Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Federal Contract Compliance Programs Office
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
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.
Food and Drug Administration, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Final amendment; order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is amending the food additive regulations to provide for the safe use of vitamin D
This order is effective September 4, 2025. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in the order is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 4, 2025. Submit either electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on October 6, 2025. See section VIII 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
Marissa Santos, Office of Pre-market Additive Safety, Human Foods Program, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740-3835; phone: 240-402-8160; or
In the
We consider the foods subject to this order to be yogurt and other cultured dairy products fermented with
We note that, after the petition was submitted, FDA amended the standard of identity for yogurt several times (see 88 FR 22907, April 14, 2023; 87 FR 76559, December 15, 2022; 87 FR 16394, March 23, 2022; and 86 FR 31117, June 11, 2021). Of most relevance, in December 2022, FDA reduced the minimum level of vitamin D fortification that, if added, would be required for yogurt and lower fat yogurt from 25 percent Daily Value (DV) to 10 percent DV, explaining that a minimum of 25 percent DV (equal to 5 micrograms (µg) per reference amount customarily consumed (RACC)) conflicts with the level authorized by our generally recognized as safe (GRAS) regulation for vitamin D, which sets the limit for vitamin D in milk products at 89 IU/100 g of food (21 CFR 184.1950(c)(1)), equivalent to 3.8 µg per RACC (see 87 FR 76559 at 76562). In reducing the minimum level of vitamin D fortification to 10 percent DV, we reduced the vitamin D per RACC to 2 µg. Consequently, until the issuance of this order, optional vitamin D fortification in yogurt and lower fat yogurt has been permitted in the range of 2 µg to 3.8 µg per RACC. This order revises the upper limit. The limit of 178 IU/100 g proposed in the petition is equivalent to 7.6 µg per RACC. (One IU of vitamin D is equivalent to 0.025 µg of vitamin D.)
FDA is also updating the reference for specifications for vitamin D
Vitamin D is essential for human health. Vitamin D comprises a group of fat-soluble seco-sterols and occurs in many forms. The two major physiologically relevant forms are vitamin D
To ensure that vitamin D is not added to the U.S. food supply at levels that could raise safety concerns, FDA affirmed vitamin D as GRAS with specific limitations as listed in § 184.1950. Under § 184.1(b)(2), an ingredient affirmed as GRAS with specific limitations may be used in food only within such limitations, including the category of food, functional use of the ingredient, and level of use. Any addition of vitamin D to food beyond those limitations set out in § 184.1950 requires a food additive regulation. Vitamin D is affirmed as GRAS for use in certain foods as a nutrient supplement (as defined under 21 CFR 170.3(o)(20)) under § 184.1950(c)(1), in accordance with § 184.1(b)(2), as the sole source of added vitamin D only within the following specific limitations:
Vitamin D is also affirmed as GRAS under § 184.1950(c)(2) and (3) for use in infant formula and margarine. Vitamin D
To support their petition, General Mills submitted dietary exposure estimates to vitamin D from the proposed uses of vitamin D
To establish with reasonable certainty that a food additive is not harmful under its intended conditions of use, we consider the projected human dietary exposure to the additive, the additive's toxicological data, and other relevant information (such as published scientific literature) available to us. We compare the dietary exposure to the additive from all food sources to an acceptable intake level established by data. The dietary exposure is determined based on the amount of the additive proposed for specific uses in foods and on data regarding the amount consumed from all food sources of the additive. We commonly use the 90th percentile dietary exposure for the consumer of a food additive as a measure of high chronic dietary exposure.
In 2011, the Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes of the Food and Nutrition Board at the IOM conducted an extensive review of relevant published scientific literature to update established dietary reference intakes (DRIs) for vitamin D; these DRIs are a family of nutrient reference values that includes ULs (Ref. 5). Based on this information, the IOM revised the ULs for vitamin D and published a report on their findings (Ref. 6). In its 2011 assessment of vitamin D, the IOM established ULs for different age groups, including total consumption from food, including dietary supplements, and water:
The IOM considers the UL as the maximum daily intake level of a nutrient that is likely to pose no health hazard risk for almost all individuals in the general population when the nutrient is consumed over long periods of time. The UL is determined using a risk assessment approach developed specifically for nutrients. The dose-response assessment, which concludes with an estimate of the UL, is built upon three toxicological concepts commonly used in assessing the risk of exposures to chemical substances: no-observed-adverse-effect level, lowest-observed-effect level, and application of an uncertainty factor. We considered the ULs established by the IOM relative to the cumulative dietary exposure estimates as the primary basis for assessing the safety of the petitioned uses of vitamin D
General Mills presented a dietary exposure estimate to vitamin D from the proposed uses, as well as a cumulative dietary exposure estimate that included existing sources of vitamin D. General Mills also provided an adjusted cumulative dietary exposure estimate that included vitamin D
Based on FDA's conservative estimate of cumulative dietary exposure, the proposed use of vitamin D
For the overall U.S. population 1 year of age and older, we estimated the cumulative dietary exposure at the 90th percentile from all food sources of vitamin D, including the proposed uses and background sources, to be 3,170 IU/p/d. We estimated the 90th percentile cumulative dietary exposure from all food sources of vitamin D to be 944 IU/p/d for infants 0 to 6 months, 1230 IU/p/d for infants 6 to 12 months, 1720 IU/p/d for children 1 to 3 years, and 1910 IU/p/d for children 4-8 years, and our estimates for adolescents, teenagers, and adults less than 71 years ranged from 1960 IU/p/d to 3930 IU/p/d. We estimated the 90th percentile cumulative dietary exposure from all food sources of vitamin D, including the proposed uses and background sources, for adults 71 years and older to be 2,732 IU/p/d using our refined approach. In summary, the estimated cumulative dietary exposure to vitamin D
We reviewed and evaluated the information submitted by General Mills regarding the safety of the dietary exposure to vitamin D
We reviewed the published reports of scientific studies on vitamin D submitted by General Mills, as well as other relevant published studies available to us since our previous evaluations of food additive petitions for fortifying a variety of foods with vitamin D, which resulted in FDA revising related regulations several times (88 FR 745, January 5, 2023; 85 FR 41916, July 13, 2020; 81 FR 46578, July 18, 2016; 77 FR 52228, August 29, 2012; 74 FR 11019, March 16, 2009; 70 FR 69435, November 16, 2005; 70 FR 37255, June 29, 2005; 70 FR 36021, June 22, 2005; 68 FR 9000, February 27, 2003). These studies did not raise any new safety concerns regarding the current or proposed uses of vitamin D. The most recent food additive petition concerning vitamin D resulted in our amendment of the food additive regulations in § 172.380 to increase the use level of vitamin D
We consider the ULs established by the IOM relative to the dietary exposure estimates as the primary basis for assessing the safety of the petitioned uses of vitamin D
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 vitamin D
FDA is incorporating by reference the monograph for vitamin D
You may purchase a copy of the material from the U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention, 12601 Twinbrook Pkwy., Rockville, MD 20852; phone: 1-800-227-8772; website:
The current food additive regulation for the use of vitamin D
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
As stated in the April 23, 2021,
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 regulation, you may file with the Dockets Management Staff (see
Any objections received in response to the regulation 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 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 marked with an asterisk (*) are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see
Food additives, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 172 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 342, 348, 371, 379e.
(b) Vitamin D
(c) * * *
(11) At levels not to exceed 178 IU per 100 g in yogurt under § 131.200 of this chapter, and lower fat yogurt under § 130.10 of this chapter, and other cultured dairy products fermented with
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Interim final rule.
This interim final rule revises the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) regulations governing the Section 184 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program (the “Section 184 Program”) by modifying the residency requirements for Borrower eligibility for Section 184 Program insured mortgages. This revision aligns HUD's requirements with recent executive actions that emphasize the prioritization of federal resources to protect the financial interests of American citizens and ensure the integrity of government-insured loan programs.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this rule.
1.
2.
Hilary Atkin, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Native American Programs, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410 telephone number 202-402-5378 (this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit
On March 20, 2024, HUD published a final rule titled “Strengthening the Section 184 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program” (the final rule) in the
Under this interim final rule, HUD is excluding “non-permanent resident alien[s]” from participation in the Section 184 Program by removing existing 24 CFR 1005.405(a)(3). This update aligns HUD's requirements with recent executive actions that emphasize the prioritization of federal resources to protect the financial interests of American citizens and ensure the integrity of government-insured loan programs. The Administration has reaffirmed its commitment to safeguarding economic opportunities for U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents while ensuring that federal benefits, including access to loans guaranteed under the Section 184 Program, are reserved for U.S. citizens and individuals who hold lawful permanent resident status. Currently, non-permanent residents are subject to immigration laws that can affect their ability to remain legally in the United States. This uncertainty poses a challenge for HUD as the ability to fulfill long-term financial obligations depends on stable residency and employment. Under 24 CFR 1005.407, HUD requires a Direct Guarantee Lender or Non-Direct Guarantee Lender to evaluate a Borrower's ability to sustain long-term financial obligations.
This update ensures that the Section 184 Program is administered in accordance with Administration priorities while fulfilling its mission of providing access to homeownership to Native American borrowers. This update is similar to the changes to the FHA-insured mortgage programs, reflected in the FHA published Mortgagee Letter (ML) 2025-09,
In general, HUD publishes a rule for public comment in accordance with both the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, and the agency's regulation on rulemaking at 24 CFR part 10. Both the APA and Part 10, however, provide for exceptions from that general rule where HUD finds good cause to omit advance notice of the opportunity for public comment. The good cause requirement is satisfied when prior public procedure is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). In order to publish a rule for effect prior to receiving and responding to public comments (
HUD determined that good cause exists to promulgate this interim final rule because immigration status is rarely at issue under the Section 184 Program. To qualify for a Section 184 Guarantee Loan, a Borrower must be an enrolled Tribal member. Accordingly, in almost all cases, Tribal members applying for a Section 184 loan are already U.S. citizens. Additionally, this interim final rule aligns with Borrower residency requirements for FHA-insured financing programs. Therefore, advance notice of the opportunity for public comment is unnecessary, as this rule is technical in nature and does not have a significant impact.
HUD's policy is to consult with Indian Tribes early in the rulemaking process on matters that have Tribal implications. Because all individual eligible borrowers under the Section 184 Program must already be enrolled Tribal members to qualify for Section 184 loan, HUD does not believe that this change to the residency requirements of the Section 184 regulations will have a substantial direct effect on Tribal governments. However, HUD welcomes public comments from Tribes and Tribal members on this interim rule.
Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the order's requirements. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.”
This interim final rule revises HUD's regulations governing the Section 184 Program by updating residency requirements for Borrower eligibility to remove a provision that permits non-permanent residents to be eligible borrowers. These changes will not have a significant impact given that, in almost all cases, Tribal members applying for a Section 184 loan are already U.S. citizens. As a result, this rule was determined not to be a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and therefore was not reviewed by OMB.
Executive Order 14192, entitled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” was issued on January 31, 2025. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 14192 requires that any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations. This rule is an immigration-related rule that is expressly exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 14192.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism,” (64 FR 43255) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule will not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive order.
A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The Finding of No Significant Impact is available for public inspection between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-0500. The Finding of No Significant Impact will also be available for review in the docket for this rule on
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The information collection requirements contained in this proposed rule have been approved by the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB control number 2577-0200.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4; approved March 22, 1995) (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and Tribal governments, and on the private sector. This rule does not impose any Federal mandates on any state, local, or Tribal government, or on the private sector, within the meaning of the UMRA.
Comments submitted electronically through the
All comments and communications properly submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance
Borrower residency status.
Accordingly, for the reasons described in the preamble, HUD amends 24 CFR part 1005 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1715z-13a; 15 U.S.C. 1639c; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
(a) An eligible Borrower who is an Indian must be:
(1) A U.S. citizen; or
(2) A lawful permanent resident alien.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations for the Swim Around Charleston on September 14, 2025, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Coast Guard Southeast District identifies the regulated area for this annual event in Charleston, SC. During the enforcement periods, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.704 will be enforced for the Swim Around Charleston event listed in Item No. 9 in Table 1 to § 100.704, from 7 a.m. until 2 p.m. on September 14, 2025.
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email Marine Science Technician First Class Thomas J. Welker, Sector Charleston Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 843-740-3180 ext. 3339, email at
The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.704 for the Swim Around Charleston event listed in Item No. 9 in Table 1 to § 100.704, from 7 a.m. until 2 p.m. on September 14, 2025. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this swim event. Our regulation for Marine Events within the Captain of the Port Charleston, § 100.704, Table 1 to § 100.704, Item No. 9, specifies the location of the regulated areas for the Swim Around Charleston. Under the provisions of § 100.704(c), all persons and vessels are prohibited from entering the regulated area, except those persons and vessels participating in the event, unless they receive permission to do so from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, or designated representative.
The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation. In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local regulation for certain waters of the Cuyahoga River. This special local regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these waters during the 2025 Cleveland Dragon Boat Festival on September 6, 2025. Entry of persons or vessels into this area is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Eastern Great Lakes or his designated representative.
This rule is effective from 6:30 a.m. through 4:30 p.m. on September 6, 2025.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email LT Jennifer Stuart at Marine Safety Unit Cleveland's Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 216-536-4094, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under the authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. The COTP Sector Eastern Great Lakes has determined that potential hazards associated with the dragon boat festival on September 6, 2025, would be a safety concern for anyone within this portion of the Cuyahoga River during the race. Hazards from the event include, but are not limited to, sponsor-operated vessels needing to transit the area during the dragon boat festival. These sponsor-operated vessels are expected to accompany the vessels competing in the rowboat style races.
The COTP Sector Eastern Great Lakes is establishing a special local regulation from 6:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on September 6, 2025. This special local regulation will cover navigable waters of the Cuyahoga River just south of the Detroit Avenue bridge to just east of the Columbus Road bridge. The duration of the special local regulation is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled dragon boat festival. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or his designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This special local regulation will restrict navigation on and through this small designated portion of the Cuyahoga River for ten hours on one day. Vessel traffic will be notified via local notice to mariners of the closures prior to the event.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation lasting 10 hours on September 6, 2025, restricting access to the Cuyahoga River on one day. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Under the general special local regulations in subpart F of this part, you may not enter the regulated area described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the designated representative.
(2) The Coast Guard may patrol the regatta under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The Patrol Commander may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM.”
(3) All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants are considered spectators.
(4) Spectator vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do so only with prior approval of the Patrol Commander and when so directed by that officer will be operated at a no wake speed in a manner which will not endanger participants in the event or any other craft.
(5) No spectator shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede vessels in the regulated area during the effective date and times, unless cleared for entry by or through a designated representative.
(6) The Patrol Commander may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by a designated representative, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
(7) Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the regulated areas specified in this chapter, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel.
(8) The Patrol Commander may terminate the event or the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Withdrawal of direct final rule.
Due to the receipt of adverse comment, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the direct final rule titled “Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities; CCR Management Unit Deadline Extension Rule,” which published on July 22, 2025.
Effective September 4, 2025, the EPA withdraws the direct final rule published at 90 FR 34358, on July 22, 2025.
Taylor Holt, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, MC: 5304T, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-1439; email address:
Due to the receipt of adverse comment, the EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule titled “Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities; CCR Management Unit Deadline Extension Rule,” which published on July 22, 2025 (90 FR 34358). We stated in that direct final rule that if we received adverse comment by August 21, 2025, the direct final rule would not take effect and we would publish a timely withdrawal in the
The EPA published a parallel proposed rule (90 FR 34409, July 22, 2025) on the same day as the direct final rule. The proposed rule invited comment on the substance of the direct final rule. Notwithstanding this action to withdraw the direct final rule, the EPA will continue to accept comment on the parallel proposed rule through September 15, 2025, which is the new deadline to submit comments. EPA is also publishing in the “Proposed Rules” section of the
Environmental protection, Beneficial use, Coal combustion products, Coal combustion residuals, Coal combustion waste, Disposal, Hazardous waste, Landfill, Surface impoundment.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Final rule; correction.
This document corrects typographical errors in the final rule that appeared in the August 5, 2025
This correction is effective October 1, 2025.
For questions regarding the hospice quality reporting program, contact Jermama Keys at (410) 786-7778.
In FR Doc. 2025-14782 of August 5, 2025 (90 FR 37404), there were typographical errors that are identified and corrected in this correcting document.
On page 37404, we inadvertently included a sentence referencing requests for information.
On page 37425, in Table 8, we inadvertently omitted the words “or completion”.
Under section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (the APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), the agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
In addition, even if this were a rule to which the notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this correcting document into the final rule or delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public's interest for providers to receive appropriate payments in as timely a manner as possible, and to ensure that the FY 2026 Hospice final rule accurately reflects our policies. Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not altering our payment methodologies or policies, but rather, we are simply correctly implementing the policies that we previously proposed, requested comment on, and subsequently finalized. This correcting document is intended solely to ensure that the FY 2026 Hospice final rule accurately reflects these payment methodologies and policies. For these reasons, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment and delayed effective date requirements.
In FR Doc. 2025-14782 of August 5, 2025 (90 FR 37404), make the following corrections:
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Commission temporarily waives §§ 61.50(j)(2) and 69.803(c) of the Commission's rules until the Commission directs the Wireline Competition Bureau to update the competitive market tests for incumbent local exchange carriers' business data services.
Effective August 8, 2025.
Federal Communications Commission, 45 L ST. NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Christopher Koves, Associate Division Chief, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-8209,
This is a summary of the Commission's Order, FCC 25-44, released August 8, 2025. A full-text copy may be obtained at the following internet address:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and public hearing.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is reopening the comment period for the proposed rule entitled “Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities; CCR Management Unit Deadline Extension Rule.” EPA is reopening the comment period until September 15, 2025, in response to stakeholders' requests for a public hearing and comment period extension.
The comment period for the proposed rule published on July 22, 2025 (90 FR 34409) closed August 21, 2025, and is reopened until September 15, 2025. Comments must be received on or before September 15, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0107, online at
Taylor Holt, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, MC: 5304T, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-1439; email address:
On July 22, 2025, EPA published a direct final rule (90 FR 34358) and a proposed rule (90 FR 34409) entitled “Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities; CCR Management Unit Deadline Extension Rule.” The original deadline to submit comments was August 21, 2025. On July 29, 2025 and August 1, 2025, EPA received requests for the Agency to extend the comment period and to conduct a public hearing, respectively.
In response to the request for a public hearing, on August 12, 2025, EPA announced on its CCR website that it will conduct an online public hearing on September 12, 2025. The hearing will convene at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and conclude at 1:00 p.m. (ET). Information on how EPA will conduct this public hearing, instructions on how to register to provide oral testimony or participate at the public hearing, and instructions on how to request the services of an interpreter or special accommodations such as audio transcription or closed captioning can be found on EPA's CCR website (
In response to the request for a comment period extension, this action reopens the comment period of the proposed rule until September 15, 2025. Written comments must now be received by September 15, 2025. Due to the receipt of adverse comment, the EPA has published in the
To submit comments or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions provided under
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Labor.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
On July 1, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to rescind the regulations for Executive Order (E.O.) 11246, as amended. The comment period for the NPRM was scheduled to close on September 2, 2025. With this notice document, DOL
The comment period for the NPRM that was published on July 1, 2025, at 90 FR 28472, is extended. Comments should be received on or before September 17, 2025.
