First, the Exchange acknowledges that the June 3, 2025 Operational Error had an impact on certain of its Members and their customers. As a result, the Exchange believes that the public interest would be served by an accommodation policy that quantifies and provides compensation for customer losses that were directly attributable to those system issues in an objectively discernible manner. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the public interest would be served by the Exchange making accommodation payments in excess of its limitation of liability rules to fully compensate Members that provided details regarding their claimed losses as a result of the Operational Error in an objectively discernible manner. The Exchange further believes that the public interest would be served by the Exchange providing as an accommodation the loss differential for the trade execution canceled by MIAX Sapphire and the replacement trade—that is the difference between the price that was expected upon execution on MIAX Sapphire during the timeframe of the Operational Error and the subsequent execution price for the replacement trade that was actually obtained on the Exchange or at an away-exchange.
Second, the Exchange believes that it is important to recognize the regulatory policy objectives underlying Exchange Rule 527 and ensure that they are not compromised. Hundreds of billions of dollars (or more) of securities transactions are matched through the systems of the Exchange and other exchanges every day. Through the operation of those systems, exchanges provide invaluable services in support of capital formation, price discovery, and investor protection. If exchanges could be called upon to bear all costs associated with system malfunctions and the varying reactions of market participants taken in their wake, the potential would exist for a single catastrophic event to bankrupt one or multiple exchanges, with attendant consequences for investor confidence and macroeconomic stability. Alternatively, the cost of providing exchange services would have to rise dramatically for all investors to cover this material and new risk.
Moreover, if the potential for such catastrophic losses existed, as noted above, it would need to be reflected in the fees charged by exchanges to market participants in a manner that is not currently the case, making trading more expensive for all investors all the time. Rather, as the Commission has recognized, provisions such as Exchange Rule 527 reflect the view that risks associated with system malfunctions should be allocated among all exchange members, rather than being borne solely by the exchange. Indeed, this view is consistently reflected in the limitation of liability rules common among United States exchanges.
The Exchange further believes that, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
As described above, this type of proposal is not without precedent and is based on the accommodation plan implemented by Nasdaq in 2012 for system difficulties in the Nasdaq halt and imbalance cross process in connection with the IPO of Facebook.
The proposed rule change would not impose any burden on competition. The proposed rule change is designed to promote fairness in the marketplace by providing compensation to Members and their customers that experienced a loss as a result of the June 3, 2025 Operational Error. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will not burden intra-market competition because all Members would be subject to the same standards and requirements to receive accommodation payments as set forth in proposed Exchange Rule 527(e). The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will not burden inter-market competition because the proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (“BDCs”) and closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment entities.
TCW Direct Lending LLC, TCW Direct Lending VII LLC, TCW Direct Lending VIII LLC, TCW Star Direct Lending LLC, TCW Spirit Direct Lending LLC, TCW Private Asset Income Fund, TCW Asset Backed Finance Management Company LLC, TCW Direct Lending Private Fund VIII LP, TCW Direct Lending Strategic Ventures LLC, TCW Brazos Fund LLC, NJ/TCW Direct Lending LLC, West Virginia Direct Lending LLC, TCW Skyline Lending, L.P., TCW Direct Lending Structured Solutions 2019 LLC, TCW Direct Lending Structured Solutions 2022 LLC, TCW Asset Management Company LLC, TCW Steel City Perpetual Levered Fund LP, TCW Steel City Unlevered Private Fund LP and TCW PT Management Company LLC.
The application was filed on May 29, 2025, and amended on August 27, 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:
Thomas Ahmadifar, Branch Chief, Deepak T. Pai, Senior Counsel, or Daniele Marchesani, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' first amended application, dated August 27, 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)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) regarding colocation services and fees to update the list of included data products. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those 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 parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule regarding colocation services and fees to update the list of included data products (“Included Data Products”).
Currently, the table of Included Data Products in Colocation Note 4 sets forth the market data feeds that Users
NYSE Texas, Inc. filed to establish an “NYSE Texas Order Imbalances” proprietary market data product (the “NYSE Texas Feed”).
The Exchange does not charge for connectivity to the Included Data Feeds. Accordingly, it would not charge for connectivity to the NYSE Texas Feed.
