International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Energy Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Antitrust Division
Federal Procurement Policy Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Merit Systems Protection Board.
Final rule.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board) is amending its rules of organization and procedure in this part to reflect the closure of its New York Field Office, and a change of address for its Washington Regional Office.
This final rule is effective on December 18, 2025.
Gina K. Grippando, Clerk of the Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20419; phone: (202) 653-7200; fax: (202) 653-7130; or email:
On October 1, 2024, MSPB closed its New York Field Office. Appendix II of this part is amended to reflect the closure of the New York Field Office, and that all geographic areas previously served by the New York Field Office will now be served by the Board's Northeastern Regional Office.
Effective November 13, 2025, MSPB's Washington Regional Office moved to a different location. Appendix II of this part is amended to reflect the Washington Regional Office's new address.
The Board is publishing this as a final rule pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1204(h).
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), MSPB finds that there is good cause to issue this final rule without prior notice and comment. The notice and comment requirements of section 553(b) do not apply to interpretive rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice. This final rule merely reflects the closure of one office within MSPB and the physical move of another and thus relates solely to agency organization. No substantive changes in existing law or policy are effected by this amendment. Under these circumstances, notice and comment rulemaking is unnecessary and not required by any public interest.
Similarly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), MSPB finds that there is good cause to make this final rule effective immediately upon publication. Again, this rule merely reflects the closure of one office within MSPB and the physical move of another.
The MSPB has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. Therefore, no regulatory impact analysis is required.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule.
This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801,
Administrative practice and procedure.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, 5 CFR part 1201 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 1204, 1305, and 7701, and 38 U.S.C. 4331, unless otherwise noted.
All submissions shall be addressed to the Regional Director, if submitted to a regional office, or the Chief Administrative Judge, if submitted to a field office, Merit Systems Protection Board, at the addresses listed below, according to geographic region of the employing agency or as required by § 1201.4(d) of this part. Address of Appropriate Regional or Field Office and Area Served:
1. Atlanta Regional Office, 401 West Peachtree Street NW, 10th floor, Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3519, Facsimile No.: (404) 730-2767, (Alabama; Florida; Georgia; Mississippi; South Carolina; and Tennessee).
2. Central Regional Office, 230 South Dearborn Street, 31st Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604-1669, Facsimile No.: (312) 886-4231, (Illinois; Indiana; Iowa; Kansas City, Kansas; Kentucky; Michigan; Minnesota; Missouri; Ohio; and Wisconsin).
3. Northeastern Regional Office, 1601 Market Street, Suite 1700, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Facsimile No.: (215) 597-3456, (Connecticut; Delaware; Maine; Maryland—except the counties of Montgomery and Prince George's; Massachusetts; New Hampshire; New Jersey; New York; Pennsylvania; Puerto Rico; Rhode Island; Vermont; Virgin Islands; and West Virginia).
4. Washington Regional Office, 1615 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20419, Facsimile No.: (703) 313-2031, (Maryland—counties of Montgomery and Prince George's; North Carolina; Virginia; Washington, DC; and all overseas areas not otherwise covered).
5. Western Regional Office, 1301 Clay Street, Suite 1380N, Oakland, California 94612-5217, Facsimile No.: (510) 273-7136, (Alaska; California; Hawaii; Idaho; Nevada; Oregon; Washington; and Pacific overseas areas).
5a. Denver Field Office, 165 South Union Blvd., Suite 318, Lakewood, Colorado 80228-2211, Facsimile No.: (303) 969-5109, (Arizona; Colorado; Kansas—except Kansas City; Montana; Nebraska; New Mexico; North Dakota; South Dakota; Utah; and Wyoming).
6. Dallas Regional Office, 1100 Commerce Street, Room 620, Dallas, Texas 75242-9979,
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
Final rule.
The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB) amends its regulations regarding the methods available to participants to cure missed loan payments. This final rule will permit resumed payroll deductions for TSP loans to automatically apply to missed payments, giving participants more flexibility to cure missed payments.
The effective date is December 18, 2025.
The FRTIB administers the TSP, which was established by the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514. The TSP is a retirement savings plan for Federal civilian employees and members of the uniformed services. It is similar to cash or deferred arrangements established for private-sector employees under section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 401(k)). The provisions of FERSA that govern the TSP are codified, as amended, largely at 5 U.S.C. 8351 and 8401-80.
When a TSP participant who is employed by the federal government has an outstanding loan from their TSP account, their loan payments are automatically made via payroll deductions. Loan payments might be missed if payroll deductions are interrupted due to a temporary change in payroll status, a transfer to another federal agency with a different pay schedule, or other circumstances. When that happens, the participant must make up the missed payment within a certain period of time called a cure period.
In the past, if a participant's payroll deductions were interrupted, they were required to make up the missed payment via personal check, money order, or direct debit. When their payroll deductions restarted, those resumed payments only counted for that current month, not for the month that was missed. For example, if a participant missed a June payment, but payroll deductions resumed in July, the July deduction would only cover July's payment. The participant would still owe June's payment, and if they did not make a payment via personal check, money order, or direct debit by the end of the cure period, the IRS would treat the loan as in default.