Comments must be submitted in one of the following two ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
• Electronically at
•
Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments are public records; they are publicly displayed exactly as received, and will not be deleted, modified, or redacted. Comments may be submitted anonymously.
Follow the search instructions on
Catherine L. Eschbach, Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: 202-693-0101. Email:
On July 1, 2025, DOL issued an NPRM to rescind the regulations for Executive Order 11246, as amended. The public comment period for the NPRM was scheduled to close on September 2, 2025. In response to public comments, DOL is extending the public comment period to September 17, 2025. DOL believes this 15-day extension is sufficient and balances the agency's need for stakeholder input with the Department's desire to proceed with the rulemaking in a timely manner. Any prior denial of an extension request remains in effect to the extent the request asked for more than a 15-day extension. No further extensions will be granted.
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Labor.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
On July 1, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to revise the implementing regulations for Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. The comment period for the NPRM was scheduled to close on September 2, 2025. With this notice document, DOL is extending the comment period to September 17, 2025. Commenters who have already submitted public comments do not need to resubmit their comments. DOL will consider all comments received from the date of publication of the NPRM through the close of the extended comment period. Any previous denial of a request to extend the comment period remains denied to the extent the request asked for more than a 15-day extension. Commentors are encouraged to submit all comments by September 17, 2025, as no further extension will be granted.
The comment period for the NPRM that was published on July 1, 2025, at 90 FR 28494, is extended. Comments should be received on or before September 17, 2025.
Comments must be submitted in one of the following two ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
• Electronically at
•
Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments are public records; they are publicly displayed exactly as received, and will not be deleted, modified, or redacted. Comments may be submitted anonymously. Follow the search instructions on
Catherine L. Eschbach, Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: 202-693-0101. Email:
On July 1, 2025, DOL issued an NPRM to revise its implementing regulations for Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. The public comment period for the NPRM was scheduled to close on September 2, 2025. In response to public comments, DOL is extending the public comment period to September 17, 2025. DOL believes this 15-day extension is sufficient and balances the agency's need for stakeholder input with the Department's desire to proceed with the rulemaking in a timely manner. Any prior denial of an extension request remains in effect to the extent the request asked for more than a 15-day extension. No further extensions will be granted.
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Labor.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
On July 1, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to revise the implementing regulations for the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as amended. The comment period for the NPRM was scheduled to close on September 2, 2025. With this notice document, DOL is extending the comment period to September 17, 2025. Commenters who have already submitted public comments do not need to resubmit their comments. DOL will consider all comments received from the date of publication of the NPRM through the close of the extended comment period. Any previous denial of a request to extend the comment period remains denied to the extent the request asked for more than a 15-day extension. Commentors are encouraged to submit all comments by September 17, 2025, as no further extension will be granted.
The comment period for the NPRM that was published on July 1, 2025, at 90 FR 28485, is extended. Comments should be received on or before September 17, 2025.
Comments must be submitted in one of the following two ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
• Electronically at
•
Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments are public records; they are publicly displayed exactly as received, and will not be deleted, modified, or redacted. Comments may be submitted anonymously. Follow the search instructions on
Catherine L. Eschbach, Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: 202-693-0101. Email:
On July 1, 2025, DOL issued an NPRM to revise its implementing regulations for the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as amended. The public comment period for the NPRM was scheduled to close on September 2, 2025. In response to public comments, DOL is extending the public comment period to September 17, 2025. DOL believes this 15-day extension is sufficient and balances the agency's need for stakeholder input with the Department's desire to proceed with the rulemaking in a timely manner. Any prior denial of an extension request remains in effect to the extent the request asked for more than a 15-day extension. No further extensions will be granted.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on its proposed rules to eliminate rate regulation and tariffing obligations for business data services provided by incumbent local exchange carriers in light of technological and marketplace changes and recent Executive Orders and Commission initiatives. The Commission alternatively seeks comment on updates to its regulatory framework and competitive market tests to better align with current market conditions based on current data.
Comments are due on or before October 6, 2025, and reply comments are due on or before October 20, 2025.
Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in this document in WC Docket Nos. 21-17 and 17-144 by any of the following methods:
•
•
• 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.
•
Christopher Koves, Associate Division Chief, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-8209,
This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
1. Today, we continue to promote competition and economic growth by proposing to further streamline and eliminate outdated, unnecessary, burdensome regulations in the provision of legacy business data services (BDS) offered by telephone companies. The Commission has long recognized the importance of BDS to businesses, schools and libraries, non-profit organizations, and state and local governments. Because local telephone companies (incumbent local exchange carriers) held local monopolies on circuit-switched telephone service, historically the Commission relied on dominant carrier regulation under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), to ensure that the rates, terms, and conditions of service were just and reasonable and not unreasonably discriminatory. In response to the growth of competition in the provision of BDS, the Commission has, in recent years, streamlined its regulation of these services to forbear from unnecessary regulatory burdens on legacy circuit-based services and to promote long-term innovation and investment in modern packet-based internet Protocol (IP) services.
2. In the
3. “Business data services” (BDS) refers to the dedicated point-to-point transmission of data at certain guaranteed speeds and service levels using high capacity connections to support applications that require symmetrical bandwidth, substantial reliability, security, and connected service to more than one location. Businesses, non-profit organizations, and government institutions rely on BDS to enable the secure and reliable transfer of data, for example, as a means of connecting to the internet or the cloud, and to create private or virtual private networks.
4. BDS fall into two technology categories: circuit-based and packet-based. Circuit-based BDS utilize the Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) protocol, which sends communications over a single circuit-switched channel by dividing the channel into dedicated time slots. TDM is considered a legacy technology, and TDM-based services consist primarily of DS1 and DS3 circuits with symmetrical capacities of 1.5 Mbps and 45 Mbps, respectively. Packet-based BDS, on the other hand, relies on the modern IP in which data are sent using packets, and can generally offer much higher capacities. The Commission generally has historically imposed dominant carrier regulation on carriers' legacy TDM-based BDS and abstained from regulating packet-based BDS.
5. The Commission has traditionally viewed legacy TDM-based BDS in two distinct segments: end user channel termination and dedicated transport. Channel termination refers to the last-mile, local loop, transmission links to end user locations,
6. The Commission has traditionally relied on sections 201 and 202 of the Act, to impose BDS pricing regulation to ensure that “charges, practices, classifications, and regulations” for interstate communication service provided by common carriers are “just and reasonable,” and free of “unjust or unreasonable discrimination.” Under existing rules, incumbent LECs must therefore file tariff schedules specifying the rates, terms, and conditions governing their interstate service offerings. Section 204 prescribes procedures for filing streamlined tariffs with the Commission subject to Commission review and, if necessary, potential suspension and investigation should the LECs' rates be found to violate the requirements of sections 201 and 202. After full opportunity for hearing upon a complaint or an order for investigation and hearing, section 205 authorizes the Commission to determine and prescribe just and reasonable charges.
7.
8. Currently, in all price cap study areas and a little over a third of rate-of-return study areas, there are no rate regulation and tariffing obligations on incumbent LECs' packet-based and higher-capacity (above DS3) TDM-based BDS (
9.
10.
11. The Commission has a long history of granting price cap and rate-of-return carriers forbearance from section 203 tariffing requirements for various of their BDS offerings. More than a decade ago, the Commission granted forbearance from section 203 tariffing obligations to price cap carriers for their packet-switched and optical transmission BDS. In 2017 and 2018, the Commission granted price cap and electing rate-of-return carriers forbearance from section 203 tariffing obligations in the provision of packet-based and higher-capacity TDM-based BDS, and lower speed end user channel termination services in counties deemed competitive (82 FR 25660, June 2, 2017; 83 FR 67098, Dec. 28, 2018). In 2019, the Commission granted price cap carriers forbearance from section 203 tariffing obligations for TDM-based transport, 84 FR 38566 (Aug. 7, 2019).
12.
13. This year, the President issued a series of Executive Orders calling on administrative agencies to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens. Consistent with this direction, in March, the Commission's Office of General Counsel issued a
14. Commenters identified part 61 tariff requirements and part 69 access charge rules as ripe for further deregulation and streamlining. The International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE), for example, argues that tariff requirements, “thanks to competition . . . are now largely obsolete” and “[f]urther simplification would reduce administrative burdens and align with market-driven pricing.” The Digital Progress Institute argues that the Commission should “fully detariff all remaining TDM services, abolishing parts 61 and 69, and allow carriers to reflect their actual costs.” In support, the Digital Progress Institute contends that “arbitrary caps and tariffs stimulate artificial demand for” legacy TDM-based services, the part 61 and 69 rules “divert investment from new infrastructure towards reams of paperwork,” and “tariffing is unnecessary” as “[c]ompetition in the voice market is so replete.” USTelecom—The Broadband Association identifies part 61 tariffing requirements to “streamline or eliminate unnecessary or obsolete rules in order to simplify processes without making significant substantive changes.” Commenters also identified part 65, which governs rate-of-return prescription, as ripe for deregulation. For example, ICLE argues that rate-of-return regulation is “largely obsolete, as the FCC has transitioned most carriers to incentive-based frameworks (
15. The Commission has long expressed its preference to rely on competition rather than incentive-distorting regulation to ensure that rates, terms, and conditions of telecommunications service are “just
16. In this section, we seek comment on broader developments in the BDS marketplace, particularly on competitors' service deployment, competitive conditions, and technological advancements, that would support further deregulation.
17. The Commission has recognized the dramatic transformation of the communications marketplace since Congress passed the 1996 Act. At the time, incumbent LECs controlled 99.7% of the local telephone service market. Today, incumbent LECs' wireline voice subscriptions using switched access lines account for 19.5% (16.5 million connections) of all wireline voice retail subscriptions and 16.1% (8.4 million connections) of all wireline voice retail business connections. Between December 2019 and December 2023, residential connections to copper (including DSL) provided by telephone companies decreased by almost 40% from 17.6 million to 10.6 million. As of June 30, 2024, copper wire technology only accounted for 8.0% of the fixed connections used to deliver internet access service to end users.
18. When the Commission eliminated ex ante pricing regulation for certain BDS provided by price cap carriers in 2017, it recognized that higher bandwidth packet-based services, including Ethernet services, “already ma[d]e up a large part of the business data services marketplace” and circuit-based DS1s and DS3s were becoming obsolete. The Commission predicted that the shift from circuit-based to packet-based services would continue at a “rapid pace.” Factoring in intermodal competition, the Commission concluded that the enterprise market was subject to “intense competition,” finding that 95% of census blocks within Metropolitan Statistical Areas served by price cap carriers with BDS demand (constituting 99% of all businesses) had at least one competitive alternative to the incumbent LEC.
19. We seek updated information and data on the shift from circuit-based to packet-based BDS in the years since 2017. We invite commenters to submit or identify data that would justify further pricing deregulation and detariffing. Acknowledging that a large data collection could be burdensome and that our preference is to rely on data either already in the Commission's possession or relevant data provided by commenters, we seek comment on whether a data collection would ultimately be necessary or beneficial in supporting the actions we propose today. To what extent has the transition from TDM-based to IP-based BDS rendered ex ante rate regulation and tariffing of lower-capacity BDS and other regulated BDS unnecessary? To what extent does rate regulation of BDS distort market incentives? Commenters have previously suggested that “as a result of more substitutes in the market, incumbent LECs face declining sales in TDM-based services, notably DS1s and DS3s, including customer loss to cable operators and other providers.” Have sales of TDM-based BDS declined? If so, by how much? Do commenters attribute this decline to the availability of higher bandwidth services? Are TDM-based services declining in rate-of-return study areas at a rate similar to the decline in price cap areas? We urge commenters to be as specific and detailed as possible in describing trends in the BDS marketplace and the availability of substitute services for TDM-based BDS.
20. Why do some users continue to purchase TDM-based BDS? Do any industry standard practices or regulatory requirements encourage or mandate the purchase of TDM-based services? We seek specific comment on any regulations that require or encourage the purchase of TDM-based BDS. Commenters should identify the public interest purpose of those rules. In the absence of such a showing, we tentatively conclude that any such rules should be eliminated to accelerate the IP Transition.
21. We also seek comment on how the competitive landscape has changed given entry by cable operators. Prior reductions in ex ante pricing regulation were premised in part on the Commission's predictive judgment that dynamic and growing competition in the BDS market, driven increasingly by the emergence of cable competition, would allow reliance on competition rather than regulation to ensure just and reasonable rates for BDS. At the time, the Commission acknowledged that BDS provided by cable operators was growing at a rate of 20% annually over the past several years. Between December 2019 and 2023, residential connections to cable (DOCSIS 3.1) services increased from 67.1 million to 73.4 million, an increase of over 9%. As of December 31, 2023, residential cable broadband was deployed to approximately 86.7% of U.S. households and adopted in 66.4% of households. As of June 30, 2024, coaxial cable technology accounted for 59.0% of the fixed connections used to deliver internet access service to end users. How has market entry by cable providers changed in the years since 2017? Have cable operators continued to deploy into counties and study areas served by legacy TDM-based BDS? If so, can commenters quantify the scope of such entry in terms of market share, revenues, and other factors? In counties and study areas deemed competitive and deregulated under the Commission's competitive market tests, what impact has this deregulation had on end user channel termination services and transport services?
22. We also seek comment on the existence and effect of other market entrants regardless of the technology, including competing providers using fiber, fixed wireless, satellite, and other technologies to offer services that compete with incumbent LECs' TDM-based BDS. Between December 2019 and December 2023, residential connections to fiber increased 67.7% (from 16.7 to 28.0 million), to terrestrial fixed wireless broadband increased 453.3% (from 1.5 to 6.8 million), and to satellite increased 11.1% (from 1.8 to 2.0 million). Have the growth trends been similar for non-residential BDS? Have competing providers been using fixed wireless, satellite or other technologies to offer BDS? Has new entry for competing providers using any technology been greater in areas that have been deregulated under the competitive market test? What about other entrants such as non-cable competitive LECs? What other services compete with or serve as substitutes for TDM-based BDS? Do alternative suppliers put competitive pressure on end user channel termination and transport services? If so, how?
23. Subject to a transition period, we propose to eliminate ex ante pricing regulation and tariffing obligations for end user channel termination services in all price cap study areas and rate-of-return study areas and transport services offered in rate-of-return study areas. We propose to deregulate these services in rate-of-return study areas regardless of whether those carriers elected and are subject to incentive regulation. Alternatively, we seek comment on eliminating rate regulation and tariffing obligations for all price cap carriers' lower-capacity TDM-based end user channel termination services and only electing rate-of-return carriers' lower-capacity TDM-based end user channel termination and transport services.
24. Does the fact that nearly two-thirds of counties served by price cap carriers are no longer subject to ex ante pricing regulation or tariffing obligations suggest that competition is sufficiently ubiquitous in price cap areas to obviate the need to update the competitive market test results? As previously noted, there are 329 active electing rate-of-return study areas that still tariff lower-capacity end user channel termination services, and 761 active rate-of-return study areas that still tariff end user channel termination and transport services subject to rate-of-return regulation, and thus have obligations to prepare cost studies, and file tariffs with the Commission. What effect would deregulating the remaining regulated counties and study areas have? What data could be used to estimate the costs and benefits of deregulating the remaining counties and study areas?
25.
26. Is the market for the end user channel termination services provided by price cap and rate-of-return carriers likely to be sufficiently competitive going forward such that the harms of ex ante pricing regulation would be greater than the harms that might occur were we to not regulate? If the Commission eliminated regulations associated with the provision of end user channel termination services, lower-capacity TDM-based services in particular, what effect would this have on prices and service availability and competition? To what extent do differences in the price cap and rate-of-return marketplaces justify different regulatory treatment for end user channel termination services? If we deregulate rates charged by rate-of-return carriers that did not elect incentive regulation, what effect would this have on BDS prices and service availability and competition in those study areas?
27.
28. Do the costs and burdens of continuing to regulate transport services offered by rate-of-return carriers outweigh the benefits? Why or why not? Should the Commission treat TDM-based transport provided by rate-of-return carriers that continue to receive cost-based legacy universal service support differently? Why or why not? Do the costs and burdens of continuing to regulate lower-capacity TDM-based transport provided by electing rate-of-return carriers outweigh the benefits? Why or why not? Does the analysis support treating price cap carriers' transport services and rate-of-return carriers' transport services equally?
29.
30. Are these markets sufficiently competitive to maintain just and reasonable rates, terms, and conditions for BDS? If the Commission deregulated, what effect would this have on prices, service availability, and competition? If we detariff and remove ex ante pricing regulation of end-user channel termination and transport services nationwide, would sections 201, 202, and 208 of the Act be sufficient to protect consumers from unjust and unreasonable rates, charges, and practices? Commenters are encouraged to provide evidence and data to support their arguments.
31.
32.
33.
34. In 2017, the Commission concluded that price cap “incumbent LEC market power has been in many cases largely eliminated, and elsewhere is declining thanks to increased competition in business data services markets.” One of the Commission's rationales for proposing a competitive market test was to determine whether incumbent LEC market power continued to exist. Does the competitive market test effectively measure market power? Is there evidence that suggests incumbent LECs exercise market power (
35. When the Commission adopted the competitive market test for electing rate-of-return carriers, it recognized that “a relatively small percentage of electing carriers' study areas will be deemed competitive,” which was “consistent with the rural nature and ascent deployment of cable in many eligible carriers' study areas.” Is this still true today in rate-of-return study areas nationwide? There are 28 total rate-of-return study areas (out of 1,107 study areas) that were deemed competitive under the competitive market test. Is the relatively low number of competitive rate-of-return study areas indicative of a lack of competition in those study areas? Why or why not? Or does the low number suggest that the competitive market test has not functioned as the Commission anticipated? In regulated rate-of-return study areas, is there evidence that ex ante pricing regulation and tariffing distorts market incentives and causes harms? For instance, has the maintenance of regulation on TDM-based BDS inhibited the deployment of more advanced IP-based services?
36. To effectuate these proposed deregulatory actions, we propose to grant forbearance under section 10 of the Act from the application of section 203 tariffing requirements for price cap and rate-of-return carriers in their provision of end user channel termination services nationwide and for rate-of-return carriers in their provision of transport services nationwide. We seek comment on this proposal.
37. Specifically, we propose to detariff price cap carriers' TDM-based lower-capacity (DS1 and DS3) end user channel termination services in the remaining regulated counties by granting forbearance from section 203 tariffing obligations. We propose to detariff electing rate-of-return carriers' TDM-based lower-capacity (DS1 and DS3) end user channel termination and transport services by granting forbearance from section 203 tariffing obligations. We also propose to grant rate-of-return carriers forbearance from section 203 tariffing requirements in the provision of end user channel termination services and transport services and other BDS on a nationwide basis. Our proposed forbearance applies to rate-of-return carriers that did not elect, or were ineligible to elect, incentive regulation, including rate-of-return carriers receiving legacy universal service support. We seek comment on this proposal. The Commission granted electing rate-of-return carriers forbearance from tariffing obligations with respect to packet-based and higher-capacity TDM BDS and lower-capacity TDM-based end user channel termination services in study areas deemed competitive. The Commission also granted forbearance from parts 32, 63, 64, 65, and 69 cost assignment rules, part 36 separations rules, and § 54.1305 reporting requirements for electing rate-of-return carriers' TDM-based end user channel termination and transport services. We similarly propose to grant forbearance from these rules to rate-of-return carriers receiving model-based or fixed universal service support for their TDM-based end user channel termination and transport services and other BDS nationwide and we seek comment on this proposal.