The proposed changes would not apply differently to distinct types or sizes of market participants. Rather, they would apply to all Users equally. As is currently the case, the purchase of any colocation service, including connectivity to the NYSE Texas Feed, would be completely voluntary and the Fee Schedule would be applied uniformly to all Users.
FIDS does not expect that the proposed rule change will result in new Users.
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that customers would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable and would perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, because adding the NYSE Texas Feed would increase the number of Included Data Products available to Users for no additional charge. All Users that voluntarily select to access the LCN or IP network would not be subject to a charge above and beyond the fee paid for the relevant LCN or IP network access. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable because the change would mean that a User would have the option of adding connectivity to additional market data feeds without paying additional charges.
Adding the NYSE Texas Feed to the list of Included Data Products would allow a User to connect to the NYSE Texas Feed if it wished but would not require it to do so. As now, a User would be able to determine which Included Data Products, if any, to which it connects, based on what would best serve its needs, tailoring the service to the requirements of its business operations.
By adding the NYSE Texas Feed, the proposed change would ensure that the list of Included Data Products was up to date. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable and would perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, as it would ensure that the description of Included Data Products was complete, ensuring that it is accessible and transparent, and providing market participants with clarity as to what connectivity is included in the purchase of access to the LCN and IP networks.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers because adding the NYSE Texas Feed would increase the number of Included Data Products available to Users for no additional charge. All Users that voluntarily select to access the LCN or IP network would not be subject to a charge above and beyond the fee paid for the relevant LCN or IP network access. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the change would mean that a User would have the option of adding connectivity to an additional market data feed without paying additional charges.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory since, as is true now, the proposed change would not apply differently to distinct types or sizes of Users but would apply to all Users equally. Moreover, adding the proposed additional Included Data Product would allow a User to connect to the NYSE Texas Feed if it wished, but would not require it to do so. As now, a User would be able to determine which Included Data Products, if any, to which it connects, based on what would
By adding the NYSE Texas Feed, the proposed change would ensure that the list of Included Data Products was up to date. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, as it would ensure that the description of Included Data Products was complete, ensuring that it is accessible and transparent, and providing market participants with clarity as to what connectivity is included in the purchase of access to the LCN and IP networks.
For the reasons above, the proposed changes do not unfairly discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements, terms, and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposal will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because adding the NYSE Texas Feed would increase the number of Included Data Products available to Users for no additional charge. All Users that voluntarily select to access the LCN or IP network would not be subject to a charge above and beyond the fee paid for the relevant LCN or IP network access. Accordingly, the change would mean that a User would have the option of adding connectivity to an additional market data feed without paying additional charges.
Adding the proposed additional Included Data Product would allow a User to connect to the NYSE Texas Feed if it wished, but would not require it to do so. In this way, the proposed changes would enhance competition by, as now, enabling a User to determine to which Included Data Products, if any, it connects, based on what would best serve its needs, tailoring the service to the requirements of its business operations.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, as with the other Included Data Products, it believes it is not the exclusive method to connect to the NYSE Texas Feed. As alternatives to connecting to the NYSE Texas Feed as an Included Data Product, a User may connect to the market data feed through another User or through a connection to an Exchange access center outside the data center, third party access center, or third party vendor.
By adding the NYSE Texas Feed, the proposed change would ensure that the list of Included Data Products was up to date. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed addition to the description of Included Data Products would make the description more accessible and transparent. In this manner, the proposed change would provide market participants with clarity as to what connectivity is included in the purchase of access to the LCN and IP networks, thereby enhancing competition by ensuring that all Users have access to the same information regarding the Included Data Products.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) regarding colocation services and fees to update the list of included data products. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those 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 parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule regarding colocation services and fees to update the list of included data products (“Included Data Products”).
Currently, the table of Included Data Products in Colocation Note 4 sets forth the market data feeds that Users
NYSE Texas, Inc. filed to establish an “NYSE Texas Order Imbalances” proprietary market data product (the “NYSE Texas Feed”).
The Exchange does not charge for connectivity to the Included Data Feeds. Accordingly, it would not charge for connectivity to the NYSE Texas Feed.
The proposed changes would not apply differently to distinct types or sizes of market participants. Rather, they would apply to all Users equally. As is currently the case, the purchase of any colocation service, including connectivity to the NYSE Texas Feed, would be completely voluntary and the Fee Schedule would be applied uniformly to all Users.
FIDS does not expect that the proposed rule change will result in new Users.