This final rule amends Title 5, Part 1655 of the Code of Federal Regulations to make the loan payment process more flexible. Now, when payroll deductions resume after an interruption, the first deduction will apply to the missed payment. The next regularly scheduled deduction will then be considered as the next required payment. In the example above, the July deduction would apply to June payment, the August deduction would apply to the July payment, and so on. This effectively shifts the schedule forward by one month on a rolling basis and gives the participant extra time to make up any missed payments before a default occurs. This cycle continues, with each new payment covering the prior missed one, so the participant remains one payment behind. This cycle continues until (1) a one-time make up payment is made via personal check, money order, or direct debit, (2) a default is triggered because the loan has reached its maximum term, or (3) a default is triggered because additional payments are missed. This gives the participant flexibility on when to make up a missed payment, but it does not extend the term of loan.
On May 12, 2025, the FRTIB published a proposed rule to amend its regulations (90 FR 20132, May 12, 2025). We received five comments. One comment was outside the scope of this rule, three comments supported the proposed rule, and one comment identified minor grammatical changes intended to improve the clarity of the rule. We have adopted the recommended grammatical changes.
In addition to supporting the proposed rule, one commentor recommended clarifying that the TSP's cure period aligns with the maximum timeframe allowable under the Internal Revenue Code. In response, we have amended the definition of “cure period” in section 1655.1. The term “cure period” is now defined by reference to the maximum timeframe allowable under Treasury Regulation § 1.72(p)-1.
For the reasons described above, the FRTIB is adopting the proposed rule as final, without substantive change. The final rule differs from the proposed rule only in minor edits intended to improve clarity.
This regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation will affect Federal employees and members of the uniformed services who participate in the Thrift Savings Plan, which is a Federal defined contribution retirement savings plan created under the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514, and which is administered by the FRTIB.
This final regulation does not require additional reporting under the criteria of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 602, 632, 653, and 1501-1571, the effects of this regulation on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector have been assessed. This regulation will not compel the expenditure in any one year of $100 million or more by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Therefore, a statement under 2 U.S.C. 1532 is not required.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), the FRTIB submitted a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Government Accountability Office before publication of this rule in the
Credit, Government employees, Pensions, Retirement.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the FRTIB amends 5 CFR part 1655 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 8432d, 8433(g), 8439(a)(3) and 8474.
(b) * * *
(e)
(1)
(i) A personal check,
(ii) Guaranteed funds, or
(iii) Direct debit.
(2)
(3)
(i) A make up payment is submitted for each missed payment in accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this section;
(ii) The loan reaches its maximum term and a deemed distribution of the remaining missed payment(s) is declared under § 1655.15(a); or
(iii) Additional missed payments trigger a deemed distribution under § 1655.15(a).
(g) * * * If the participant does not make up all missed payments by the end of the cure period described in § 1655,1, the TSP record keeper will declare the outstanding loan balance and accrued interest to be a loan offset in accordance with § 1655.15(b).
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rule; technical amendments.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is adopting amendments to correct certain errors and address outdated references in various rules under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, as well as in Form N-CEN.
This rule is effective December 18, 2025.
Amanda Hollander Wagner, Senior Special Counsel, or Brian McLaughlin Johnson, Assistant Director, Investment Company Regulation Office, at (202) 551-6792, Division of Investment Management, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-8549.
The Commission is amending the following rules:
We are adopting amendments to correct errors and to address outdated references in certain Commission rules and Form N-CEN. Specifically, we are adopting amendments to rule 498 under the Securities Act to update the definition of “exchange-traded fund” to provide additional specificity in light of subsequent Commission action, and to remove outdated requirements that have been rendered moot by subsequent Commission action. We are also adopting amendments to correct erroneous or outdated cross-references in rules 0-10, 30e-2, and 35d-1 under the Investment Company Act, as well as in Form N-CEN.
We are adopting amendments to address outdated references in rule 498. Open-end management investment companies (“open-end funds”) may choose to rely on rule 498 to use a summary prospectus to satisfy their prospectus delivery obligations under certain conditions.
We are also adopting amendments to remove outdated requirements in rule 498, which have been rendered moot by subsequent Commission action. Rule 498 includes requirements for a legend that must appear on the cover page or at the beginning of a summary prospectus.
Language about notices to shareholders provided by funds that are relying on rule 30e-3 also appears in rule 498's “greater prominence” requirements.
We are adopting amendments to correct an outdated cross-reference in rule 0-11 under the Investment Company Act. Rule 0-11, “Customer identification programs,” references the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 5318(
We are adopting amendments to correct an erroneous cross-reference in rule 30e-2 under the Investment Company Act. Rule 30e-2 requires registered unit investment trusts that invest substantially all of their assets in shares of a management investment company to send their unitholders annual and semiannual reports containing financial information on the underlying company. Paragraph (a) of this rule refers to this requirement by referencing rule 30e-1 under the Investment Company Act, which provides requirements for reports to stockholders of management companies. However, one of the references in this paragraph also erroneously refers to rule 30d-1 under the Act, which provides requirements for filing copies of reports to shareholders with the Commission (as opposed to rule 30e-1, which addresses the information to be included in such reports and other requirements necessary to satisfy obligations under section 30(e) of the Act).