38. Would forbearance for these services meet the statutory criteria set y section 10 of the Act? Why or why not? Would forbearance promote competitive market conditions? Would detariffing reduce compliance costs, increase regulatory flexibility, increase incentives to invest in innovative products and services, or otherwise be in the public interest? Why or why not? Are the tariffing requirements no longer necessary to ensure just and reasonable BDS rates? Are tariffing requirements no longer necessary to protect consumers in the BDS market? Are there other rules for which the Commission must or should grant forbearance in connection with our deregulatory proposals here? In the alternative, we seek comment on granting forbearance from tariffing obligations to electing rate-of-return carriers' lower-capacity TDM-based end user channel termination and transport services, or solely to lower-capacity TDM-based transport services.
39. Most rate-of-return carriers establish rates for BDS by participating in the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. (NECA) traffic-sensitive tariff and traffic-sensitive pool. NECA sets BDS rates based on aggregate costs projected to earn the authorized rate-of-return. In the
40. We propose mandatory detariffing of remaining regulated end user channel termination and transport services after a 24-month transition, during which we will allow permissive tariffing. This is a shorter period than the Commission provided in the
41. We seek comment on whether 24 months is an appropriate length for the transition period. In the
42. For the same reasons, we propose to adopt a similar 6-month rate freeze and seek comment on this proposal. Because a significant number of carriers already have detariffed most of their BDS, we propose a slightly abbreviated transition period of 24-months instead of 36-months and seek comment on this approach. Should the Commission adopt a longer transition for rate-of-return carriers and, if so, how long would be an appropriate transition? Should we adopt a 24-month transition for rate-of-return carriers to exit the NECA traffic-sensitive pool for their BDS? Why or why not? Should we continue a staged transition for rate-of-return carriers that need to exit the NECA traffic-sensitive pool for their BDS, such as requiring them to exit the pool within 12 months, subject to permissive detariffing, and mandatory detariffing after 24 months? What are the costs and benefits of this approach?
43. During this transition, should the Commission permit or require rate-f-return carriers receiving legacy universal service support to transition from rate-of-return to incentive regulation for their BDS under § 61.50 of the Commission's rules? What are the costs and benefits of these approaches? Are these approaches feasible in light of the fact that those carriers still calculate universal service support based on costs? Are there potential cost-shifting concerns under this approach that would inflate legacy universal service support without network investments? Are there measures the Commission could take to avoid these cost-shifting concerns?
44. In Appendix A, we propose rules that would effectuate the deregulation of price cap carriers' and rate-of-return carriers' end user channel termination services and rate-of-return carriers' transport services proposed above. We seek comment on these proposed rules. We also seek comment on any other specific rule changes or new rules necessitated by the deregulation proposed today after consideration of the record. Any comments proposing new or amended rules should include, as part of the commenter's submission, a draft rule or markup of an existing rule.
45. Alternatively, we seek comment on the continuing role of the Commission's voluntary incentive regulation framework for electing rate-of-return carriers. Incentive regulation is intended to replicate the beneficial incentives of competition, encouraging carriers to be more efficient by lowering costs to realize higher profits. Rate-of-return regulation, by contrast, incentivizes carriers to inflate their costs and rate base and make inefficiently high use of capital inputs and imposes regulatory burdens on carriers requiring them to prepare cost studies accounting for their costs. Over the last three decades, the Commission has provided incentives to encourage incumbent LECs to move from inefficient rate-of-return regulation to more efficient incentive regulation.
46. Should we maintain the Commission's incentive regulation framework? Should we require carriers receiving model-based or fixed universal service support to adopt incentive regulation for their BDS, particularly during a transition period to deregulation? Should we require carriers that receive legacy universal service support and do not participate in the NECA traffic-sensitive pool to adopt incentive regulation for their BDS? Or should we require all rate-of-return carriers to exit the NECA traffic-sensitive pool and adopt incentive regulation for their BDS? Should we continue to make the election of incentive regulation voluntary as the Commission did in 2018 and allow additional opportunities for rate-of-return carriers receiving model-based or fixed universal service support to elect incentive regulation? We seek comment on the timing of such elections. For example, should we provide an annual opportunity or only at fixed times during the transition period? What are the costs and benefits of the different approaches? Are there measures the Commission could take that would appropriately incentivize carriers and avoid the risk of system-gaming?
47. In the alternative, we propose to update the competitive market tests to rely on Broadband Data Collection (BDC) program data if we determine, based on the record, that limited regulation of BDS remains necessary. In addition to seeking comment on the data transition, we seek comment on how to make the competitive market tests more effective in measuring competition.
48.
49. We seek comment on updates or other modifications to the competitive market tests if the Commission continues to use the tests. Have the Commission's competitive market tests advanced the Commission's policy objectives as originally intended? Why or why not? In light of marketplace and technological changes since the tests were adopted, what changes to the tests would commenters propose and why? Specifically, given the significant growth in broadband availability and services, should the Commission reevaluate the competitive thresholds adopted for the competitive market tests or revise the tests to measure competitive effects from additional providers (
50. We also seek comment on ultimately pausing or waiving the competitive market test altogether. If, at the conclusion of this proceeding, after careful consideration of the record, the Commission decides to completely deregulate and detariff BDS then would it be necessary to permanently pause or waive the competitive market tests?
51.
52. BDC data provide geographic locations within the Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric (Fabric) where fixed broadband service is or can be installed, specifying the technology and the maximum download and upload speeds. We seek comment on conducting the triennial update to the competitive market tests using BDC broadband availability data on wireline or fixed wireless service. The Commission focused the competitive market tests on the competitive presence from cable operators offering broadband service regardless of the technology. Are there other broadband services and/or competing providers that we should consider when updating the results to the competitive market tests? BDC data measure fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP), copper (DSL), and terrestrial fixed wireless. Should we deem census blocks competitive if they are served by providers offering FTTP, copper, terrestrial fixed wireless, or other broadband services?
53. We next seek comment on the appropriate speed capacity for the price cap competitive market test. While the Commission adopted a 10/1 Mbps capacity threshold for the competitive market test for areas served by electing rate-of-return carriers, it did not specify a similar threshold for the price cap competitive market test. If we maintain the competitive market test, we would propose to revise § 69.803(c)(1) to adopt a 10/1 Mbps download/upload capacity threshold for the price cap competitive market test consistent with the rate-of-return competitive market test. We seek comment on this approach.
54. We also seek comment on whether to continue to treat as competitive census blocks that report business or residential BDC broadband availability. In the current tests, any cable presence, regardless of whether the cable operator was shown to be serving business or residential customers, is treated as competitive, given the high sunk costs of broadband network investment. The BDC data show whether a particular service is residential-only, business-only, and mixed-use customers. We seek comment on continuing to treat census blocks as competitive if BDC data indicate broadband availability from cable operators or other providers, regardless of customer type.
55. Should we continue to measure presence of a competitive provider based on census blocks rather than locations even though BDC data capture locations? Consistent with the existing approach, in areas served by price cap carriers, a county will be deemed competitive if BDC data demonstrate that 75% of the census blocks within the county have broadband service by a competing provider in at least one location, and in areas served by electing rate-of-return carriers, a study area will be deemed competitive if BDC data show that 75% of the census blocks within the study area have broadband service by a competing provider in at least one location. We also seek comment on excluding from the denominator of these calculations any census blocks without broadband serviceable locations because otherwise unpopulated areas without demand would distort the results and undercount competition.
56. Alternatively, should we update the competitive market tests based on location-level calculations? Should we treat a county or study area as competitive if a set threshold percentage of locations report BDC broadband connection availability offered by a competing provider? Or should we consider adopting a competitive threshold based on locations within a half-mile of BDS demand? If so, should we apply the current 75% competitive threshold or another threshold?
57. We seek comment on the benefits and costs of ending ex ante pricing regulation and tariffing obligations for BDS. How will the deregulation of rates charged for legacy TDM-based BDS in counties and study areas currently deemed non-competitive affect market prices for these services? Are there potential costs to deregulating legacy TDM-based BDS in these markets? We seek comment on whether ex ante pricing regulation remains effective or necessary to discipline provider prices in markets deemed non-competitive. Absent rate regulation, would incumbent LECs still wield market power such that deregulating these areas would lead to higher prices?
58. We also seek comment on the likely benefits of eliminating pricing regulation and tariffing obligations for incumbent LECs in currently non-competitive areas. What regulatory costs will incumbent LECs avoid as a result of such deregulation? For example, what are the likely savings in labor hours resulting from not having to file tariffs or comply with price regulation? Our preliminary analysis indicates that annual cost savings from reduced compliance and filings costs associated with detariffing will amount to approximately $1 million. We seek comment on this analysis and result.
59. In addition, what are the likely benefits to competition of relaxing these regulations for incumbent LECs? To what extent will incumbent LECs be better able to respond to competitive initiatives by cable companies and competing providers of BDS, and to what extent will consumers benefit as a result? Relatedly, to what extent might
60. We also seek comment on whether, and to what extent, the competitive market tests accurately measure the extent of competition in these markets. As discussed above, if our tests understate the extent of competition for both price cap and rate-of-return carriers, what are the relative costs and benefits of deregulation if the areas that are deregulated are effectively competitive already?
61.
62. We seek comment on the change in demand for legacy TDM-based BDS in recent years. How quickly, and to what extent, is demand for these legacy services shrinking relative to demand for packet-based services? For price cap and rate-of-return carriers currently under ex ante pricing regulation, how have these revenues changed vis-à-vis revenues for packet-based services over the past five years? We encourage commenters to submit any data and reports on the size of this market segment. Specifically, are there recent estimates of annual nationwide revenues for legacy TDM-based services? Are there data that capture the revenues of only the regulated services in areas where ex ante price regulation is still in effect? Do pricing dynamics differ between end user channel termination and transport services? That is, would we need separate approaches to understand the impact of deregulation on each service? If these services have become largely obsolete, would the economic impact of deregulation, even in areas where incumbent LECs exhibit market power, be limited?
63.
64. What are the expected impacts to investment of each proposal discussed above? If incumbent LECs increase their investment in fiber or next-generation services as a result of any relief, how should we account for such increased investment in any updated cost-benefit analysis? To the extent that the elimination of certain lower capacity TDM-based BDS would have economic effects on end users, we seek comment as to the magnitude of these effects and how we should quantify them. For example, how can we quantify the benefits of migrating users to next-generation services or higher speed networks? Should we confine our analysis to consumers that currently rely on lower capacity TDM-based BDS or take into account the network effects that migrations to new networks could have on all consumers?
65. We also seek comment on any other benefits and costs of our proposed actions. More generally, for each proposal discussed above, we seek comment on the respective costs and benefits of particular alternative rules or approaches as compared to retaining the current rate regulation and tariffing requirements.
66.
67.
68. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the policies and rules proposed in the
69. In response to the growth of competition for business data services (BDS), the Commission has, in recent years, streamlined its regulation of these services to promote long-term innovation and investment in response to the growth of competition for these services. In 2017, the Commission reduced ex ante pricing regulation for some BDS provided by price cap incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs or carriers), concluding that reducing government intervention and allowing market forces to continue working would spur entry, innovation, and competition in the markets served by price cap carriers. In 2018, the Commission took similar deregulatory actions to relieve some BDS provided by rate-of-return carriers receiving Alternative Connect America Cost Model (A-CAM) support or other forms of fixed universal service fund support (electing rate-of-return carriers) fixed high-cost universal service support from ex ante pricing regulation. In both cases, the Commission adopted a regulatory framework governing BDS that would apply ex ante pricing regulation only where competition is expected to materially fail to ensure just and reasonable rates measured by competitive market tests.
70. In today's
71. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 10, 201(b), 202(a), 214, 303(r), 403, of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i) and (j), 160, 201(b), 202(a), 214, 303(r), 1302.
72. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” The SBA establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses; agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing so.
73. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions. In general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million businesses. Next, “small organizations” are not-for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and operated and not dominant their field. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have fewer than 500 employees. Finally, “small governmental jurisdictions” are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
74. The rules proposed in the
75. Based on currently available U.S. Census data regarding the estimated number of small firms in each identified industry, we conclude that the adopted rules will impact a substantial number of small entities. Where available, we provide additional information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in the above identified industries, and information for other affected entities, as follows.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.
81. In the
82. It is possible that compliance with mandatory detariffing, if adopted, may impact some small entities and may include new or reduced administrative processes, which the Commission does not expect will require small entities to hire professionals to comply. For small carriers that may be affected, obligations may include changes to existing tariffs during the transition and eventual removal of tariffs for the affected BDS. However, these impacts may be mitigated by the deregulatory nature of the proposed reforms, which would relieve affected small carriers from having to tariff their BDS. We seek comment on potential costs and benefits associated with the Commission's
83. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any significant economic impact on small entities. The discussion is required to include alternatives such as: “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”
84. The
85. None.
86. Accordingly,
87.
88.
89.
Communications common carriers, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telegraph, Telephone.
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telephone.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 61 and 69 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 403, unless otherwise noted.
(j) [Removed and Reserved]
(k) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) [Removed and Reserved]
(iii) All time division multiplexed end user channel termination business data services at or below a DS3 bandwidth and time division multiplexed transport business data services at or below a DS3 bandwidth within twenty-four months after September 4, 2025.
(4) Time division multiplexed end user channel termination business data services at or below a DS3 bandwidth and time division multiplexed transport business data services at or below a DS3 bandwidth detariffed in accordance with paragraph (k)(3)(iii) of this section shall not be subject to ex ante pricing regulation.
(a) * * *
(6) All tariffed DS1 and DS3 end user channel terminations not yet deemed competitive as defined in § 69.801 of this chapter.
(b) The detariffing referenced in paragraph (a)(6) of this section must be completed twenty-four months after
(a) Rate-of-return local exchange carriers shall remove from their interstate tariffs:
(1) End user channel terminations, and all other tariffed special access services; and
(2) Any transport services as defined in § 69.801(j) of this chapter.
(b) Rate-of-return local exchange carriers shall remove their business data services from the NECA Traffic Sensitive Pool but may continue to participate in the NECA Traffic Sensitive Pool for access services other than business data services.
(c) The detariffing must be completed twenty-four months after September 4, 2025, but detariffing can take place at any time before the twenty-four months is completed.
47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 203, 204, 218, 220, 254, 403.
(b) [Removed and Reserved]
(e) Grandfathered
(f) [Removed and Reserved]
(g) [Removed and Reserved]
(b) Price cap local exchange carrier end user channel terminations subject to detariffing in § 61.201(a)(6) and (c) of this chapter are granted the following regulatory relief:
(1) Elimination of the rate structure requirements in subpart B of this part;
(2) Elimination of price cap regulation; and
(3) Elimination of tariffing requirements as specified in § 61.201 of this chapter.
(c) [Removed and Reserved]
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notification of findings.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce findings that five species are not warranted for listing as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial data available, we find that it is not warranted at this time to list the Jackson Prairie crayfish (
The findings in this document were made on September 4, 2025.
Detailed descriptions of the bases for these findings are available on the internet at
Those descriptions are also available by contacting the appropriate person, as specified under
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)), we are required to make a finding on whether or not a petitioned action is warranted within 12 months after receiving any petition that we have determined contains substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (“12-month finding”). We must make a finding that the petitioned action is: (1) not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) warranted, but precluded by other listing activity. We must publish a notification of these 12-month findings in the
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing regulations at part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). The Act defines “species” as including any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature. The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)) and a “threatened species” as a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) may determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively affect individuals of a species. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition or the action or condition itself. However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” In determining whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the species' expected response and the effects of the threats—in light of those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the threats—on an individual, population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species meets the definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species” only after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species.
The Act does not define the term “foreseeable future,” which appears in the statutory definition of “threatened species.” Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, which is further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-37021, January 16, 2009; “M-Opinion,” available online at
In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the Jackson Prairie crayfish, Ozark shiner, speckled burrowing crayfish, spiny scale crayfish, and spotted turtle meet the Act's definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species,” we considered and thoroughly evaluated the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future stressors and threats. We reviewed the petition, information available in our files, and other available published and unpublished information for the species. Our evaluation may include information from recognized experts; Federal, State, and Tribal governments; academic institutions; foreign governments; private entities; and other members of the public.
In accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i), this document announces the not-warranted findings on petitions to list the five species. We have also elected to include brief summaries of the analyses on which these findings are based. We provide the full analyses, including the reasons and data on which the findings are based, in the decisional file for each of the actions included in this document. Below, we describe the documents containing these analyses.
The species assessment forms for the Jackson Prairie crayfish, Ozark shiner, speckled burrowing crayfish, spiny scale crayfish, and spotted turtle each contain more detailed biological information, a thorough analysis of the listing factors, a list of literature cited, and an explanation of why we determined that these species do not meet the Act's definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” To inform our status reviews, we completed species status assessment (SSA) reports for these five species. Each SSA report contains a thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, current status, and projected future status for each species. This supporting information can be found on the internet at
On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species, including Jackson Prairie crayfish (
The Jackson Prairie crayfish is a small (approximately 1.4 inches (3.6 centimeters) in length), primarily burrowing crayfish species that can be differentiated from other crayfishes through rostral (a stiff beaklike projection on the head), claw, hook, and carapace morphology. The species is a narrow-ranging endemic confined primarily to the Jackson and Blackland Prairie ecoregions of south-central Mississippi and extreme western Alabama, although there is some uncertainty about the validity of the Alabama records as potential misidentifications. The distribution of the species is within Scott, Rankin, Smith, Jasper, Newton, and Lauderdale Counties in Mississippi and Sumter County in Alabama. Occurrences noted from Perry County, Mississippi, were determined to be erroneous and are not included in our analysis.
The Jackson Prairie crayfish occupies a wide range of environments, including upland prairies, old prairie remnants, and grassland openings; wet roadside ditches; mown utility rights-of-way (
Habitat elements that support a stable environment important to an individual Jackson Prairie crayfish are divided into two ecological conditions—within the burrow and outside of the burrow. A stable environment is defined herein as a burrow and surrounding habitat (
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Jackson Prairie crayfish. We evaluated all relevant factors under the Act's five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these threats. The primary threats affecting the Jackson Prairie crayfish's biological status now and in the foreseeable future include habitat modification from development and row crop agriculture, and drought.