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that customers would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable and would perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, because adding the NYSE Texas Feed would increase the number of Included Data Products available to Users for no additional charge. All Users that voluntarily select to access the LCN or IP network would not be subject to a charge above and beyond the fee paid for the relevant LCN or IP network access. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable because the change would mean that a User would have the option of adding connectivity to additional market data feeds without paying additional charges.
Adding the NYSE Texas Feed to the list of Included Data Products would allow a User to connect to the NYSE Texas Feed if it wished but would not require it to do so. As now, a User would be able to determine which Included Data Products, if any, to which it connects, based on what would best serve its needs, tailoring the service to the requirements of its business operations.
By adding the NYSE Texas Feed, the proposed change would ensure that the list of Included Data Products was up to date. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable and would perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, as it would ensure that the description of Included Data Products was complete, ensuring that it is accessible and transparent, and providing market participants with clarity as to what connectivity is included in the purchase of access to the LCN and IP networks.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers because adding the NYSE Texas Feed would increase the number of Included Data Products available to Users for no additional charge. All Users that voluntarily select to access the LCN or IP network would not be subject to a charge above and beyond the fee paid for the relevant LCN or IP network access. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the change would mean that a User would have the option of adding connectivity to an additional market data feed without paying additional charges.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory since, as is true now, the proposed change would not apply differently to distinct types or sizes of Users but would apply to all Users equally. Moreover, adding the proposed additional Included Data Product would allow a User to connect to the NYSE Texas Feed if it wished, but would not require it to do so. As now, a User would be able to determine which Included Data Products, if any, to which it connects, based on what would best serve its needs, tailoring the service to the requirements of its business operations.
By adding the NYSE Texas Feed, the proposed change would ensure that the list of Included Data Products was up to date. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, as it would ensure that the description of Included Data Products was complete, ensuring that it is accessible and transparent, and providing market participants with clarity as to what connectivity is included in the purchase of access to the LCN and IP networks.
For the reasons above, the proposed changes do not unfairly discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements, terms, and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposal will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because adding the NYSE Texas Feed would increase the number of Included Data Products available to Users for no additional charge. All Users that voluntarily select to access the LCN or IP network would not be subject to a charge above and beyond the fee paid for the relevant LCN or IP network access. Accordingly, the change would mean that a User would have the option of adding connectivity to an additional market data feed without paying additional charges.
Adding the proposed additional Included Data Product would allow a User to connect to the NYSE Texas Feed if it wished, but would not require it to do so. In this way, the proposed changes would enhance competition by, as now, enabling a User to determine to which Included Data Products, if any, it connects, based on what would best serve its needs, tailoring the service to the requirements of its business operations.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, as with the other Included Data Products, it believes it is not the exclusive method to connect to the NYSE Texas Feed. As alternatives to connecting to the NYSE Texas Feed as an Included Data Product, a User may connect to the market data feed through another User or through a connection to an Exchange access center outside the data center, third party access center, or third party vendor.
By adding the NYSE Texas Feed, the proposed change would ensure that the list of Included Data Products was up to date. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed addition to the description of Included Data Products would make the description more accessible and transparent. In this manner, the proposed change would provide market participants with clarity as to what connectivity is included in
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (“BDCs”) and closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment entities.
Fidelity Private Credit Fund; Fidelity Private Credit Company LLC; Fidelity Multi-Strategy Credit Fund; Fidelity Diversifying Solutions LLC; Fidelity Evergreen Private Credit Fund LP; Fidelity Private Credit SC LLC; Fidelity Unlevered Private Credit Fund LP; Fidelity Real Estate Debt Opportunities Fund II, LP; Fidelity Real Estate Opportunistic Income Fund, L.P.; Fidelity Convertible Arbitrage Fund LP; Fidelity Credit Opportunities Fund II, LP; FIAM LLC; Fidelity Direct Lending Institutional Fund, L.P.; Fidelity Real Estate Debt Opportunities Fund I; and certain of their wholly-owned subsidiaries as described in Schedule A to the application.
The application was filed on May 15, 2025, and amended on August 20, 2025, and August 28, 2025.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may
The Commission:
Adam Large, Senior Special Counsel, Kris Easter Guidroz, Senior Counsel, or Daniele Marchesani, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' second amended application, dated August 28, 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)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) regarding colocation services and fees to update the list of included data products. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those 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 parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule regarding colocation services and fees to update the list of included data products (“Included Data Products”).
Currently, the table of Included Data Products in Colocation Note 4 sets forth the market data feeds that Users
NYSE Texas, Inc. filed to establish an “NYSE Texas Order Imbalances” proprietary market data product (the “NYSE Texas Feed”).
The Exchange does not charge for connectivity to the Included Data Feeds. Accordingly, it would not charge for connectivity to the NYSE Texas Feed.
The proposed changes would not apply differently to distinct types or sizes of market participants. Rather, they would apply to all Users equally. As is currently the case, the purchase of any colocation service, including connectivity to the NYSE Texas Feed, would be completely voluntary and the Fee Schedule would be applied uniformly to all Users.
FIDS does not expect that the proposed rule change will result in new Users.
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that customers would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable and would perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, because adding the NYSE Texas Feed would increase the number of Included Data Products available to Users for no additional charge. All Users that voluntarily select to access the LCN or IP network would not be subject to a charge above and beyond the fee paid for the relevant LCN or IP network access. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable because the change would mean that a User would have the option of adding connectivity to additional market data feeds without paying additional charges.
Adding the NYSE Texas Feed to the list of Included Data Products would allow a User to connect to the NYSE Texas Feed if it wished but would not require it to do so. As now, a User would be able to determine which Included Data Products, if any, to which it connects, based on what would best serve its needs, tailoring the service to the requirements of its business operations.
By adding the NYSE Texas Feed, the proposed change would ensure that the list of Included Data Products was up to date. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable and would perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, as it would ensure that the description of Included Data Products was complete, ensuring that it is accessible and transparent, and providing market participants with clarity as to what connectivity is included in the purchase of access to the LCN and IP networks.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers because adding the NYSE Texas Feed would increase the number of Included Data Products available to Users for no additional charge. All Users that voluntarily select to access the LCN or IP network would not be subject to a charge above and beyond the fee paid for the relevant LCN or IP network access. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the change would mean that a User would have the option of adding connectivity to an additional market data feed without paying additional charges.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory since, as is true now, the proposed change would not apply differently to distinct types or sizes of Users but would apply to all Users equally. Moreover, adding the proposed additional Included Data Product would allow a User to connect to the NYSE Texas Feed if it wished, but would not require it to do so. As now, a User would be able to determine which Included Data Products, if any, to which it connects, based on what would best serve its needs, tailoring the service to the requirements of its business operations.
By adding the NYSE Texas Feed, the proposed change would ensure that the list of Included Data Products was up to date. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, as it would ensure that the description of Included Data Products was complete, ensuring that it is accessible and transparent, and providing market participants with clarity as to what connectivity is included in the purchase of access to the LCN and IP networks.
For the reasons above, the proposed changes do not unfairly discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements, terms, and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposal will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because adding the NYSE Texas Feed would increase the number of Included Data Products available to Users for no additional charge. All Users that voluntarily select to access the LCN or IP network would not be subject to a charge above and beyond the fee paid for the relevant LCN or IP network access. Accordingly, the change would mean that a User would have the option of adding connectivity to an additional market data feed without paying additional charges.
Adding the proposed additional Included Data Product would allow a User to connect to the NYSE Texas Feed if it wished, but would not require it to do so. In this way, the proposed changes would enhance competition by, as now, enabling a User to determine to which Included Data Products, if any, it connects, based on what would best serve its needs, tailoring the service to the requirements of its business operations.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, as with the other Included Data Products, it believes it is not the exclusive method to connect to the NYSE Texas Feed. As alternatives to connecting to the NYSE Texas Feed as an Included Data Product, a User may connect to the market data feed through another User or through a connection to an Exchange access center outside the data center, third party access center, or third party vendor.
By adding the NYSE Texas Feed, the proposed change would ensure that the list of Included Data Products was up to date. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed addition to the description of Included Data Products would make the description more accessible and transparent. In this manner, the proposed change would provide market participants with clarity as to what connectivity is included in the purchase of access to the LCN and IP networks, thereby enhancing competition by ensuring that all Users have access to the same information regarding the Included Data Products.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
60-Day notice and request for comments
The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before November 3, 2025.