We first assessed whether the Jackson Prairie crayfish is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. Our analysis indicates that effects of drought and contemporary land uses (
Our analyses using projections from two future scenarios at 2040 and 2060, representing high and low landscape suitability based on potential changes in development and agriculture, indicate that conditions will be mostly static and thus are not expected to decline to a level where the species' viability will be impacted. Regarding the effects of drought (
Given the species' current condition and the lack of threats that the species is expected to experience under future scenarios over the next 45 years, negligible reductions in resilience, redundancy, or representation are anticipated, and viability is expected to be maintained in the future. Under both future scenarios and timesteps analyzed, all current populations and nearly all pre-2014 populations are projected to be in high or moderate resiliency condition. Thus, the overall estimate of the future viability of Jackson Prairie crayfish is high across the majority of its geographic range. While not analyzed, the 32 newly discovered populations indicate further redundancy across the range. The results of our analyses highlight that Jackson Prairie crayfish exhibits a high degree of resistance to disturbance, indicating the species has a low susceptibility to threats and a high degree of stability. After assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that the Jackson Prairie crayfish is not likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
We also evaluated whether the Jackson Prairie crayfish is endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range. We did not find any portion of the Jackson Prairie crayfish's range for which both (1) the portion is “significant,” and (2) the species is in danger of extinction in that portion or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We found that threats are not disproportionately affecting the Jackson Prairie crayfish in any portion of its range and we found no portion of the Jackson Prairie crayfish's range where the biological condition of the species differs from its condition elsewhere in its range such that the status of the species in that portion differs from its status in any other portion of the species' range either in the near term or within the foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that the Jackson Prairie crayfish is not in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range or likely to become so within the foreseeable future.
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the Jackson Prairie crayfish does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we find that listing the Jackson Prairie crayfish is not warranted at this time. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Jackson Prairie crayfish species assessment form, SSA report, and other supporting documents on
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and West Virginia Highlands to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species, including Ozark shiner (
The Ozark shiner is a fish endemic to the Ozark Plateaus Physiographic Province (
The needs of the Ozark shiner are likely akin to those common among other North American freshwater shiners. At the individual level, all life stages of Ozark shiner likely require medium- to large-sized upland rivers with appropriate flow and velocity, as well as appropriate water quality conditions, to support breeding, feeding, sheltering, and dispersal. The egg life stage requires mature males and mature females to become fertilized, and coarse substrate or aquatic vegetation in adequate supply is needed to provide refuge from predators and high-velocity water flow. The juvenile and adult life stages also require such substrate or vegetation for overwintering. In addition, juveniles and adults need appropriate food sources in adequate supply—particularly Ephemeropteran nymphs, but also other aquatic insects such as trichopteran larvae, dipteran pupae, and odonate nymphs.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Ozark shiner. We evaluated all relevant factors under the Act's five listing factors, including any
Suitability of habitat was divided by watersheds at the 8-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC 8) level, called analytical units (AUs), for resiliency and redundancy assessment. The 12 AUs aligned with the 12 medium-sized rivers from which Ozark shiner have been collected. To evaluate representation, we used the three major river drainages, or representation units (RUs) of occurrence, that encompass all identified AUs. In each AU, we assessed current resiliency through four metrics: extent of occurrence, watershed condition, riparian corridor condition, and connectivity. These metrics indicate how primary threats impact the habitat suitability for Ozark shiner within its range.
We first assessed whether the Ozark shiner is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. Currently, the best scientific and commercial data available indicate that the Ozark shiner is present throughout its historical range. The species has adequate resiliency to withstand stochastic events, as a vast majority of AUs through its range (75%) are in moderate or high condition, meaning there are sufficient resources to sustain populations into the immediate future. The distribution of these moderate and high resiliency AUs throughout the range of the Ozark shiner provides sufficient redundancy for the species to withstand catastrophic events (
Therefore, we proceed with determining whether Ozark shiner is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. Predictions on future condition of the Ozark shiner, which were determined at the 2040 and 2060 timesteps, are based on models incorporating information related to future changes in habitat suitability for the species. These models were used as a surrogate for impacts to water quality (
We also evaluated whether the Ozark shiner is endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range. We did not find any portion of the Ozark shiner's range for which both (1) the portion is “significant,” and (2) the species is in danger of extinction in that portion or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We found a portion of the range (the St. Francis River RU) where the regulatory status may be different than the rest of the range; however, this portion is not a significant portion of the Ozark shiner's range because it does not represent a large proportion of the current range of the species. In addition, it does not provide habitat for a large proportion of individuals or populations compared to the rest of the range, does not include important habitat features for species conservation, and does not contain unique habitat of high value. The St. Francis River RU contains 6.25 occupied river miles (10.06 river km) representing less than one percent of the species' occupied river miles range wide. This RU also has fewer species records both historically and currently compared to the White River and Black River RUs, which is likely a reflection of its smaller size. Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that the Ozark shiner is not in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range or likely to become so within the foreseeable future.
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the Ozark shiner does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we find that listing the Ozark shiner is not warranted at this time. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Ozark shiner species assessment form and other supporting documents on
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species, including speckled burrowing crayfish (
The speckled burrowing crayfish is a small (approximately 1.5 inches (3.8 centimeters) in length) burrowing crayfish species that can be differentiated from other crayfishes through rostral (a stiff beaklike projection on the head), claw, hook, and carapace morphology. The species is a narrow-ranging endemic to southern Mississippi and Alabama near the coast; its range is restricted to areas just west of the Pascagoula River and to the Mobile River (to the east), with two records on Dauphin Island. The distribution of the species is within Jackson and George Counties, Mississippi, and Mobile County, Alabama. The speckled burrowing crayfish occupies a wide range of environments, including wet pine savannas and pitcher plant bogs, roadside ditches and other developed/disturbed settings, as well as in shallow ephemeral/seasonal waterbodies. Of the 25 known populations of speckled burrowing crayfish, there are 18 post-2014 (“current”) populations and 7 pre-2014 (“historical”) populations. Based on the short lifespans (approximately 2.5 years) and generation times of burrowing crayfish, we used 2014 as the cutoff between historical and current timeframes. Observations across a wide array of open, wet, grassy areas suggests the species occupies differing habitats with similar structural condition (
Habitat elements that support a stable environment important to an individual speckled burrowing crayfish are divided into two ecological conditions—within the burrow and outside of the burrow. A stable environment is defined herein as a burrow (including all excavated channels, tunnels, and chambers) and associated non-burrow surrounding habitat (
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the speckled burrowing crayfish. We evaluated all relevant factors under the Act's five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these threats. The primary threats affecting the speckled burrowing crayfish's biological status now and in the foreseeable future include habitat modification from development and changes to coastal hydrology through sea level rise.
We first assessed whether the speckled burrowing crayfish is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. Our analysis indicates the effects of drought and contemporary land uses (
The adaptive capacity evaluation suggests that the species' current representation, while naturally low because it is a narrow endemic, has not been diminished from historical representation (
Our analyses using projections 20 to 75 years into the future, representing high and low landscape suitability, sea level rise, or both, indicate that conditions are not expected to decline to a level where the species' viability is impacted, and environmental conditions are expected to continue to meet life history requirements. Thus, in a foreseeable future of up to 75 years, we can make reasonable predictions that the speckled burrowing crayfish will not be affected significantly by the threat of development or sea level rise. Future sea level rise projections indicate that up to three populations may be impacted by sea level rise/inundation by 2100. Due to speckled burrowing crayfish having some potential tolerance to salinity and to not all areas of habitat experiencing inundation, we do not expect sea level rise to result in any population-level extirpation.
Given the species' current condition and the lack of threats that the species is expected to experience under future scenarios over the next 75 years, no reductions in resilience, redundancy, or representation are anticipated, and viability is expected to be maintained in the future. The results of our analyses highlight that the speckled burrowing crayfish exhibits a high degree of resistance to disturbance from habitat change, indicating the species has a low susceptibility to threats and a high degree of stability. After assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that the speckled burrowing crayfish is not likely to become endangered within the
We also evaluated whether the speckled burrowing crayfish is endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range. We did not find any portion of the speckled burrowing crayfish's range for which both (1) the portion is “significant,” and (2) the species is in danger of extinction in that portion or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We found that threats are not currently disproportionately affecting the speckled burrowing crayfish in any portion of its range and we found no portion of the speckled burrowing crayfish's range where the biological condition of the species differs from its condition elsewhere in its range such that the status of the species in that portion differs from its status in any other portion of the species' range either in the near term or within the foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that the speckled burrowing crayfish is not in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range or likely to become so within the foreseeable future.
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the speckled burrowing crayfish does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we find that listing the speckled burrowing crayfish is not warranted at this time. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the speckled burrowing crayfish species assessment form, SSA report, and other supporting documents on
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and West Virginia Highlands to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species, including spiny scale crayfish (
The spiny scale crayfish is a small crayfish with a pigmented body. Two color morphs, red and blue, are noted. This species was first described in 2000 and is recognized as a unique species within a complex of species that inhabit the Cumberland Thrust Block region and Kentucky River Basin of the Appalachian Mountains. The spiny scale crayfish is currently found in five major drainages across northern Tennessee, southwestern Virginia, and southern Kentucky: the Powell River, Upper Cumberland River, and the North, Middle, and South Forks of the Kentucky River.
To ensure populations are able to persist, individual needs must be met through sufficient habitat parameters, including suitable water quality, temperature, and substrate, which must be available over long enough stream segments in close proximity to support a viable number of individuals for genetic exchange and recruitment. For the spiny scale crayfish to maintain viability, there must be adequate redundancy of populations (
The spiny scale crayfish is associated with first- and second-order, clean, silt-free, cold-water spring-fed streams of high altitude and high gradient with coarse, rocky substrates that provide interstitial spaces, where the species is found, including the upper reaches of streams, all the way to the mouth of a spring and potentially into associated caves. Sites with the spiny scale crayfish are associated with primary or secondary growth forests, rhododendron or hemlocks, and often have aquatic mosses present. Additionally, spiny scale crayfish are assumed to require habitats with rock or rubble substrates and low sediment, as the species uses the interstitial spaces within the substrate. The spiny scale crayfish appears to prefer consuming insect larvae and small amounts of plant material, but may eat other things in the wild.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the spiny scale crayfish. We evaluated all relevant factors under the Act's five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these threats. The primary threats affecting the spiny scale crayfish's biological status include habitat loss and degradation, and impacts from changing precipitation patterns and increased temperatures.
For the spiny scale crayfish, we divided the range into five major basins (8-digit HUC watersheds; representation units) across northern Tennessee, southwestern Virginia, and southern Kentucky: the Powell, Upper Cumberland, and the North, Middle, and South Forks of the Kentucky River. Within these basins, the species has been identified in 78 12-digit HUC watersheds, referred to as analysis units. The major basins (representation units) are the units that provide the appropriate scale to assess extinction risk for the spiny scale crayfish.
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, our analysis indicates that populations with recent and historical detections are likely still present unless there has been a major land use change in the area. Of the 216 detections, 169 detections are current (2005 to 2024), 34 are recent (1985 to 2004), and 13 are historical (prior to1985). These detections occur at 205 unique locations and occupy 78 analysis units; 75 of these units have current detections (assumed present), 2 are recent (assumed likely present), and 1 is historical (unknown presence). The current, average forest cover within the range of the spiny scale crayfish is generally high (83.1 percent), with the Powell River basin having less forest cover on average (61.1 percent)
Although there may have been some losses of populations over time due to land use changes and mining operations, the species currently has relatively high redundancy given its presence in many analysis units within the expected range. While a potential catastrophic impact, such as a wildfire or heavy rainfall event, could impact all or parts of several analysis units at once, the impacts would be unlikely to impact the entirety of a major basin or the entire species. Additionally, the species is somewhat insulated from the broader-ranging impacts of climate change, such as temperature increases and droughts due to streams being spring-fed and the species' ability to burrow. Representation, likewise, has probably also declined from historical levels, but we do not expect much genetic diversity has been lost given the species still occurs across many analysis units across all of the major watersheds within its expected historical range. As such, it was determined that there is similar near-term extinction risk in each representation unit.
In summary, we find that the spiny scale crayfish is not in danger of extinction in any areas (
As mentioned above, spiny scale crayfish need multiple healthy, resilient populations distributed across the species' range to reduce the risk of extinction. After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we found that habitat loss and degradation (
In the future, the biggest risk to the species is loss of forest cover around occupied areas. Areas that retain forest cover are less likely to experience impacts from changing rainfall patterns and rising temperatures. This is due to the role of forest cover in preserving stream habitat conditions by buffering against erosion from heavy rainfall events and filtering runoff from nearby incompatible land uses, thereby protecting the temperature regimes of streams. While species-specific responses to changes to rainfall and temperature are unknown, the expected potential impacts are assumed to worsen over time (
Overall, while habitat loss, habitat degradation, and the impacts of changes to rainfall and temperature are affecting the spiny scale crayfish, the presence of sufficiently resilient populations, relatively high redundancy, and stable representation within the Upper Cumberland River basin and the North, Middle, and South Forks of the Kentucky River basin units indicate that the threats are not significant enough to substantially increase the risk of extinction. Therefore, the species is unlikely to become endangered within the foreseeable future in those units.
However, the spiny scale crayfish may be threatened throughout a portion of the range—the Powell River basin unit.
Although some of the analysis units within the Powell River basin unit face an elevated risk of forest loss, the overall resiliency of the unit is projected to remain high under both moderate and high climate scenarios through the 2074 timeframe. While the Powell River basin unit could potentially be at an elevated risk for a catastrophic impact, such as a heavy rainfall event, it is unlikely that impacts would threaten the entirety of the unit given the species inhabits the upper reaches of streams, providing geographical distance via stream branching that limits the impacts of many single catastrophic impacts. Similarly, the species has the ability to persist in place with changing environmental conditions through its ability to burrow, insulating individuals from impacts of changing precipitation and temperature patterns. As such, the spiny scale crayfish maintains sufficient representation and redundancy across this unit. Thus, we determined that the spiny scale crayfish does not have a different status throughout the Power River basin unit than the remainder of the range. As a result of our finding that the spiny scale crayfish is not likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout this portion of the range, we do not need to determine whether this portion of the range is “significant.” Therefore, no portion of the species' range provides a basis for determining that the species is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range.
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the spiny scale crayfish does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we find that listing the spiny scale crayfish is
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
On July 11, 2012, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity to list 53 amphibian and reptile species, including the spotted turtle (
The spotted turtle is a small semiaquatic turtle found throughout the eastern coast of the United States and the Great Lakes region, from Maine south along the Atlantic Coastal Plain and Piedmont to Florida, and west to northeastern Illinois and Michigan. Although broadly distributed, the species is fairly uncommon in much of its range. Populations at the northern and southern extremes appear small, and the spotted turtle occurs in very low densities in Florida.
Generally, spotted turtles require wetland habitats with clear, clean water, soft substrate, and aquatic vegetation adjacent to accessible upland habitats. Throughout the year, spotted turtles can exploit a wide variety of mostly freshwater, shallow, wetland habitats, including sphagnum swamps, wooded swamps, small ephemeral and permanent pools, bogs, fens, wet meadows, cattail marshes, sedge meadows, small woodland streams, and artificial drainage ditches, as well as the edges of bays, ponds, and tidally influenced brackish streams. They often use different wetlands in different parts of the year, moving to new areas depending on the season and local conditions. Their activity patterns are somewhat temperature dependent, and spotted turtles have temperature dependent sex determination, with more females produced at higher temperatures. Although individual clutch sizes decrease from north to south, total annual reproductive output may be consistent across the range because southern populations are able to lay multiple clutches due to the extended active period. Alternatively, southern populations may be capable of exceeding reproductive output of the northern populations. Additionally, spotted turtles, like other turtle species, have high egg and juvenile mortality, iteroparity (
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the spotted turtle. We evaluated all relevant factors under the Act's five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these threats. The primary threats affecting the spotted turtle's biological status are habitat loss, fragmentation, and alteration, followed by illegal collection, the latter of which can impact individual populations. We also examined other factors including land use and management (
We first assessed whether the spotted turtle is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. The spotted turtle exists in restricted occurrences across a broad range that includes the Midwest and eastern United States, inhabiting many types of wetland habitats adjacent to accessible upland habitats that are used for nesting, basking, foraging, and overwintering sites. Approximately 83 percent of the species' range is ranked as highly or moderately resilient with abundant or somewhat abundant populations, abundant or widespread habitat availability, habitat connectivity, and stable or varied population trajectories. This level of resiliency across most of the spotted turtle's range contributes to its ability to withstand stochastic events. Redundancy is also robust, with many analysis units (containing multiple populations) distributed throughout a wide geographic extent, including multiple high resiliency units occurring from North Carolina to Maine. Despite threats acting on the species, there are also many moderately resilient units spread throughout the species' range, thus lending to the species' ability to withstand catastrophic events. At this time, there is no evidence of discrete genetic units within the spotted turtle's range. As a measure of representation and given the spotted turtle's use of various wetland types, upland habitats, and ecoregions across the landscape, the species is assumed to have some amount of adaptive capacity to persist under broad ranges of conditions (recognizing there are limitations, especially given its long generational time of likely 20 to 30 years). Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that the spotted turtle is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
In considering the status of the spotted turtle in the foreseeable future, we considered the relevant risk factors (threats) acting on the species and whether we could draw reliable predictions about the species' response to these factors. For the spotted turtle, we considered future condition under a high impact and a moderate impact scenario at two timesteps: 2050 and 2100. Our estimated future resiliency of spotted turtles is that more than half of the species' range (varying from 53.4 to 57.2 percent) is likely to maintain viability, with populations occurring within an average of 15.4 percent (varying from 14.3 to 16.6 percent) of the species' range exposed to the highest risk of extirpation. The projected viable populations (
We also evaluated whether the spotted turtle is endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range. We did not find any portion of the spotted turtle's range for which both (1) the portion is “significant,” and (2) the species is in danger of extinction in that portion or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We found no portion of the spotted turtle's range where it is in danger of extinction. We found a portion of the range (SE Coastal Plain L2 ecoregion) where the spotted turtle may become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future; however, this portion is not a significant portion of the spotted turtle's range given this portion does not contain unique or high quality habitat, nor does it constitute a large geographic area relative to the extensive range of the species as a whole. Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that the spotted turtle is not in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range or likely to become so within the foreseeable future.
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we determine that the spotted turtle does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we find that listing the spotted turtle is not warranted at this time. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the spotted turtle species assessment form and other supporting documents on
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
We request that you submit any new information concerning the taxonomy of, biology of, ecology of, status of, or stressors to the Jackson Prairie crayfish, Ozark shiner, speckled burrowing crayfish, spiny scale crayfish, and spotted turtle to the appropriate person, as specified under
A complete list of the references used in these petition findings is available in the relevant species assessment form, which is available on the internet at
The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes to implement an annual catch limit (ACL) for Deep 7 bottomfish in the main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) for fishing years 2024-2025, 2025-2026, and 2026-2027. The fishing year for the fishery begins on September 1 and ends on August 31 of the following year. This rule does not revise, add, or remove the current accountability measures (AM). The proposed rule supports the long-term sustainability of the Deep 7 bottomfish fishery.
NMFS must receive comments by October 6, 2025.
A plain language summary of this proposed rule is available at:
•
•
NMFS prepared an environmental assessment and draft supplemental environmental assessment that describe the potential impacts on the human environment that could result from the proposed action. The assessments, a regulatory impact review, and other supporting documents are available at:
Pua Borges, NMFS PIRO Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5813.