Send all comments to Alison Evans, Office of Investment and Innovation, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite
Alison Evans, Innovation Ecosystem Strategist, (202) 856-7386,
This is a new collection for the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) Regional Innovation Cluster (RIC) Program. This data collection is an online form to be completed by the administrators of SBA-funded RICs. The form enables SBA to track cluster membership, small businesses served, types of small business assistance, and small business outcomes.
Through the RIC Program, the SBA invests regional clusters—geographic concentrations of interconnected companies, specialized suppliers, academic institutions, service providers, and associated organizations with a specific industry focus—throughout the United States that span a variety of industries, ranging from energy and manufacturing to advanced defense technologies. The standardized metrics collection enables SBA to rigorously track amount and type of small business support across individual RICs and review programmatic outcomes.
SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
(1)
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative disaster declaration of a rural area for the State of Indiana dated August 28, 2025.
Issued on August 28, 2025.
Jennifer Talarico, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration of a rural area, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 21262C and for economic injury is 212630.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration is Indiana.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before November 3, 2025.
Send all comments to Alison Evans, Office of Investment and Innovation, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6300, Washington, DC 20416 with the subject line: “Regional Innovation Cluster Onboarding.”
Alison Evans, Innovation Ecosystem Strategist, (202) 856-7386,
This is a new collection for the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) Regional Innovation Cluster (RIC) Program. This data collection is an online form to be completed by small business and partner organization members of RICs funded through SBA.
Through the RIC Program, the SBA invests regional clusters—geographic concentrations of interconnected companies, specialized suppliers, academic institutions, service providers, and associated organizations with a specific industry focus—throughout the United States that span a variety of industries, ranging from energy and manufacturing to advanced defense technologies. The standardized membership information will enable SBA to more rigorously track small business support across individual RICs and the overall program.
SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
(1)
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes one new information collection, and revisions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
(OMB) Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA.
(SSA) Social Security Administration, OLCA, Attn: Reports Clearance Director, Mail Stop 3253 Altmeyer, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 833-410-1631, Email address:
Or you may submit your comments online through
I. The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than November 3, 2025. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instrument by writing to the above email address.
1.
The Ticket Act established supports designed to increase the availability of and access to employment services for adults with disabilities receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI), hereafter referred to as Ticketholders.
•
•
•
To comply with
(1) Whether the programs achieve their legislative intent;
(2) The factors contributing to this achievement or lack thereof, and
(3) Opportunities for improvement of the programs' efficiency and effectiveness.
The evaluation will also document the cost effectiveness of Ticket Act programs as currently structured, identifying opportunities to deliver the same outcomes at lower costs or improve outcomes with additional investments.
As SSA implemented many changes to the Ticket Act programs since our last comprehensive evaluation in 2013, we are also conducting this evaluation to assess these revisions to the programs, including:
• The increased prevalence of remote service delivery, which makes services
• Changes to the number of ENs and VR agencies participating in the program, as well as changes to the types of services they offer. These changes may affect the overall effectiveness of the program.
• Revisions that changed the programs' operations, for instance the implementation of electronic submissions, which may also affect the overall effectiveness of the program.
• Investment in a marketing program to support EN outreach, which may have affected the overall use of the TTW program.
We expect this comprehensive evaluation will provide updated information regarding: (1) the ability of the Ticket Programs to achieve their legislative intent; and (2) the evidence base necessary to determine the need for potential programmatic changes or other proposals to maximize program effectiveness.
SSA contracted with Mathematica to conduct the evaluation; however, SSA will oversee all data collection activities. The evaluation will utilize the following data collection efforts:
•
•
Mathematica will conduct these surveys and interviews using a mix of online and telephone processes as well as computer-based management tools for streamlining recruitment and scheduling, ensuring clear documentation for each interview or survey and for recording the data.
The Respondents are service providers for the Ticket to Work program, specifically one staff member from each EN, state VR, WIPA project and P&A agency with a PABSS grant (“Providers”), as well as Ticketholders.
2.
Finally, oSSNAP collects information similar to that which we collect on the paper SS-5 for no change situations, with the exception of name change, new or replacement SSN cards for U.S. Citizens (adult and minor children), and replacement cards only for non-U.S. citizens. For certain applicants for SSN replacement cards, the modality allows respondents to complete the application using an internet application and submit the required evidence online rather than completing a paper Form SS-5 [formerly the internet SSN Replacement Card (iSSNRC) application]. oSSNAP also allows applicants for new or replacement SSN cards to start the application process on-line, receive a list of evidentiary documents, and then submit the application data to SSA for further processing by SSA employees. Applicants using oSSNAP in this way then visit a local SSA office to complete the application process.