NMFS and the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) manage the Deep 7 bottomfish fishery in Federal waters around Hawaii under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Hawaii Archipelago (FEP), as authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Implementing regulations at 50 CFR 665.4 require NMFS to specify an ACL for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish each fishing year based on a recommendation from the Council. The fishing year for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish begins on September 1 and ends on August 31 of the following year. The Deep 7 bottomfish are lehi (
NMFS proposes this action under section 303(c) and section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Consistent with a recommendation for the MHI Deep 7 bottomfish fishery made by the Council at their 200th meeting in October 2025, NMFS proposes to implement a new ACL of 493,000 pounds (lb) (223,621 kilograms (kg)) for fishing years 2024-2025, 2025-2026, and 2026-2027 and retain the current AMs (50 CFR 665.211). The Council recommended the proposed ACL based on a 2024 benchmark stock assessment, and in consideration of the risk of overfishing, past fishery performance, and the acceptable biological catch recommendation from its Scientific and Statistical Committee, with opportunity for input from the public.
The 2024 stock assessment estimated the overfishing limit for the MHI Deep 7 bottomfish stock complex to be 545,000 lb (247,208 kg), assuming 3 years of identical catch in fishing years 2024-2025, 2025-2026, and 2026-2027. The proposed ACL would increase by only 0.2 percent from the 492,000 lb (223,167 kg) ACL that NMFS specified the previous 3 years (84 FR 29394, June 24, 2021). The proposed ACL is associated with up to a 39 percent probability of overfishing for each proposed fishing year, which is more conservative than the 40 percent probability associated with the previous ACL and the 50 percent risk threshold allowed under NMFS guidelines for National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
NMFS monitors Deep 7 bottomfish catches based on data provided by commercial fishermen to the State of Hawaii and non-commercial fishermen to NMFS. This proposed rule would not revise, add, or remove any of the current AMs, in alignment with the Council's recommendation. A current in-season AM requires NMFS to close commercial and non-commercial fishing for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish in Federal waters for the remainder of the fishing year if it projects that the catch will reach the ACL. Additionally, a current post-season AM requires NMFS to reduce the ACL for the subsequent fishing year by the amount of the overage through a subsequent rulemaking if it determines that the final MHI Deep 7 bottomfish catch exceeds the ACL in any given year.
The fishery has not reached the proposed limit in any year since 1989, and NMFS does not anticipate that the fishery will attain the limit in any fishing year under this proposed rule. NMFS does not expect this proposed rule to result in a change in fishing operations, or other changes to the conduct of the fishery that would result in significant environmental impacts.
NMFS will consider public comments on this proposed rule and will announce the final rule in the
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FEP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
NMFS proposes to implement an ACL of 493,000 lb (223,621 kg) for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish, as recommended by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, for each fishing year 2024-2025, 2025-2026, and 2026-2027. Each fishing year begins on September 1 and ends on August 31 of the following year. NMFS monitors MHI Deep 7 bottomfish catch based on data provided by commercial fishermen to the State of Hawaii and non-commercial fishermen to NMFS. The AMs for fishing years 2024-2025, 2025-2026, and 2026-2027 would remain the same as the AMs that are currently in place. If NMFS projects that the fishery will reach this limit in any fishing year, NMFS would close commercial and non-commercial fishing for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish in Federal waters for the remainder of that fishing year as an in-season AM. As a post-season AM, if the catch exceeds the ACL in a fishing year, NMFS will reduce the ACL of the next fishing year by the amount of the overage. The proposed ACL only increases the ACL implemented annually since the 2018-2019 fishing year (492,000 lb) (223,167 kg) by 0.2 percent. The proposed ACL is greater than the highest reported annual landings over the past eight fishing seasons by more than 180,000 lb (81,647 kg). Therefore, NMFS does not expect that the fishery will reach the ACL during any of the next 3 fishing years.
This rule would affect commercial and non-commercial fishermen who catch MHI Deep 7 bottomfish. A 2023 Pacific Island Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) report, based on data from fishery participants who voluntarily responded to a survey, indicated that an average of approximately 23 percent of individual commercial participants' overall income is attributed to MHI Deep 7 bottomfish. For Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial finfish fishing (NAICS code 114111) is classified as a small entity if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. Based on available information, NMFS has determined that all affected entities (
During the 2022-2023 fishing year, 359 fishermen reported catching 197,158 lb (89,429 kg) of MHI Deep 7 bottomfish, which is consistent with catch and participation in recent years. Price per pound for Deep 7 bottomfish in 2022-2023 averaged $10.11 ($22.05/kg) with 91 percent of catch sold. Assuming that the fishery attains the proposed ACL of 493,000 lb (223,621 kg), and using the 2022-2023 average price of $10.11/lb, NMFS expects the potential annual fleet-wide revenue during each of the 2024-2025, 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 fishing years to be approximately $4,535,649 under the assumption that 91 percent of catch is sold. If this revenue (91 percent of the proposed ACL sold at the 2022-2023 average price) was earned equally by 359 participants (the number of fishermen in 2022-2023), the revenue per fisherman would be $12,634, which is well below the $11 million threshold.
Even though this proposed rule would apply to a substantial number of vessels, (
Accountability measures, Annual catch limits, Bottomfish, Fishing, Hawaii, Pacific Islands, Western Pacific.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 665 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) In accordance with § 665.4, the ACLs for MHI bottomfish fishery for each fishing year are as follows:
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public of our determination that ISK-311NR-4 phalaenopsis (moth orchid), which was developed using genetic engineering to produce a blue-purple flower color, is no longer considered regulated. Our determination is based on our evaluation of information and data Ishihara Sangyo Kaisha, Limited submitted in its petition for a determination of nonregulated status, available scientific data, the plant pest risk assessment, and public comments received in response to a previous notice announcing the availability of the petition for nonregulated status and a draft plant pest risk assessment. This notice announces the availability of our written determination and supporting documents.
This change in regulatory status is recognized as of September 2, 2025.
You may read the petition, our determination referenced in this notice, and supporting documents by any of the following methods:
•
• Our reading room, located in 1620 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.
Mr. Joseph Tangredi, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, USDA, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, AP100-3-WS-1100, Beltsville, MD 20705; (301) 851-4061; email:
Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772, 7781-7786) and the regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” APHIS regulates, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.”
The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340.
APHIS received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 25-062-01p) from Ishihara Sangyo Kaisha, Limited (ISK) seeking a determination of nonregulated status for ISK-311NR-4 phalaenopsis (moth orchid), which has been developed using genetic engineering to produce blue-purple flower color. The petition provides information in support of petitioners' position that ISK-311NR-4 is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and therefore should not be regulated under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.
As part of our decision-making process regarding the organism's regulatory status, APHIS prepared a draft plant pest risk assessment (PPRA) to assess the plant pest risk of the organism.
APHIS also prepared and published a draft environmental assessment (EA). However, on July 9, 2025, APHIS issued a Program Update titled “APHIS Announces Update to Practices for Reviewing Petitions Seeking a Determination of Nonregulated Status for Organisms Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering,” available at
APHIS published the petition and draft PPRA in the
Based on APHIS' evaluation in the final PPRA of information and data submitted by ISK in its petition, available scientific data, and public comments received in response to the petition and PPRA, APHIS has determined that ISK-311NR-4 is unlikely to pose a greater plant pest risk than the unmodified comparator and therefore is no longer subject to our regulation governing the introduction of certain organisms developed using genetic engineering.
Copies of the signed determination, final PPRA, and response to comments, as well as the previously published petition and supporting documents, are available as indicated in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on small diameter graphite electrodes from the People's Republic of China would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of this AD order.
Applicable August 29, 2025.
Elizabeth Whiteman, Trade Agreements Policy and Negotiations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0473.
On February 26, 2009, Commerce published in the
On August 29, 2025, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act, that revocation of the
The merchandise covered by the
As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the
The effective date of the continuation of the
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This five-year (sunset) review and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that Teh Fong Min International Co., Ltd., also known as Teh Fong Ming International Co., Ltd. (TFM), the sole producer and/or exporter subject to this administrative review, made sales of stilbenic optical brightening agents (stilbenic OBAs) at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) May 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable September 4, 2025.
Gemma Larsen, 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) 482-8125.
On May 10, 2012, Commerce published in the
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this administrative review,
The products covered by the
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price and constructed export price are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the POR May 1, 2023, through April 30, 2024:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in the preliminary results of this administrative review within five days of the public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days after publication of this notice.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice.
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 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, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; (3) whether any participant is a foreign national; and (4) a list of the issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. An electronically filed hearing request must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing.
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results in the
Upon completion of the final results, 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. If the weighted-average dumping margin for TFM is not zero or
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by TFM for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the all-others rate (
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
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.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. and I.N.G.E.T.E.K.N.O.S. Estructurales, S.A. de C.V. (collectively, Deacero Group); and TA 2000 S.A. de C.V. (TA 2000) sold steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from Mexico in the United States at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), November 1, 2022, through October 31, 2023.
Applicable September 4, 2025.
Kyle Clahane or T.J. Worthington, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5449 or (202) 482-4567, respectively.
On December 2, 2024, Commerce published the
For a complete summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d), when Commerce receives information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of such order after publishing notice of the review in the
In this review, TA 2000 identified that it was formerly named Talleres y Aceros S.A. de C.V. (Talleres y Aceros) and made a legal name change through a merger in which TA 2000 S.A. de C.V. became the revised name of the legal entity and provided information necessary to evaluate the statements in support of the successorship claim within the context of Commerce's established criteria.
No party commented on this determination, and Commerce received no subsequent information or argument to compel reconsideration thereof. Therefore, we continue to find TA 2000 to be the successor-in-interest to Talleres y Aceros and that TA 2000 should receive the same AD cash deposit rate and customs number as its predecessor.
The product covered by this
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached as the appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on our review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding the
Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period November 1, 2022, through October 31, 2023:
With respect to Deacero Group, Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed for these final results in this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
With respect to TA 2000, there are no new calculations to disclose in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b) for these final results.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), where the respondent reported the entered value of its U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific AD assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales of each importer and dividing each of these amounts by the total entered value associated with those sales. Where the respondent did not report entered value, we calculated a per-unit assessment rate for each importer by dividing the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales made to that importer by the total quantity associated with those sales. To determine whether an importer-specific, per-unit assessment rate is
Commerce's “automatic assessment” will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the mandatory respondents for which the companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to an intermediary (
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 41 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the companies identified above in the “Final Results of Review” section will be equal to the company-specific weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by a company not covered in this administrative review but covered in a completed prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or completed prior segment of this proceeding but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 20.58 percent, the rate established in the LTFV investigation.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping 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 has occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5) and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
United States Section, USMCA Secretariat, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of USMCA Requests for Panel Review.
Two Requests for Panel Review were filed in the matter of Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2023 with the U.S. Section of the USMCA Secretariat on August 28, 2025. The first Request for Panel Review was filed on behalf of Resolute FP Canada Inc., the Conseil de l'industrie forestière du Quebec, the Ontario Forest Industries Association, and each association's respective individual members (collectively Central Canada) as well as Plaster Rock Lumber Corporation and CHAP Alliance, Inc. The second was filed by The Government of Canada, the Governments of Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, and Québec; Alberta Softwood Lumber Trade Council, British Columbia Lumber Trade Council; Canfor Corporation, Canadian Forest Products Ltd., Canfor Wood Products Marketing Ltd., Canfor Fox Creek Ltd., Canfor Whitecourt Ltd., Interfor Corporation, Interfor Sales & Marketing Ltd., EACOM Timber Corporation, Chaleur Forest Products Inc., Chaleur Forest Products LP, J.D. Irving, Limited, Tolko Marketing and Sales Ltd. and Tolko Industries Ltd., Gilbert Smith Forest Products Ltd., and West Fraser Mills Ltd. The USMCA Secretariat has assigned case number USA-CDA-2025-10.12-02 to this request.
Vidya Desai, United States Secretary, USMCA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, 202-482-5438.
The final results of the investigation under review were determined by the United States Department of Commerce and were published in the
Article 10.12 of Chapter 10 of USMCA provides a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations issued by the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Mexico. Following a Request for Panel Review, a Binational Panel is composed to review the trade remedy determination being challenged and issue a binding Panel Decision. There are established USMCA
The Rules provide that:
(a) A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 44 no later than 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is September 29, 2025);
(b) A Party, an investigating authority or other interested person who does not file a Complaint but who intends to participate in the panel review shall file a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 45 no later than 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is October 14, 2025);
(c) The panel review will be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including challenges to the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in the panel review and to the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily finds that La Molisana, S.p.A. (La Molisana) and Pastificio Lucio Garofalo S.p.A (Garofalo) made sales of certain pasta (pasta) from Italy at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024. Additionally, Commerce is rescinding this administrative review with respect to certain companies. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable September 4, 2025.
Patrick Barton, 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) 482-0012.
On July 24, 1996, Commerce published the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The product covered by this
As noted above, we initiated this review with respect to 18 companies.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), based on the timely withdrawal of the request for review, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to Pastificio Di Martino Gaetano e Flli S.p.A.; Pastificio Dei Campi S.p.A. (Di Martino).
Based on our analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) information, five companies listed in the
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, Commerce has preliminarily relied entirely upon facts otherwise available with adverse inferences (AFA) for both Garofalo and La Molisana. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
The Act and Commerce's regulations do not directly address the establishment of a rate to be applied to individual companies not selected for examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual review in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, we preliminarily based Garofalo's and La Molisana's weighted-average dumping margins entirely on AFA. We preliminarily find that the mandatory respondents' weighted-average dumping margin (
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024:
On November 22, 2024, 8th Avenue Food & Provisions, Inc., and Winland Foods, Inc. (collectively, domestic interested parties), requested that Commerce conduct verification of the questionnaire responses submitted in this administrative review.
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary results in the
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 21 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results.
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 briefs that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this 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.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system within 30 days of publication of this notice.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), Commerce will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their case briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
For the companies for which this review is rescinded, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the POR, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(l)(i). For the companies rescinded from review, Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the publication of this notice in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective on or after publication of the notice of the final results of the administrative review for all shipments of pasta from Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for each company listed above will be equal to the dumping margins established in the final results of this review, except if the ultimate rate is
This notice also 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 and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Department of Commerce.
Notice of research consortium.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the United States Department of Commerce, in support of efforts to develop and evaluate measurement methods and reference standards, including reference materials, to support measurement quality and comparability for the isotope metallomics measurement community, is establishing the Isotope Metallomics Quality Assurance Program (IMQAP) Consortium (“Consortium”). The Consortium will bring together stakeholders to identify and address measurement and standards needs related to isotopic measurements of clinical/biological materials and products. The Consortium efforts are intended to advance measurement capabilities, provide measurement quality assurance strategies, support the development of clinical/biological matrix reference materials, and collect data to support the development of best practices and standard methods. Participants will be required to sign a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA). At NIST's discretion, entities that are legally prohibited or not legally authorized to enter into a CRADA may be allowed to participate in the Consortium under an agreement other than a CRADA with terms that may differ, as necessary, from the CRADA terms.
The Consortium's activities will commence on September 1, 2025 (“Commencement Date”). NIST will
Completed letters of interest must be submitted via the letter of interest webform at
Jaime Maynard, Technology Transfer Agreements Specialist, Consortia Agreements Specialist, National Institute of Standards and Technology's Technology Partnerships Office, by mail to 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 2200, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, by electronic mail to
The objective of the IMQAP is to develop and evaluate measurement methods and standards to support quality and comparability of metal isotope measurements for the isotope metallomics community with the aim of facilitating the adoption of isotope analytics by clinical laboratories and practitioners. Naturally occurring stable metal isotope analytics in the health and medical sciences (Isotope Metallomics) has demonstrated high potential for clinical biomarker development, diagnostics and prognostics. Isotopic biomarkers demonstrate higher sensitivity and specificity for some pathologies compared to standard biochemical markers as they are less susceptible to complex biochemical processes than traditional molecular-based biomarkers. For instance, Copper (Cu) isotope ratios can detect breast and colorectal cancers several months earlier than traditional biomarkers and Calcium (Ca) isotopes in blood and urine are able to detect musculoskeletal diseases such as osteoporosis years before the standard method of Dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Chronic diseases like diabetes, cardio-vascular diseases, and cancers are the leading cause of death worldwide. It is estimated that by 2030 the cost of these diseases will reach $47 trillion worldwide. The yearly cost of these diseases to the American medical system is more than $1 trillion and only growing larger. In response to the ever-rising costs, there is a clear movement away from the current reactive intervention-based healthcare model toward predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine (PPPM) for optimal and cost-effective healthcare. This new model will demand a new generation of biomarkers that are capable of early detection and provide for effective monitoring of targeted therapies. Isotope analytics are emerging as powerful tools for addressing this need. The focus of this Consortium is to evaluate, develop, and standardize methods of characterization for metal isotopes in clinical/biological materials improving the metal isotope measurement methodologies and capabilities employed by the isotope metallomics community and the overall measurement comparability within the community enabling organizations that join the Consortium (“Consortium Members”) to improve the accuracy and precision of their measurements and build the quality and confidence needed for adoption of metal isotopes as a tool in the clinical setting. The IMQAP Consortium will work together to address the following goals:
• Evaluate the applicability of current reference materials to meet the needs of the isotope metallomics community. If needed, develop new reference materials to support advancement of the isotope metallomics measurement community.
• Evaluate the suitability of current measurement approaches (
• Utilize common clinical/biological materials to collect reproducibility data in support of measurement assurance and standards development.
• Propose tests(s) that can be standardized through the clinical lab standards organization or similar consensus process, using outcomes from Consortium efforts as a foundation.
• No proprietary information will be shared as part of the Consortium. Contributions of materials to be used as interlaboratory study samples, such as chemical/biological materials, are highly encouraged.
NIST is soliciting responses from all sources, including other Federal Government agencies, foreign government agencies, industrial organizations (including corporations, partnerships, and limited partnerships, and industrial development organizations), public and private foundations, and nonprofit organizations (including universities). Eligibility to participate in the Consortium will be determined by NIST based on the information provided by prospective participants in response to this notice. Prospective participants can submit a letter of interest by completing the letter of interest webform at
Each responding organization's letter of interest should include the address, point of contact, and following information:
(1) The contribution(s) the organization will make to the Consortium efforts. All Consortium members must contribute one or more of the following:
a. Analytical Testing: Narrative of interest and experience in the measurement of stable metal isotopes of biological materials and description of the services and/or technical capabilities (
b. Materials: Narrative of interest and description of the biological materials and products they will contribute to Consortium activities.
c. Unique Industry or Community Perspective: Narrative of interest and description of other relevant expertise (
(2) List of interested party's anticipated participants.