SSA collects race and ethnicity information as part of the SSN card application process. Response to the race and ethnicity questions is voluntary. The respondents for this information collection are applicants for original and replacement Social Security cards, or individuals who wish to change information in their SSN records, who use any of the modalities described above.
SSA is combining the iSSNRC and oSSNAP screens to streamline these processes for the respondents. Through combining the screens under one application (oSSNAP), respondents can more easily find the electronic process which works best for them to submit their request for a replacement SSN card.
3.
We are revising the burden for this information collection and updating the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Statements to comply with current legal requirements.
SSA is updating the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Statements on these forms to comply with current legal requirements.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of Passenger Rail Advisory Committee meeting.
Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Passenger Rail Advisory Committee (PRAC), pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
The meeting will be held on September 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. E.T.
The meeting will be held at the Surface Transportation Board headquarters at 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423.
Brian O'Boyle at (202) 577-4615 or
The PRAC was formed in 2023 to provide advice and guidance to the Board on passenger rail issues on a continuing basis to help the Board better fulfill its statutory responsibilities in overseeing certain aspects of passenger rail service.
The meeting, which is open to the public, will be conducted in accordance with FACA, 5 U.S.C. app. 2; Federal Advisory Committee Management regulations, 41 CFR part 102-3; PRAC's charter; and Board procedures. Further communications about this meeting may be announced through the Board's website at
Written Comments: Members of the public may submit written comments to PRAC at any time. Comments should be addressed to PRAC, c/o Brian O'Boyle, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001 or
By the Board, Anika S. Cooper, Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of availability.
The FAA is announcing the availability of the Final Environmental Assessment and Mitigated Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision for SpaceX Falcon 9 Operations at Space Launch Complex-40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida (Final EA). The Final Environmental Assessment analyzes: Up to 120 Falcon 9 launches annually at SLC-40, which represents an annual increase of 70 launches from the 50 previously analyzed in a July 2020 EA; construction and operation of a landing zone at SLC-40; and up to 34 first-stage booster landings at the new landing zone annually. The Final EA also evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with FAA's approval of related airspace closures. The FAA has posted the Final Environmental Assessment and Mitigated Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision on the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation website:
The Unique ID for this document is EAXX-021-12-000-1737545438.
Eva Long via the project email address at
The FAA published the Draft Environmental Assessment for public comment on March 14, 2025. A public meeting was scheduled for April 16, 2025. The public comment period was extended to May 15, 2025, due to the national Zoom outage on April 16, 2025, and the public meeting was rescheduled for May 8, 2025. The FAA received 4,275 public comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment. The Final Environmental Assessment considers all input provided on the Draft Environmental Assessment and addresses substantive comments received, as appropriate.
The United States Department of the Air Force (DAF) is a cooperating agency for this Final EA. To meet the DAF's National Environmental Policy Act requirements for adopting the FAA's Environmental Assessment as a cooperating agency, (see 32 CFR 989.15(e) (2024)), FAA posted a link to the Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (Draft FONSI) for public comment on behalf of the DAF. The DAF may adopt the Final EA and issue a separate decision document.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review.
The FHWA, on behalf of the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by UDOT and other Federal agencies that are final agency actions. These actions relate to proposed transportation improvements on Interstate 84 (I-84) and State Route 167 (SR-167) in Mountain Green, Morgan County, Utah. The proposed action includes the addition of a full access diamond interchange at I-84 tying into an extension of Trappers Loop Road; the addition of a four-way,
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of UDOT, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal Agency actions on the listed highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before February 2, 2026. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
The Environmental Assessment (EA), Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and additional project documents can be viewed and downloaded from the project website at:
Tyler Allen, Environmental Program Manager; 801-997-0080;
Effective January 17, 2017, and as subsequently renewed on May 26, 2022, the FHWA assigned, and the UDOT assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that UDOT and other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing licenses, permits, or approvals for the proposed improvement highway project. The actions by UDOT and other Federal agencies on the project, and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the FONSI approved on August 25, 2025, and in other project records for the listed project. The EA, FONSI and other documents for the listed project are available by contacting UDOT at the address provided above.