Letters of interest must not include proprietary information, including proprietary business information. NIST will not treat any information provided in response to this notice as proprietary information. NIST will notify each organization of its eligibility to join the Consortium. In order to participate in this Consortium, each eligible organization must sign a CRADA. Entities that are legally prohibited or not legally authorized to enter into a CRADA may be allowed to participate in the Consortium, at NIST's discretion, under an agreement other than a CRADA with terms that may differ, as necessary, from the Consortium CRADA terms. Foreign governmental entities
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of letter of authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, its implementing regulations, and NMFS' MMPA regulations for taking marine mammals incidental to geophysical surveys related to oil and gas activities in the Gulf of America (GOA), originally published as “Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical Surveys Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the Gulf of Mexico,” notification is hereby given that a Letter of Authorization (LOA) has been issued to Chevron for the take of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activity in the GOA.
The LOA is effective from December 1, 2025 through April 19, 2026.
The LOA, LOA request, and supporting documentation are available online at:
Carter Esch, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
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 by oil and gas industry operators, and those persons authorized to conduct activities on their behalf (collectively “industry operators”), in U.S. waters of the GOA
The regulations at 50 CFR 217.180
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 (89 FR 31488, April 24, 2024).
The 2024 final rule made no changes to the specified activities or the specified geographical region in which those activities would be conducted, nor to the original 5-year period of effectiveness. In consideration of the new information, the 2024 rule presented new analyses supporting affirmance of the negligible impact determinations for all species, and affirmed that the existing regulations, which contain mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements, are consistent with the “least practicable adverse impact” standard of the MMPA.
Chevron plans to conduct a three-dimensional (3D) ocean bottom node (OBN) survey using up to 2 vessels over all or portions of 435 lease blocks, centered on Lease Block Walker Ridge 678, in water depths ranging from approximately 2,000 to 2,800 meters (m). Chevron plans to use a 42-element, 5,220 cubic inch (in
Consistent with the preamble to the final rule, the survey effort proposed by Chevron in its LOA request was used to
No 3D OBN surveys were included in the modeled survey types, and use of existing proxies (
The survey will take place over approximately 160 days with 60 days of sound source operation in Zone 7. The monthly distribution of survey days is not known in advance, though we assume that the planned 60 days of source operation would occur consecutively. Take estimates for each species are based on the time period that produces the greatest value.
Based on the results of our analysis, NMFS has determined that the level of taking expected for this survey and authorized through the LOA is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations. See table 1 in this notice and table 6 of the rule (89 FR 31488, April 24, 2024).
Under the rule, NMFS may not authorize incidental take of marine mammals in an LOA if it will exceed “small numbers.” In short, when an acceptable estimate of the individual marine mammals taken is available, if the estimated number of individual animals taken is up to, but not greater than, one-third of the best available abundance estimate, NMFS will determine that the numbers of marine mammals taken of a species or stock are small (see 89 FR 31535, May 24, 2024). For more information, please see NMFS' discussion of small numbers in the 2021 final rule (86 FR 5438, January 19, 2021).
The take numbers for authorization are determined as described above in the Summary of Request and Analysis section. Subsequently, the total incidents of harassment for each species are multiplied by scalar ratios (except in the cases where the take estimate has been rounded up to reflect a group size) to produce a derived product that better reflects the number of individuals likely to be taken within a survey (as compared to the total number of instances of take), accounting for the likelihood that some individual marine mammals may be taken on more than 1 day (see 86 FR 5404, January 19, 2021). The output of this scaling, where appropriate, is incorporated into adjusted total take estimates that are the basis for NMFS' small numbers determinations, as depicted in table 1.
This product is used by NMFS in making the necessary small numbers determinations through comparison with the best available abundance estimates (see discussion at 86 FR 5391, January 19, 2021). For this comparison, NMFS' approach is to use the maximum theoretical population, determined through review of current stock assessment reports (SAR;
Based on the analysis contained herein of Chevron's proposed survey activity, described in its LOA application, and the anticipated incidental take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the affected species or stock sizes (
NMFS has determined that the level of taking for this LOA request is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the incidental take regulations and that the amount of take authorized under the LOA is of no more than small numbers. Accordingly, we have issued an LOA to Chevron authorizing the taking of marine mammals incidental to its geophysical survey activity, as described above.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS Refuge) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to research, monitoring, and management activities in the South Farallon Islands, Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge off San Francisco, California.
This authorization is effective for 1 year from the date of notification by the IHA-holder, not to exceed 1 year from the date of issuance (August 28, 2025).
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:
Kelsey Potlock, 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
On July 15, 2025, a notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to USFWS Refuge for take of marine mammals incidental to research, monitoring, and management activities in the South Farallon Islands, Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge off San Francisco, California was published in the
NMFS received no public comments on the proposed IHA. We made a single correction to Level 2's text in table 3 of the proposed
With the exception of the minor corrections described below, there are no changes to the specified activities, the species taken, the proposed numbers, type, or methods of take, or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in the proposed IHA notice. Furthermore, no new information that would change any of the analyses, conclusions, or determinations in the proposed IHA notice has become available since that notice was published; therefore, these 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 any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of this IHA qualifies for categorical exclusion from further NEPA review.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
No incidental take of ESA-listed species has been authorized or is expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.
Accordingly, consistent with the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS has issued an IHA to USFWS Refuge for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to research, monitoring, and management activities in the South Farallon Islands, Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge off San Francisco, California.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) is revising its practice in setting the initial period of time to answer or submit an acceptable response to a complaint in a TTAB trial proceeding as a result of a re-calculation of time to respond to a provisional refusal pursuant to the Madrid Protocol. Currently, TTAB's established time period for response is forty (40) days from the notice of institution of the
This amendment is effective for TTAB proceedings instituted on or after September 4, 2025.
For general questions regarding this revision, please contact Cheryl Butler, Senior Level Attorney, at 571-272-4259 or
The TTAB adjudicates trial proceedings pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1063 (Opposition) and 15 U.S.C. 1064 (Cancellation). At the commencement of a TTAB proceeding, the TTAB issues an institution order establishing the trial schedule, including the time to file an answer or acceptable response. The notice of institution shall designate a time, “not less than thirty days from the mailing date of the notice” within which an answer must be filed. 37 CFR 2.105(a) (Notification to parties of opposition proceeding(s)) and 37 CFR 2.113(a) (Notification of cancellation proceeding). Customarily, TTAB establishes the response time period of 40 days.
The United States is a member of the Madrid Protocol, an international treaty intended to simplify the international trademark registration process by allowing a trademark owner to seek registration in any of the participating countries by filing a single international application. The Madrid Protocol came into force in the United States on November 2, 2003, and is implemented under 15 U.S.C. 1141
In light of the amendment to Rule 17(2)(vii) of the Madrid Regulations, the TTAB is establishing the time period to file an answer or acceptable response for all TTAB proceedings to 60 days from the date of the institution order. This revision aligns the USPTO's regulations to the treaty obligations and provides consistency that allows for better docket management. The TTAB, after setting the initial 60-day schedule, may, in subsequent scheduling orders, reset the time for an answer or acceptable response to be shorter than a 60-day period.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a reinstatement without change to a previously approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 3, 2025.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Carolyn Rose, (202) 453-5967.
The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a revision to a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 3, 2025.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Carolyn Rose, (202) 453-5967.
The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing an extension without change to a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 3, 2025.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Carolyn Rose, (202) 453-5967.
The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
On December 5, 2023, Paradigm Shift Hydro, LLC (Paradigm Shift) filed a Declaration of Intention (DI) concerning the Commission's licensing jurisdiction for the proposed Last Chance Energy Project, a closed-loop pumped storage hydropower facility to be located near the town of Alpine in Brewster and Jeff Davis Counties, Texas. On August 12, 2025, Paradigm Shift filed a notice withdrawing the DI.
No motion in opposition to the notice of withdrawal has been filed, and the Commission has taken no action to disallow it. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 216(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, Commission staff reviewed Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC's application for a temporary variance of the license for the Mattaceunk Hydroelectric Project No. 2520 and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project.
The EA contains Commission staff's analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed temporary variance, alternatives to the proposed action, and concludes that the temporary variance, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
The EA may be viewed on the Commission's website at
You may also register online at
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, 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
For further information, contact Selina Sumi at 202-502-6892 or
Take notice that on August 25, 2025, Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC (FGT) requested that the Commission grant an extension of time, until December 31, 2025, to complete construction and place into service the Comite River Relocation Project (Project) located in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. On August 6, 2024, the Commission issued a Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization, which established a 60-day comment period, ending on October 7, 2024, to file protests. No protests were filed during the comment period, and accordingly the project self-implemented on October 8, 2024 and by Rule should have been completed within one year.
FGT began construction of the Project in October 2024, however multiple heavy rain events in the project area have delayed construction progress. In addition, heavy load-usage on FGT's system this summer has required FGT to reschedule project tie-ins to FGT's mainline system. FGT now anticipates placing the Project facilities in-service during the 4th quarter of 2025 and therefore requests an extension of time until December 31, 2025.
This notice establishes a 15-calendar day intervention and comment period deadline. Any person wishing to comment on FGT's request for an extension of time may do so. No reply comments or answers will be considered. If you wish to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this request, you should, on or before the comment date stated below, file a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR 157.10).
As a matter of practice, the Commission itself generally acts on requests for extensions of time to complete construction for NGA facilities when such requests are contested before order issuance. For those extension requests that are contested,
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments in lieu of paper using the “eFile” link at
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act,
Commission staff reviewed a sample of 32 of 232 FFTs and 33 of 1,089 CEs submitted by NERC between October 2023 and September 2024.
Commission staff found that the FFT and CE programs are meeting the Commission's expectations in accordance with the FFT Order. All 65 FFTs and CEs have been adequately remediated, and the root cause of each noncompliance was clearly identified. Commission staff also reviewed the supporting information for these FFTs and CEs and agreed with the final risk determinations for all 65 noncompliances, which clearly identified the factors affecting the risk prior to mitigation (such as potential and actual risk) and actual harm. Further, no FFTs or CEs sampled contained any material misrepresentations by the registered entities. Commission staff found that the Regional Entities appropriately identified all 65 of the sampled noncompliances as appropriate to be processed as FFTs and CEs.
Take notice that on August 21, 2025 National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel), 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.213 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and National Fuel's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-4-000, for authorization to convert indicator Well 1332I and injection/withdrawal Well 1211I to observation wells and to abandon portions of the associated well lines AW1332, AW1223, AW1211, and AM62S in its Lawtons Storage Field in Erie County, New York. (Lawtons Storage Field Conversion Project). The project will allow National Fuel to repurpose these wells to monitor gas pressures for inventory verification and performance monitoring. The estimated cost for the project is $100,000 all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions concerning this request should be directed to Meghan M. Emes, Senior Counsel, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation, 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, by phone at (716) 857-7004, or by email at
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 28, 2025. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
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
Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the NGA,
Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,
Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this proceeding.
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 28, 2025. The filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP25-540-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket number CP25-540-000
The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: Meghan Emes, Senior Counsel, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation, 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, or by email (with a link to the document) at
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
Take notice that on August 15, 2025, Rockies Express Pipeline LLC (REX), Cheyenne Connector, LLC (Cheyenne Connector), and East Cheyenne Gas Storage, LLC (East Cheyenne) (collectively, Applicants), 11550 Ash Street, Suite 220, Leawood, Kansas 66211, filed an application pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorizations for the Critical Energy Reliability Link Project (Project) located in Weld, Adams, Arapahoe, Elbert, El Paso, and Lincoln Counties, Colorado. Specifically, REX requests authorization (1) to expand its system by installing a total of approximately 160.0 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline, the new 6,195-horsepower LaSalle Compressor Station, three new meter stations, and appurtenant facilities; (2) to acquire via a lease 250,000 dekatherms (Dth) per day of existing unsubscribed transportation capacity on Cheyenne Connector's system; (3) to acquire via lease 1,500,000 Dth of existing unsubscribed storage capacity at East Cheyenne's storage facility; and (4) to establish new no-notice, firm storage, and interruptible storage services and associated pro forma tariff records, rates for service on the Project, and other related tariff changes. Additionally, Cheyenne Connector and East Cheyenne request authorization to abandon by lease the corresponding 250,000 Dth per
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions regarding the proposed Project should be directed to Eryn Pullin, Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Tallgrass Energy, LP, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1100, Houston, Texas 77046, by phone at (713) 997-3932, or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file comments on the project, you can protest the filing, and you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to intervene is
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
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments may include statements of support or objections, to the project as a whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Pursuant to sections 157.10(a)(4)
To ensure that your comments or protests are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments or protests to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number CP25-539-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website at
(2) You may file your comments or protests electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments or protests by mailing them to the following address below. Your written comments must reference the Project docket number (CP25-539-000).
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1 and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. However, the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding. For instructions on how to intervene, see below.
Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses,
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP25-539-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below. Your motion to intervene must reference the Project docket number CP25-539-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: Eryn Pullin, Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Tallgrass Energy, LP, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1100, Houston, Texas 77046 or by email (with a link to the document) at
All timely, unopposed
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
On May 21, 2025, Northwest Pipeline, LLC (Northwest) filed an application in Docket No. CP25-497-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act for the Wild Trail Project (Project) in Daggett County, Utah. Northwest proposes to add an additional 51,955 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of capacity of firm northbound transportation, as well as the full 25,000 Dth/d of existing southbound firm transportation, through the construction of the proposed new Daggett Compressor Station (Daggett CS). According to Northwest, the Project would restore and enhance system capability and reliability while supporting regional energy needs.
On June 4, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's environmental document for the Project.
This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) for the Project and the planned schedule for the completion of the environmental review.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
The Project would consist of the facilities and activities detailed below, all in Daggett County, Utah:
• construction of the Daggett CS, adjacent to the existing Clay Basin Meter Station (which would undergo minor modification);
• construction of one low nitrogen oxides-emitting gas-fired turbine compressor unit with 11,110 nominal horsepower;
• installation of 24-inch-diameter suction and discharge yard piping to interconnect the Daggett CS to Northwest's existing 26-inch-diameter Northwest Pipeline; and
• installation of auxiliary facilities to support the new compressor station, including utility buildings, an emergency generator, and a 140-foot-tall communication tower.
On July 9, 2025, the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This service provides automatic notification of filings made to subscribed dockets, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
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
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This document announces the availability of the EPA's work plans and registration review case dockets for the following chemicals: ethaboxam, and urea sulfate. EPA is opening the case dockets to allow for public review and comment for these work plans.
Comments must be received on or before November 3, 2025.
Submit your comments, using the docket identification (ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest as provided in Table 1 of Unit I., online at
Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.50(b), this notice announces the availability of the EPA's work plans and registration review case dockets for the pesticides shown in Table 1 and opens a 60-day public comment period on the work plans and case dockets.
EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed in Table 1 of Unit I pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) section 3(g) (7 U.S.C. 136a(g)) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. FIFRA section 3(g) provides, among other things, that pesticide registrations are to be reviewed every 15 years. Consistent with 40 CFR 155.57, in its final registration review decision, EPA will ultimately determine whether a pesticide continues to meet the registration standard in FIFRA section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)).
Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.50, EPA initiates a registration review by establishing a public docket for a pesticide registration review case. Registration review dockets contain information that will assist the public in understanding the types of information and issues that the Agency has consider during registration review. Consistent with 40 CFR 155.50(a), these dockets may include information from the Agency's files including, but not limited to, an overview of the registration review case status, a list of current product registrations and registrants, any
Consistent with 40 CFR 155.50(b), EPA provides for at least a 60-day public comment period on work plans and registration review dockets. This comment period is intended to provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any necessary changes to a pesticide's workplan. During this public comment period, the Agency is asking that interested persons identify any additional information they believe the agency should consider during the registration reviews of these pesticides. The Agency identifies in each docket the areas where public comment is specifically requested, though comment in any area is welcome.
For additional background on the registration review program, see:
This notice is directed to the public in general and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the Chemical Review Manager identified in Table 1 of Unit I. In submitting a comment to EPA, please consider the following:
1.
2.
All comments should be submitted using the methods in
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of adequacy.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is notifying the public that we have found that the Limited Maintenance Plan for PM
This finding is effective on September 19, 2025.
Publicly available docket materials, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2025-0619, are available either electronically through
Lily Black, Environmental Protection Agency Region 2, Air and Radiation Division, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866; (212) 637-3884,
Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
This notice is an announcement of a finding that we have already made. On October 15, 2024, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision establishing the second ten-year maintenance plan as a limited maintenance plan (LMP) for the New York portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM
In October 2022, EPA issued
To meet the transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart A), an LMP submission for an area's second maintenance plan should again address the area's PM
Transportation conformity is required by Clean Air Act section 176(c). EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects conform to SIPs, and it establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS.
The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's Limited Maintenance Plan is adequate can be found in 40 CFR 93.109(e). Please note that an adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review and should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval action for the SIP. Even if we find a limited maintenance plan adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for the following insured depository institution, was charged with the duty of winding up the affairs of the former institution and liquidating all related assets. The Receiver has fulfilled its obligations and made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver that FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary, including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments, and deeds. Effective on the termination date listed above, the Receivership has been terminated, the Receiver has been discharged, and the Receivership has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications 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 19, 2025.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Keith Goodwin) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001. Comments can also be sent electronically to
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Erien O. Terry, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to
1.
C. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Jeffrey Imgarten, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001. Comments can also be sent electronically to
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 6, 2025.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Application for Training” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on June 16, 2025 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) 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;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Application for Training (OMB Control No. 0920-0017, Exp. 9/30/2025)—Revision—National Center for State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial Public Health Infrastructure and Workforce (NCSTLTPHIW), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The mission of CDC's Division of Workforce Development (DWD) is to provide leadership in public health training and education, and manage innovative, evidence-based programs to prepare the health workforce to meet public health challenges of the 21st Century. CDC offers training and professional development opportunities (both accredited and non-accredited) in the areas of public health, epidemiology, medicine, economics, information science, veterinary medicine, nursing, public policy, and other related fields.
To administer its broad portfolio of training activities, CDC collects information from the developers of educational content and the learners who participate in professional training opportunities. Information has been collected through two electronic platforms: the CDC TRAIN learning management system and the Training and Continuing Education Online (TCEO) learning management system. CDC's previous request for OMB approval outlined a multi-year plan to decommission the TCEO platform and transition all learner information collection to the CDC TRAIN platform under a unified data collection and evaluation framework for all CDC course offerings.
This Revision requests removal of data collection instruments relating to the TCEO learning management system, which has been discontinued as of January 2024. During the next OMB approval period, CDC plans to collect all learner data online using the secure, password-protected CDC TRAIN platform. This Revision also consolidates accredited and nonaccredited training evaluation tools into one modular post-course evaluation (taken immediately after a course is completed), and one follow-up evaluation (taken one month after the course is completed). Respondents will include educational developers requesting accreditation for their trainings and public health and healthcare professionals who seek training. CDC will use identifiable information in CDC TRAIN to track participant completion of educational activities to facilitate required reporting to earn continuing education credits, hours, or units. The Revision request includes updated estimates for the number of respondents, burden per response, frequency of information collection, and total burden hours. The proposed changes will reduce burden, streamline data collection efforts and provide CDC with a more effective, efficient, and secure mechanism for collecting, processing, and monitoring training-related information.
CDC will use information collected in CDC TRAIN to evaluate and improve courses based on learner feedback. For accredited trainings, participation is required to review and approve proposals for educational activities to receive continuing education accreditation, to generate learner certificates of attendance and verify training completion, and to ensure compliance with mandatory accreditation standards. Participation in evaluation data collection for non-accredited trainings is voluntary. Aggregate data from the evaluations in CDC TRAIN will be used to improve educational activities and assess learning outcomes.
OMB approval is requested for three years. The total estimated annualized burden will decrease from 288,150 hours to 127,650 hours based on response rates and totals from the previous approval period. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Distribution of Traceable Opioid Material® Kits (TOM® Kits) across U.S. and International Laboratories. The purpose of this information collection request (ICR) is for the CDC to assure that the Traceable Opioid Material® Kits (TOM® Kits) are equitably distributed to domestic and international partner laboratories, and to allow CDC to understand the types of laboratories requesting these materials and the analyses that are being conducted.
CDC must receive written comments on or before November 3, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2025-0387 by either of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
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;
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,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Distribution of Traceable Opioid Material® Kits (TOM® Kits) across U.S. and International Laboratories (OMB Control No. 0920-1313, Exp. 3/31/2026)—Extension—National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The purpose of this information collection request (ICR) is for the CDC to assure that the Traceable Opioid Material® Kits (TOM® Kits) are equitably distributed to domestic laboratory sectors (public, private, and non-profit) and to international partner laboratories. This collection will enable CDC to gather information on the types of laboratories requesting Traceable Opioid Material® Kits and to determine the types of sample analyses that are being conducted by these laboratories through use of these kits.
CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 80 annual burden hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice that appeared in the
Martha Nguyen, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1676, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3471,
In the
On page 12163, in the table, the entry for ANDA 075819 is removed.
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.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to provide opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Sharon D. Beard, Director, Worker Training Program (WTP), Division of Extramural Research and Training (DERT), NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233 MD: K3-14, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 or call non-toll-free number 984-287-3237 or Email your request, including your address to:
Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires: written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
OMB approval is requested for three years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 800.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The open session will be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting website (
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual grant applications conducted by the
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
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.,
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of intent; request for comments.
The Coast Guard is announcing its intent to enter into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with (Raymarine) to determine the efficacy of Team Awareness Kit incorporation into existing and future Coast Guard navigation systems. While the Coast Guard is currently considering partnering with (Raymarine), we are soliciting public comment on the possible nature of and participation of other parties in the proposed CRADA. The Coast Guard also encourages other federal agencies with relevant research interests and capabilities to submit proposals for similar Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs).
Your comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before October 6, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2025-0294 using the Federal portal at
If you have questions about this notice of intent, call or email Mr. Paul Harvey, U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center; telephone 860-271-2600, email
Maritime situational and domain awareness is critical in supporting and effectively executing the eleven statutory missions of the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard maintains onboard navigations systems on assets to provide accurate electronic navigation capabilities. The incorporation of the Team Awareness Kit (TAK) within the navigational ecosystem will provide a Tactical Common Operational Picture which will interface with existing Coast Guard data systems.
Incorporating the TAK capability into existing and future Coast Guard navigation systems provides an opportunity to streamline and simplify user interfaces by co-locating both navigation and domain awareness information into a single system reducing the necessity for additional information systems and infrastructure onboard Coast Guard assets.
We request public comments on this notice. Although we do not plan to respond to comments in the
We encourage you to submit comments in response to this notice of inquiry through the Federal Docket Management System at
We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to
CRADAs are authorized under 15 U.S.C. 3710a.
CRADAs are not procurement contracts. Care is taken to ensure that CRADAs are not used to circumvent the contracting process. CRADAs have a specific purpose and should not be confused with procurement contracts, grants, and other types of agreements.
Under the proposed CRADA, the R&D Center will collaborate with one non-Federal participant. Together, the R&D Center and the non-Federal participant will conduct testing, development and evaluation of the Team Awareness Kit within the Coast Guard (SINS2) navigational system on Coast Guard assets as well as the evaluation of future navigational systems.
We anticipate that the Coast Guard's contributions under the proposed CRADA will include the following:
1. Provide appropriate staff with pertinent expertise to take the lead in accomplishing the required tasks;
2. Provide all support resources, including travel, for Coast Guard staff that support this CRADA;
3. Obtain, transport and provide all of the ensemble items to be used during the evaluation;
4. Provide personnel support to non-Federal participants to assist with setting up and executing the evaluation in accordance with the agreed upon evaluation plan;
5. Work with the non-Federal participant to develop a Final Report, which will document the methodologies, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this CRADA work.
We anticipate that the non-Federal participants' contributions under the proposed CRADA will include the following:
1. Provide appropriate staff with pertinent expertise to support the above-mentioned tasks;
2. Provide all necessary resources to incorporate the TAK capability into existing Coast Guard Raymarine navigation systems;
3. Provide the technical approach for system evaluation;
4. Work with the Federal participant to develop a Final Report, which will document the methodologies, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this CRADA work.
The Coast Guard reserves the right to select for CRADA participants all, some, or no proposals submitted for this CRADA. The Coast Guard will provide no funding for reimbursement of proposal development costs. Proposals and any other material submitted in response to this notice will not be returned. Proposals submitted are expected to be unclassified and have not more than five single-sided pages (excluding cover page, DD 1494, JF-12, etc.). The Coast Guard will select proposals at its sole discretion on the basis of:
1. How well they communicate an understanding of and ability to meet, the proposed CRADA's goal; and
2. How well they address the following criteria:
a. Technical capability to support the non-Federal party contributions described, and
b. Resources available for supporting the non-Federal party contributions described.
Currently, the Coast Guard is considering Raymarine for participation in this CRADA. This consideration is based on the fact that Raymarine has demonstrated its technical ability and availability of appropriate expertise to effectively develop and test Team Awareness Kit capabilities within existing navigational systems. However, we do not wish to exclude other viable participants from this or future similar CRADAs.
This is a technology assessment effort. The goal of the Coast Guard for this CRADA is to determine the efficacy of co-locating both navigation and domain awareness capabilities into a single system currently in use by the Coast Guard. Special consideration will be given to small business firms and consortia, and preference will be given to business units located in the U.S.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, PIH, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection can be sent within 60 days of publication of this notice to
Dawn Martin, Program Analyst, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 3180, Washington, DC 20410; email
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
All public housing agencies (PHA) are required to submit a five (5) year plan and annual plans as stated in Section 5A of the 1937 Act, as amended. MTW PHAs designated prior to 2016 (Initial MTW PHAs) that are subject to the Standard MTW Agreement, are required to submit the Annual MTW Plan and Annual MTW Report Elements (also known as the HUD Form 50900) in lieu of the standard annual and 5-year PHA plans. MTW PHAs designated after 2016 (Expansion MTW PHAs) that are subject to the MTW Operations Notice, are required to submit the MTW Plan-Expansion (also known as the HUD Form 50900-EXPANSION) in addition to the standard annual and 5-year PHA plans.
The HUD Form 50900 and the HUD Form 50900-EXPANSION contain important information regarding the MTW PHA's upcoming MTW activities and a retrospective look back at the MTW PHA's preceding fiscal year (FY). HUD collects the information in these forms in order to track the prevalence of MTW activities, accurately and timely respond to congressional and other inquiries, and identify promising practices learned through the MTW demonstration.
The HUD Form 50900-EXPANSION was previously called the “MTW Supplement to the Annual PHA Plan” (HUD Form 50075-MTW under OMB No. 2577-0226). In order to streamline administration of this collection, it is being renamed and moved under OMB. No. 2577-0216. Revisions are also being made to the HUD Form 50900-EXPANSION to reduce the reporting and administrative burden on Expansion MTW PHAs. Many core questions and all custom questions within the HUD Form 50900-Expansion that were previously required for MTW activities will be eliminated. In addition to eliminating these previously required questions, other sections will be streamlined where information is already verified through existing certifications and HUD systems. This will reduce burden on Expansion MTW PHAs.
Through the MTW Plan-Expansion, each Expansion MTW PHA will continue to inform HUD, its residents and the public of the PHA's mission for serving the needs of low-income and very low-income families, and the PHA's strategy for addressing those needs. In conjunction with the regular PHA Plan, the MTW Plan-Expansion, provides an easily identifiable source by which residents, participants in tenant-based programs, and other members of the public may locate policies, rules, and requirements concerning the Expansion MTW PHA's operations, programs, and services.
No revisions are being made to the HUD Form 50900 for Initial MTW PHAs.
The 2016 MTW Expansion Statute authorized an additional 100 MTW slots and additional slots may be added through future appropriations acts. Eligible applicants interested in obtaining MTW designation are required to submit applications to HUD, as explained in the applicable HUD Notice. The information collection covers the information needed from applicants to determine which applicants should be selected. The information provided demonstrates the applicants' plans to implement a local MTW program and includes related applicant history. The application includes such information as narrative exhibits, certifications, data forms, and supporting documentation. The information will be used by HUD staff to evaluate threshold requirements and review applications.
For the HUD Form 50900-Expansion, there are 100 submissions per year, reflecting the up-to 100 Expansion MTW PHAs. There is one annual submission comprised of eight sections. This results in a total of 1 submission per Expansion MTW PHA, across all up-to 100 affected Expansion MTW PHAs or 100 total responses.
For the HUD Form 50900-Expansion, Expansion MTW PHAs complete requirements associated with this Form once per year. The Expansion MTW PHAs complete each of the eight sections of the Form.
For the HUD Form 50900-Expansion, the estimated average burden is six hours per response (or six total hours per year). Expansion MTW PHAs are still required to submit a five (5) year plan and annual plans as stated in Section 5A of the 1937 Act.
For the HUD Form 50900-Expansion, the total estimated burden across all Expansion MTW PHAs is 600 hours per year.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comments in response to these questions.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, (PIH), HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection can be sent within 60 days of publication of this notice to
Dawn Martin, Program Analyst, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410; email
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
HOPE VI funds are no longer being appropriated, and HOPE VI Main Street funds are being funded through the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative appropriations. In a change from previous years, the Main Street grant program accounts for most of the reporting burden because many HOPE VI grants are now fully completed and closed out. Currently, there are approximately three HOPE VI Implementation grants that remain active and must be monitored by HUD. HUD publishes competitive bi-annual NOFOs for the HOPE VI Main Street program and monitors grants that have been awarded through those NOFOs. These information collections are required in connection with the monitoring of the remaining active HOPE VI Implementation grants and the bi-annual publication on
Eligible units of local government interested in obtaining HOPE VI Main Street grants are required to submit applications to HUD, as explained in each NOFO. The information conducted in the applications enables HUD to conduct a comprehensive, merit-based selection process in order to identify and select the applications to receive funding. With the use of HUD-prescribed forms, the information collection provides HUD with sufficient information to approve or disapprove applications.
Applicants that are awarded HOPE VI Implementations grants are required to report on a quarterly basis on their Implementation grant revitalization activities. HOPE VI Implementation grantees do this by sending emails to the HUD grant managers. HUD reviews and evaluates the collected information and uses it as a primary tool with which to monitor the status of HOPE VI projects and programs.
Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response:
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comments in response to these questions.
Section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer, HUD.
Notice.
Through this notice, HUD solicits comments on a demonstration designed to increase understanding of how enhanced recipient reporting can help reduce the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse across grant programs. The demonstration will focus on testing HUD's design for a reporting portal to collect and analyze supporting financial evidence from recipients, including subrecipient information, to ensure that it is sufficient for its intended purpose. HUD will also refine the portal based on recommendations from participants. The demonstration will allow participants to increase HUD's understanding of the business process changes that may be needed by recipients in this future state. Approximately nine voluntary participants from three HUD grant programs will be included in this demonstration.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10284, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.
1.
2.
Min Guo, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-402-7851 (this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as from individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit
The Federal government has a duty to the American public to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are spent responsibly and only for permitted purposes. In many of HUD's programs, the funds are awarded to grantees, who then have the responsibility for restricting the use of grant funds to legally eligible expenses. However, there is not a consolidated, consistent mechanism for HUD to confirm that grantees are spending their funds properly. This demonstration is intended to test one such way of adding additional oversight to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.
HUD will design and develop a recipient financial reporting portal to allow recipients of HUD funds from the Public Housing, Community Development Block Grant—Disaster Recovery, and Continuum of Care programs to upload supporting evidence (
Through the demonstration, HUD will gain a greater understanding of current reporting burdens and what grant recipients need to meet future reporting requirements. Specifically, this demonstration will validate that every dollar received from HUD is accounted for, thereby promoting trust and accountability. Further, the demonstration's centralized system will seek to streamline the reporting process for recipients, making it easier to manage and submit required information. Finally, this demonstration aims to facilitate recipients' adherence to federal requirements regarding the use of federal funds.
HUD will use this demonstration to evaluate the quality and completeness of the evidence submitted through the preliminary portal to ensure that HUD funds are being used the way they were intended. The demonstration will allow for the refinement of the reporting portal, business rules, reporting standards, and technical requirements. HUD will also use the demonstration period to evaluate current reporting burdens as compared to the level of burden placed on participants by the new system.
Approximately nine voluntary participants will use the new preliminary reporting system to upload documentation, such as a receipt or invoice, that substantiates their use of funds from previous drawdowns. Participants will be able to share feedback and user experience with HUD to fine-tune the system as needed. Additionally, HUD will review documents and request exhibits that detail the following:
• Current accounting software and payroll systems.
• Current processes for recording cash disbursements.
• Current policies for management and oversight of the agency's grants, cost allocation, and request for disbursements.
• Vouchers, or similar documentation, to track cash disbursements.
• Sample proration used where allocation is made to various grants.
HUD expects that the demonstration will last for approximately 2 months. After that time, the participants will no longer need to upload documentation to the preliminary portal, while HUD evaluates the results of the demonstration and determines what next steps are appropriate and feasible.
1. What types of evidence are most appropriate for demonstrating the proper use of grant funds?
2. What are ways HUD can alleviate administrative burden as we transition funding recipients to new grants management and reporting systems?
3. What documentation collected via a reporting portal would most efficiently and effectively ensure that taxpayers' dollars are spent responsibly and only for permitted purposes?
In accordance with section 470 of the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 3542), HUD is seeking comment on the demonstration. Section 470 provides that HUD may not begin a demonstration program not expressly authorized by statute until a description of the demonstration program is published in the
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the National Park Service (NPS) are proposing to renew an information collection without change.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments, which NPS must receive on or before November 3, 2025.
Written comments and suggestions on the information collection requirements should be submitted by the date specified above in
Stephen Simon, Oil and Gas Program Coordinator, Energy and Minerals Branch, Geologic Resources Division, National Park Service, Denver Federal Center, Building 50, Lakewood, Colorado 80226; or by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility.
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this information collection request (ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The regulations codified in 36 CFR part 9, subparts A and B, ensure that mining and non-Federal oil and gas activities in System units are conducted in a manner consistent with conserving resources in System units for the benefit of present and future generations. The information required by subpart A identifies the claim, claimant, and operator (the claimant and operator are often the same) and details how the operator intends to access and develop the locatable minerals associated with the claim. It also identifies the steps the operator intends to take to minimize any adverse impacts of the mining operations on park resources and values and public safety. No information is submitted unless the claimant wishes to conduct mining operations.
The information required by subpart B identifies the owner and operator (the owner and operator are often the same) and details how the operator intends to access and develop the oil and gas rights. It also identifies the steps the operator intends to take to minimize any adverse impacts on park resources and values. No information is submitted unless the owner wishes to conduct oil and gas operations.
The information collected under 36 CFR part 9, subparts A and B, is used to evaluate proposed operations, ensure that all necessary mitigation measures are employed to protect park resources and values, and ensure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the National Park Service (NPS) are proposing to renew an information collection without change.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments, which NPS must receive on or before November 3, 2025.
Written comments and suggestions on the information collection requirements should be submitted by the date specified above in
Lisa Davidson at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NPS, including whether or not the information will have practical utility.
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
(4) How might the NPS minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
1. Name and location.
2. Data related to the national significance of the property.
3. Any withholding of sensitive information.
4. Geographical data.
5. Statements and discussions about the national significance of property.
6. Description and statement of integrity.
7. Major bibliographic references and
8. Name, organization, address, phone number, and email of the person completing the form.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that on August 26, 2025, the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued an Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337. The ALJ also issued a Recommended Determination on remedy and bonding should a violation be found in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting submissions on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief should the Commission find a violation. This notice is soliciting comments from the public and interested government agencies only.
Jonathan D. Link, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3103. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that, if the Commission finds a violation, it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States unless, after considering the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers, it finds that such articles should not be excluded from entry. (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1)). A similar provision applies to cease and desist orders. (19 U.S.C. 1337(f)(1)).
The Commission is soliciting submissions on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief should the Commission find a violation, specifically: a limited exclusion order directed to certain hydrodermabrasion systems and components thereof imported, sold for importation, and/or sold after importation by Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC (“Cartessa”); and a cease and desist order directed to Cartessa. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4).
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in this investigation. Accordingly, members of the public and interested government agencies are invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the ALJ's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued in this investigation on August 26, 2025. Comments should address whether issuance of the recommended remedial orders in this investigation, should the Commission find a violation, would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third-party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended orders within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the recommended orders would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on October 2, 2025.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above pursuant to 19 CFR 210.4(f). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1408”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment by marking each document with a header indicating that the document contains confidential information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. Any non-party wishing to submit comments containing confidential information must serve those comments on the parties to the investigation pursuant to the applicable Administrative Protective Order. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with any confidential filing and must be served in accordance with Commission Rule 210.4(f)(7)(ii)(A) (19 CFR 210.4(f)(7)(ii)(A)). All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf BH Innovations LLC on August 29, 2025. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain liquid crystal devices, components thereof, and products containing the same. The complaint names as respondents: HKC Corporation Ltd. of China; Chongqing HKC Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. of China; HKC Overseas Ltd. of Hong Kong; HiSense Co., Ltd. of China; HiSense International Co., Ltd. of China; HiSense Visual Technology Co. Ltd. of China; HiSense US Corporation of Suwanee, GA; VIZIO Holding Corp. of Irvine, CA; TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. of Hong Kong; Shenzhen TCL New Technology Co. Ltd. of China; TCL King Electrical Appliances Co. Ltd. of China; TTE Technology Inc. of Irvine, CA; TCL Technology Group Corp. of China; TCL Moka International Ltd. of Hong Kong; TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., of Hong Kong; TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. of China; TCL Smart Device (Vietnam) Co. Ltd. of Vietnam; LG Electronics, Inc. of South Korea; LG Electronics USA, Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, NJ; and Westinghouse Electric Corporation of Canonsburg, PA.