The project subject to this notice is:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA); U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
PHMSA is publishing this notice to solicit public comments on a special permit application filed by EcoEléctrica, L.P. (EcoEléctrica). The application asks PHMSA to waive certain requirements in Federal pipeline safety regulations that apply to liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities. PHMSA will review the comments received in deciding whether to grant or deny the application.
Submit any comments regarding this special permit request by October 3, 2025.
Comments should reference the docket number for this special permit request and may be submitted in the following ways:
•
•
•
•
A privacy statement is published on
Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S. Code § 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this 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 this notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 190.343, you may ask PHMSA to give confidential treatment to information you give to the Agency by taking the following steps: (1) mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI as “Confidential;” (2) send PHMSA a second copy of the original document with the CBI deleted along with the original document; and (3) explain why the information you are submitting is CBI. Unless you are notified otherwise, PHMSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Lee Cooper, DOT, PHMSA-PHP-80, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Any commentary PHMSA receives that is not designated specifically as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this matter.
•
•
On September 8, 2023, EcoEléctrica applied for a special permit asking PHMSA to waive the requirements in 49 CFR 193.2167 and 193.2173, which prohibit the use of covered impoundment systems and require the removal of water from impoundment areas at LNG facilities, respectively.
On February 13, 2022, EcoEléctrica placed a project into service that supplies LNG from the terminal to a nearby truck loading facility owned by a third party. EcoEléctrica used PIP technology for the following piping segments in the project:
1. Approximately 3,600 feet of LNG transfer piping using PIP technology with a six-inch diameter outer pipe and a four-inch diameter inner pipe.
2. Approximately 3,600 feet of LNG recirculation piping using PIP technology with a four-inch diameter outer pipe and a 1.5-inch diameter inner pipe.
PHMSA's regulations for LNG facilities in 49 CFR part 193 do not currently authorize the use of PIP technology. PIP technology consists of two layers of pipe—an inner pipe that handles LNG and an outer pipe that serves as the impoundment system. Section 193.2167 prohibits the use of covered impoundment systems due to the potential for confined vapor explosions resulting from the flammable mixture of released methane vapors and oxygen from the atmosphere. Section 193.2173 requires that impoundment areas be constructed such that all areas drain completely to prevent water collection.
On September 8, 2023, EcoEléctrica filed a special permit asking PHMSA to waive the requirements in 49 CFR 193.2167 and 193.2173 to authorize the use of PIP technology for spill containment for the LNG transfer and recirculation piping described above. A copy of that application, along with the proposed special permit and draft environmental assessment, is available for review and public comments in Docket No. PHMSA-2023-0114.
PHMSA invites interested persons to review and submit comments in the docket on the special permit request and accompanying documents. Please submit comments on potential safety, environmental, and other relevant considerations implicated by the special permit request. Comments may include relevant data. PHMSA will review all comments received on or before the closing date in deciding whether to grant or deny the application.
Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice; solicitation of nominations for membership.
The Department solicits nominations for membership to serve on the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) Advisory Committee (Committee), which reviews issues related to the air travel needs of passengers with disabilities.
The deadline for nominations for Committee members must be received on or before October 3, 2025.
All nomination materials should be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Tori Ford, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Aviation Consumer Protection,
On September 20, 2019, the Secretary of Transportation established the ACAA Advisory Committee in accordance with section 439 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (2018 FAA Act) and operates it in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. ch. 10. Section 541 of the FAA
In particular, the ACAA Advisory Committee will identify and assess barriers to accessible air travel, determine the extent to which DOT is addressing those barriers, recommend improvements, and advise the Secretary on implementing the ACAA. The 2024 FAA Act requires the Committee to address the following topics: (1) lithium-ion battery powered wheelchairs; (2) service animals; (3) accessibility of websites, kiosks, and information communication technology; and (4) inflight communications. The Committee will be continuing, but subject to renewal every two years. The Committee is expected to meet at least twice annually. Unless otherwise required by law or approved by the Secretary, all meetings will be held virtually. Additional meetings and subcommittee meetings may be called as necessary.
In this notice, the Department is soliciting nominations for membership to the Committee. The Committee shall report to the Secretary through the General Counsel and shall comprise no more than 25 members, with at least one member from each of the following groups: passengers with disabilities; national disability organizations; air carriers; airport operators; contract service providers; aircraft manufacturers; manufacturers of wheelchairs, including powered wheelchairs and other mobility aids; and national veterans organizations representing disabled veterans.