The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, members of the public, and interested government agencies are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3845”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to (1) amend Rule Equity 7, Section 115 (Ports and Services) to establish a port fee for newly added CORE FIX Order entry ports, (2) amend Rule Equity 7, Section 130 (Other Services) to waive the Nasdaq testing facility fee for the newly added CORE FIX entry ports, and (3) amend the language in Sections of 115 and 130 to remove the temporary waiver language pertaining to OUCH 5.0, as described further below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange recently established CORE FIX, a new Order
The Exchange proposes to amend Equity 7, Section 115 to adopt a fee of $575/port/month for the newly added CORE FIX order protocol, which is similar to other current port fees. Additionally, the Exchange proposes a 30-day waiver of the CORE FIX production port fee for up to five (5) newly added CORE FIX ports. The fee waiver would be offered for a three-month period, beginning on the date when CORE FIX first becomes available on the Exchange, which such date the Exchange shall announce in an Equity
The Exchange also proposes to amend Equity 7, Section 130 to provide a 30-day waiver for the $300 NTF fee in Section 130(d)(1)(B) for up to five
The Exchange is also proposing to make a technical change to Equity 7, Sections 115 and 130 to remove the temporary waiver provided to the OUCH Order entry ports. Similar to the proposed waiver for CORE FIX, the OUCH production port fee waiver was for a three-month period, which began in November 2022. The three-month waiver period for OUCH is no longer applicable. Therefore, the Exchange is proposing to amend the rules to remove the language.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposed changes to its fee schedule are reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for equity securities transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Nasdaq believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to establish a fee for CORE FIX and to provide a temporary fee waiver for up to five newly added CORE FIX order entry ports (production and Nasdaq Testing Facility “NTF” environments). As described above, the proposed fee is similar to the fee charged for other similar ports such as RASH and OUCH. Participants are not required to use the CORE FIX port. The Exchange also believes it is important to provide users an opportunity to test CORE FIX free of charge. The temporary fee waivers would encourage users to test and adopt the enhanced CORE FIX Order entry protocol.
Additionally, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory to remove the language in Sections 115 and 130 referencing the fee waiver for OUCH 5.0 because the three-month time period for the waiver has lapsed and is no longer applicable to OUCH 5.0 subscribers. The removal of the temporary fee waiver would be applicable to all market participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee and temporary fee waivers will not impose an undue burden on competition because utilization of the Exchange's ports and services are completely voluntary and subject to competition both from the other live exchanges and from off-exchange venues, which include alternative trading systems that trade national market system stock. Moreover, the proposed fee and waivers would facilitate adoption of a new Order entry protocol, which is pro-competitive because the new protocol bolsters the efficiency, functionality, and overall attractiveness of the Exchange in an absolute sense and relative to its peers. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of members, participants, or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
Additionally, the removal of the temporary OUCH fee waivers is a technical change to ensure that the Exchange's rulebook is current and accurately reflects the current fee offerings. Therefore, the Exchange does not believe that there is any burden on competition.
In terms of intramarket competition, the proposed change to the fee available to a member does not impose a burden on competition and will not place any category of Exchange participant at a competitive disadvantage. The proposed fee and the change to temporarily waive fees for newly added CORE FIX order entry ports (production and NTF environments) will apply uniformly to all similarly situated participants. The temporary fee waivers are available to all users and would enable users to test the CORE FIX enhancements at no cost. The Exchange notes that its members are free to trade on other venues to the extent they believe that these proposals are not attractive. Additionally, the removal of the temporary OUCH fee waivers is a non-substantive change that will not impose any burden on competition because the waivers are no longer applicable and the removal of the expired waivers will apply to all market participants.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2025-063 and should be submitted on or before September 25, 2025.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's service fees at Equity 7, Section 115(e) to introduce a fee to WorkX PRO Monitor Full Version, as described further below. The proposed fee change will become operative on September 8, 2025.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's schedule of fees, at Equity 7, Section 115(e) to establish a fee for WorkX PRO Monitor Full Version. The Exchange recently introduced WorkX PRO Monitor Full Version (“Full Version”) and WorkX PRO Monitor Lite Version (“Lite Version) (collectively, “WorkX PRO Monitor”), a new add-on feature within the Nasdaq WorkX platform. The new products were proposed by the Exchange on August 1, 2025 and published in the
More specifically, WorkX PRO Monitor is designed to automate and streamline the current manual POR process by enabling firms to electronically submit a POR and track the approval status in real-time. WorkX PRO Monitor will reduce the number of manual steps involved in handling a POR by eliminating the need for firms to email or call FINRA Operations or Nasdaq MarketWatch. The new product will also eliminate the requirement for firms to submit supporting trade details because such information will be available automatically to FINRA Operations through the WorkX system.
WorkX PRO Monitor Full Version and Lite Version will provide similar core features including the ability to submit POR(s) through the WorkX platform for one or multiple rejected trade reports
The Exchange proposes to establish a monthly fee of $400 per logon per month for WorkX PRO Monitor Full Version. The subscription will be charged on a monthly basis and subscribers may request to add or cancel the subscription at any time.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposed changes to its schedule of credits [sic] are reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for equity securities transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
More specifically, WorkX PRO Monitor will automate the process to assist subscribing WorkX users to quickly enter PORs and resubmit trade reports that are rejected because the trade price falls outside of the price validation parameters for a symbol(s). This new feature will support users in ensuring that submitted trade reports are accurate. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to establish a fee of $400 per logon per month for WorkX PRO Monitor Full Version. As discussed above, the proposed fee will cover the costs associated with developing the service, configuring Nasdaq's systems, administering the service, product training and ongoing support, among other things. The Exchange further believes that the fee is not unfairly discriminatory because all WorkX users can purchase the add-on feature and the fee will be applied uniformly to all members. Additionally, the fee is not unfairly discriminatory because any WorkX subscriber that does not want to utilize PRO Monitor Full Version may opt to for the PRO Monitor Lite Version for free.
The Exchange does not believe that its proposal will place any category of Exchange participant at a competitive disadvantage. To the contrary, the proposed changes will provide opportunities for members to receive an enhanced feature within WorkX. Moreover, this enhanced product, which is available to any participant, will provide an upgraded more efficient method of submitting PORs for the same cost as other add-on products. Customers who are not subscribed to WorkX will have their trade reports resubmitted at no cost through WorkX by contacting Nasdaq MarketWatch to resubmit the report on the customer's behalf.
The Exchange believes that its proposed modifications to its fee schedule will not impose any burden on competition because the launch of WorkX PRO Monitor is reflective of the need for the Exchange to ensure that it provides the most efficient products that will ensure market integrity and the benefit market participants receive from utilizing the product. The Exchange
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2025-064 and should be submitted on or before September 25, 2025.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Oregon (FEMA-4881-DR), dated July 22, 2025.
Issued on August 28, 2025.
Sharon Henderson, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Oregon, dated July 22, 2025, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
(Authority: 13 CFR 123.3(b).)
On March 6, 2025, Watco Holdings, Inc. (Watco), a noncarrier holding company, filed a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502, seeking an exemption from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323 to acquire control of Great Lakes Central Railroad, Inc. (GLC), a Class III rail carrier, by acquiring 100% of GLC's common stock. After finding the original petition deficient, the Board on May 30, 2025, directed Watco to supplement its petition with additional information needed to determine whether the transaction qualifies for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(a).
Watco currently controls one Class II rail carrier and 43 Class III rail carriers across the United States.
Pursuant to a purchase agreement, Watco has agreed to acquire all GLC common stock from FCA. (Pet. 1; Suppl. 1.) Upon consummation of the transaction, Watco would control GLC, which connects with the Watco-owned Ann Arbor Railroad (AA) near Ann Arbor, Mich.
In support of its petition, Watco states that it is committed to implementing service improvements on GLC and modernizing GLC's infrastructure following the transaction. (
The acquisition of control of a rail carrier by a person that is not a rail carrier but that controls any number of rail carriers requires prior approval from the Board under 49 U.S.C. 11323(a)(5). Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(a), however, the Board shall, to the maximum extent consistent with 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV, part A, exempt a transaction or service from regulation when it finds that: (1) the regulation is not necessary to carry out the rail transportation policy (RTP) under 49 U.S.C. 10101; and (2) either (a) the transaction or service is of limited scope, or (b) regulation is not needed to protect shippers from the abuse of market power.
An exemption from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323-25 in this case is consistent with the standards of 49 U.S.C. 10502. Detailed scrutiny of the proposed transaction through an application for review and approval under sections 49 U.S.C. 11323-25 is not necessary to carry out the RTP. Permitting Watco to acquire control of GLC without having to file an application would promote the RTP by minimizing the need for federal regulatory control over the proposed transaction, 49 U.S.C. 10101(2); reducing regulatory barriers to entry into and exit from the industry, 49 U.S.C. 10101(7); and providing for the expeditious resolution of this proceeding, 49 U.S.C. 10101(15). Additionally, Watco explains that its acquisition of control of GLC will create streamlined routing efficiencies between GLC and AA, allow GLC to gain access to Watco's experienced marketing team, and allow Watco to invest approximately $3.7 million in GLC's network. (Supp. 20.) Accordingly, granting the exemption would also ensure the development and continuation of a sound rail transportation system that would continue to meet the needs of the public, 49 U.S.C. 10101(4); foster sound economic conditions in transportation, 49 U.S.C. 10101(5); and encourage efficient management, 49 U.S.C. 10101(9). Lastly, as discussed below and subject to the representation condition imposed in this decision, the Board finds that there will be no significant impacts on competition as a result of the transaction. Accordingly, other aspects of the RTP would not be adversely affected.
Regulation of the proposed transaction is not necessary to protect shippers from an abuse of market power.
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. Because the transaction involves one Class II and one or more Class III rail carriers, the exemption will be made subject to the labor protection
The acquisition of control is exempt from environmental reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.6(c)(1) because it will not result in significant changes in carrier operations. Similarly, under 49 CFR 1105.8(b)(3), no historic reporting is required because the proposed transaction will not substantially change the level of operations or maintenance of railroad properties.
1. Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the Board exempts the above transaction from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323-25, subject to the employee protective conditions in
2. Watco must adhere to its representation that it will keep all currently active GLC and AA gateways open on commercially competitive terms commensurate with future traffic volumes and shipper demand and subject to the cooperation of third-party interline partners in facilitating traffic movements via such existing gateways.
3. Notice of this exemption will be published in the
4. The exemption will become effective on September 28, 2025. Petitions for stay must be filed by September 8, 2025. Petitions to reopen must be filed by September 18, 2025.
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, and Schultz.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review.
This notice announces actions taken by FHWA and other Federal agencies, on behalf of Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), that are final. The actions relate to a proposed highway project United States Highway 51 (US 51), Wisconsin State Highway (WIS) 30 to Interstate (I) 39/90/94 in Dane County, Wisconsin. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l). 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 a claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
Notice is hereby given that FHWA has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing approvals for the following Highway Project related to the US 51 (Stoughton Road) North Study in Dane County, Wisconsin. FHWA, in cooperation with WisDOT, proposes reconstruction of approximately 5.5 miles of US 51 from WIS 30 to I-39/90/94 in Dane County, Wisconsin.
The project includes reconstructing approximately 5.5 miles of US 51 and one interchange (WIS 30), as well as improving 11 intersections. From WIS 30 to US 151, US 51 will be reconstructed to a 6-lane urban section with a shared use path on the east side of the highway. From US 151 to Anderson Street, the highway will be reconstructed into a 5-to-6 lane urban section with a shared-use path on both sides. From Anderson Street to Kinsman Boulevard, US 51 will be reconstructed to a 4-lane urban section with a shared-use path on the east side. From Kinsman Boulevard to Pierstorff Street, US 51 will be reconstructed to a 4-lane urban section. From Pierstorff Street to Hoepker Road, the highway will be reconstructed to a 4-lane rural section including horizontal curve correction. From Hoepker Road to south of I-39/90/94, US 51 will be reconstructed into a 4-lane rural section with a shared-use path on the east side of the highway.
The project will also improve existing conditions at the following 11 intersections: Commercial Avenue/Lexington Avenue, US 151, Anderson Street, Kinsman Boulevard, Pierstorff Street, Rieder Road, Amelia Earhart Drive, Hanson Road, Hoepker Road, Acker Road, and County CV/Anderson Road.
Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations will also be improved throughout the corridor.
The actions taken by the Federal agencies in this project, and laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Environmental Assessment (EA)/Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), approved on July 21, 2025, and in other documents in the FHWA or WisDOT project records. The EA/FONSI and other public records are available by contacting FHWA or WisDOT at the addresses provided above. The EA/FONSI can also be viewed on the project website at:
This notice applies to all Federal Agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This document provides the public notice that American Heritage Railways (AHR), on behalf of Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad, Great Smoky Mountains Railroad, and Branson Scenic Railway (together, the Railroads), petitioned FRA for relief from certain regulations concerning injury and illness reporting and recordkeeping.
FRA must receive comments on the petition by October 6, 2025. FRA will consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable.
Arnoldo Gonzalez, Railroad Safety Specialist, FRA Incident Management, Accident Reporting, and Analysis Division, telephone: 816-206-4809, email:
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letter dated June 23, 2025, AHR petitioned FRA for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 225 (Railroad Accidents/Incidents: Reports Classification, and Investigations). FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2025-0261.
Specifically, AHR seeks relief from 49 CFR 225.25(h),
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
Communications received by October 6, 2025 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of FRA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This document provides the public notice that Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) petitioned FRA for relief from certain regulations concerning calibration of air flow method (AFM) indicators.
FRA must receive comments on the petition by October 6, 2025. FRA
Steve Zuiderveen, Railroad Safety Specialist, FRA Motive Power & Equipment Division, telephone: 202-493-6337, email:
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letter dated July 1, 2025 NS petitioned FRA for inclusion in a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR parts 229 (Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards) and 232 (Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment: End-of-Train Devices). FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2016-0086.
Specifically, NS seeks to join the relief granted in this docket from § 229.29(b),
To justify the waiver request, NS states that participating in the waiver will reduce the risk exposure to its mechanical workers by eliminating over 4,000 AFM calibrations. Further, NS notes that testing performed during this program “has shown AFM calibration performed using the required 92-day test interval adversely affects the integrity of the airflow reading.” NS adds that it has prepared a test plan and installed the appropriate software on its fleet of 2,004 CCB-II and CCB-IIe locomotives.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
Communications received by October 6, 2025 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of FRA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Receipt of petition.
Cristales Inastillables de México (Cristales), formerly Vitro Automotriz, S.A. de C.V. (Vitro), and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., (Volkswagen) (collectively referred to as “the petitioners”) have determined that the Vitro Taos Door Glass panes in certain model year (MY) 2022-2023 Volkswagen Taos motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205,
Send comments on or before October 6, 2025.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on these petitions. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
• Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the fullest extent possible.
When the petitions are granted or denied, notice of the decision will also be published in the
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Jack Chern, General Engineer, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-0661.
Vitro filed a noncompliance report dated May 30, 2023, and Volkswagen filed a noncompliance report dated July 21, 2023, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
This notice of receipt of the petitioners' petitions is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petitions.
The petitioners explain that the subject glazing material is incorrectly marked with the manufacturer's code assigned to Vitro Flex because the labels were not updated following the relocation of production from one Cristales plant to another on June 20, 2022.
The petitioners believe that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because the certification mark on the subject glazing materials, despite having an incorrect manufacturer's code, contains the correct part and model number and meets the performance requirements prescribed by FMVSS No. 205. Because the subject glazing materials contain the accurate part number, the petitioners argue that the subject noncompliance is unlikely to lead to the use of an incorrect replacement part in an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) application since parts would be ordered using the OEM's unique part number rather than the “DOT” number.
Volkswagen states that the subject window glass meets all technical specifications and performance requirements of FMVSS No. 205 and also points out that the stated purpose of FMVSS No. 205 is “to reduce injuries resulting from impact to glazing surfaces, to ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility, and to minimize the possibility of occupants being thrown through the vehicle windows in collisions.” Volkswagen asserts that, because the subject glass panes meet all transparency and impact requirements, Volkswagen does not believe that the incorrect manufacturer's code marking impacts the ability of the subject glass panes to satisfy the stated purpose of FMVSS No. 205.
After determining the noncompliance, Volkswagen took steps to stop the sale of new vehicles impacted by this noncompliance until the repair could be completed by dealers. Volkswagen mailed dealers new labels for the window glass that contain the correct prime glazing manufacturer DOT code. Cristales has since updated the FMVSS 205 required certification mark to contain the correct manufacturer's code. Taos vehicles produced after July 14, 2023, have front and rear window glass containing the correct manufacturer's code mark. Volkswagen also states that it has not received any consumer complaints, claims, or warranty claims related to the subject noncompliance.
The petitioners conclude by stating their belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and their petitions to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on these petitions only apply to the subject equipment that the petitioners no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on these petitions does not relieve equipment and vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant equipment and vehicles under their control after the petitioners notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons who have been removed from OFAC's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List).
This action was issued on July 9, 2025. See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, 202-622-2480; the Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490; or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On July 9, 2025, OFAC has determined that circumstances no longer warrant the inclusion of the following person on the SDN List and their property and interests in property are no longer blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224, as amended:
ACL ITHALAT IHRACAT (a.k.a. ACL GSM IMPORT EXPORT; a.k.a. ACL ITHALAT IHRACAT ISMAIL BAYALT; a.k.a. ACL ITHALAT IHRACAT ISMAIL BAYALTUN), No: 96 Dunya Is Merkezi 2 Kat, Sanliurfa, Turkey; Cengiz Topel Mah 2 Dun is Merk, Sanliurfa, Turkey; Yusufpasa Mah Dunya Is Merkeri Ctr, Sanliurfa 63000, Turkey; 96 Earth Business Center, 2nd Floor, Sanliurfa, Turkey; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886 [SDGT] (Linked To: BAYALTUN, Ismail).
On July 9, 2025, OFAC has determined that circumstances no longer warrant the inclusion of the following person on the SDN List and their property and interests in property are no longer blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13315:
AL-SALIH, Muhammad Mahdi (a.k.a. SALEH, Mohammed Mahdi); DOB 1947; alt. DOB 1949; POB al-Anbar Governorate, Iraq; nationality Iraq; Minister of Trade (individual) [IRAQ2].
On July 9, 2025, OFAC has determined that circumstances no longer warrant the inclusion of the following persons on the SDN List and their property and interests in property are no longer blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13438:
AL-USTA, Raw'a (a.k.a. AL-ASTAH, Raw'ah; a.k.a. AL-OUSTA, Raw'a; a.k.a. ALOUSTA, Rawaa; a.k.a. AL-'USTA, Rawa; a.k.a. AL-USTA, Raw'ah; a.k.a. AL-USTAH, Raw'ah), Damascus, Syria; DOB 1982; nationality Syria (individual) [IRAQ3].
AL-RA'Y SATELLITE TELEVISION CHANNEL (a.k.a. AL RAIE TV CHANNEL; a.k.a. AL RA'Y SATELLITE TELEVISION STATION; a.k.a. AL RA'Y TV; a.k.a. AL-RA'I SATELLITE CHANNEL; a.k.a. AL-RA'Y SATELLITE CHANNEL; a.k.a. ARRAI TV; a.k.a. SATELLITE TELEVISION CHANNEL AL RA'Y; a.k.a. THE OPINION SATELLITE TELEVISION CHANNEL), Near Damascus in the Yaafur area, Syria; website
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
This action was issued on August 27, 2025. See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490; or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On August 27, 2025, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.