Members are appointed by the Secretary of Transportation. Members will serve 2-year terms but may be reappointed. Past members of the Committee are welcome to apply. The Department is interested in ensuring membership is balanced fairly in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the Committee.
(1) Name, title, and relevant contact information (including phone, fax, and email address) of the individual requesting consideration;
(2) A letter of support from a company, union, trade association, academic, or nonprofit organization on letterhead containing a brief description why the nominee should be considered for membership;
(3) Short biography of nominee, including professional and academic credentials; and
(4) An affirmative statement that the nominee meets all Committee eligibility requirements.
Please do not send company, trade association, or organization brochures or any other information. Materials submitted should total two pages or less. Should more information be needed, DOT staff will contact the nominee, obtain information from the nominee's past affiliations, or obtain information from publicly available sources, such as the internet.
All nomination materials must be submitted through one of the methods referenced above in the “Addresses” section. Nominations must be received before October 3, 2025. Nominees selected for appointment to the Committee will be notified by return email and by a letter of appointment.
Issued in Washington, DC.
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 October 3, 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 Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published at 90 FR 27906, June 30, 2025.
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 October 3, 2025.
To submit comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection, please type the following link into your browser:
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
(a) In section 1-408, adding at the end:
(b) Revising section 1-411 to read:
(b) Where the architecture of applicable Federal public buildings diverges from the preferred architecture set forth in subsection (a) of this section,
(c) When renovating, reducing, or expanding applicable Federal public buildings that do not meet the criteria set forth in subsection (a) of this section, the feasibility and potential expense of building redesign to meet those criteria should be examined. Where feasible and economical, such redesign should be given substantial consideration, especially with regard to the building's exterior.
(a) “Applicable Federal public building” means:
(b) “Brutalist architecture” means the style of architecture that grew out of the early 20th-century modernist movement that is characterized by a massive and block-like appearance with a rigid geometric style and large-scale use of exposed poured concrete.
(c) “Classical architecture” means the architectural tradition derived from the forms, principles, and vocabulary of the architecture of Greek and Roman antiquity, and as later developed and expanded upon by such Renaissance architects as Alberti, Brunelleschi, Michelangelo, and Palladio; such Enlightenment masters as Robert Adam, John Soane, and Christopher Wren; such 19th-century architects as Benjamin Henry Latrobe, Robert Mills, and Thomas U. Walter; and such 20th-century practitioners as Julian Abele, Daniel Burnham, Rafael Carmoega, Charles F. McKim, John Russell Pope, Julia Morgan, and the firm of Delano and Aldrich. Classical architecture encompasses such styles as Neoclassical, Georgian, Federal, Greek Revival, Beaux-Arts, and Art Deco.
(d) “Deconstructivist architecture” means the style of architecture generally known as “deconstructivism” that emerged during the late 1980s and that features fragmentation, disorder, discontinuity, distortion, skewed geometry, and the appearance of instability.
(e) “General public” means members of the public who are not:
(f) “Public building” has the meaning given that term in section 3301(a)(5) of title 40, United States Code.
(g) “Traditional architecture” includes classical architecture, as defined herein, and also includes the historic humanistic architecture such as Gothic, Romanesque, Second Empire, Pueblo Revival, Spanish Colonial, and other Mediterranean styles of architecture historically rooted in various regions of America.
(h) “2025 dollars” means dollars adjusted for inflation using the Bureau of Economic Analysis's Gross Domestic Product price deflator and using 2025 as the base year.
(b) The Administrator shall:
(c) Where GSA intends to select a building design pursuant to a design competition, the Administrator shall actively recruit architectural firms and, as applicable, designers with experience in classical and traditional architecture to enter such competition and shall, to the extent practicable, ensure that multiple designs in such modes are advanced to the final evaluation round.
(d) In the event the Administrator proposes to approve a design for a new applicable Federal public building that diverges from the preferred architecture set forth in subsection 2(a) of this order, including Brutalist or Deconstructivist architecture or any design derived from or related to these types of architecture, the Administrator shall notify the President through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy not less than 30 days before GSA could reject such design without incurring substantial expenditures. Such notification shall set forth the reasons the Administrator proposes to approve such design, including:
(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 General Services Administration.
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This memorandum 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) You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the