We are adopting amendments to correct an erroneous cross-reference in rule 35d-1 under the Investment Company Act. Rule 35d-1 addresses the names of registered investment companies and business development companies that the Commission defines as materially misleading or deceptive. In 2023, the Commission adopted amendments to rule 35d-1 that, among other things, modernize the requirements for certain notices to shareholders that must be sent under the rule.
We are adopting amendments to correct an outdated citation in Form N-CEN. Item C.12.a of Form N-CEN requires Form N-CEN filers to provide certain information about each person that provided custodial services during the reporting period. With respect to the custodian, Item C.12.a.vii requires the filer to check a box indicating the type of custody (
The Commission is adopting these amendments under the authority set forth in the Securities Act, particularly sections 5, 6, 7, 10, and 19 thereof [15 U.S.C. 77a
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Investment companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commission is amending title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77b, 77b note, 77c, 77d, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77r, 77s, 77z-3, 77sss, 78c, 78d, 78j, 78
Sections 230.400 to 230.499 issued under secs. 6, 8, 10, 19, 48 Stat. 78, 79, 81, and 85, as amended (15 U.S.C. 77f, 77h, 77j, 77s).
(a) * * *
(2)
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(A) The legend must provide a website address, other than the address of the Commission's electronic filing system; toll free (or collect) telephone number; and email address that investors can use to obtain the Statutory Prospectus and other information. The website address must be specific enough to lead investors directly to the Statutory Prospectus and other materials that are required to be accessible under paragraph (e)(1) of this section, rather than to the home page or other section of the website on which the materials are posted. The website could be a central site with prominent links to each document. The legend may indicate, if applicable, that the Statutory Prospectus and other information are available from a financial intermediary (such as a broker-dealer or bank) through which shares of the Fund may be purchased or sold.
(f) * * *
(2)
15 U.S.C. 80a-1
Each registered open-end company is subject to the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 5318(
(a) At least semiannually every registered unit investment trust substantially all the assets of which consist of securities issued by a management company must transmit to each shareholder of record (including record holders of periodic payment plan certificates), a report containing all the applicable information and financial statements or their equivalent, required by § 270.30e-1 to be included in reports of the management company for the same fiscal period. Each of these reports must be transmitted within the period allowed the management company by § 270.30e-1 for transmitting reports to its shareholders.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The policy described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section is a fundamental policy, or the fund has adopted a policy to provide the fund's shareholders with at least 60 days' prior notice of any change in the policy described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, and any change in the fund's name that
15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s, 78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78n-1, 78o(d), 80a-8, 80a-24, 80a-26, 80a-29, and sec. 939A, Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, unless otherwise noted.
Form N-CEN is attached as Appendix A to this document. Form N-CEN will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
a. * * *
vii. * * *
8. Insurance company sponsor—section 26(f) (15 U.S.C. 80a-26(f)): __
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Direct final rule.
The Commission is partially rescinding a direct final rule that inserted a conditional sunset date into certain regulations. The Commission is rescinding the sunset provision from one regulation because it received a significant adverse comment in response to an identical proposed rule which was published concurrently with the direct final rule.
This rule is effective January 20, 2026.
Karin Herzfeld, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8459,
1. In the Direct Final Rule
2. The Commission received a significant adverse comment on the amendment to insert a conditional sunset provision in 18 CFR 2.27 (Availability of North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) Smart Grid Standards as non-mandatory guidance); therefore, the Commission is rescinding that amendment to 18 CFR 2.27.
3. As stated in the Direct Final Rule, the Commission will address the comment received on the companion proposed rule in a subsequent final rule. The Commission will not initiate a second comment period on this action.
Electric utilities, Natural gas, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
By the Commission.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 2, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
5 U.S.C. 601; 15 U.S.C. 717-717z, 3301-3432; 16 U.S.C. 792-828c, 2601-2645; 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370h, 7101-7352.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final rule.
This document contains final regulations regarding the base erosion and anti-abuse tax imposed on certain large corporate taxpayers with respect to certain payments made to foreign related parties. The final regulations relate to how qualified derivative payments with respect to securities lending transactions are determined and reported. The final regulations affect corporations with substantial gross receipts that make payments to foreign related parties.
Sheila Ramaswamy at (202) 317-6938 (not a toll-free number).
This document contains additions and amendments to 26 CFR part 1 (Income Tax Regulations) under sections 59A and 6038A of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) (“the final regulations”). The additions and amendments are issued pursuant to the express delegations of authority to the Secretary of the Treasury (or his delegate) provided under sections 59A(i) and 6038A(b)(2). The final regulations are also issued under the express delegation of authority under section 7805(a) of the Code.
This document contains final regulations under sections 59A and
The applicable taxpayer determines its modified taxable income by computing its taxable income without regard to any base erosion tax benefit with respect to any base erosion payment or the base erosion percentage of any net operating loss deduction allowed under section 172 of the Code for the taxable year.
On January 10, 2025, the Treasury Department and the IRS published proposed regulations under sections 59A and 6038A (REG-107895-24) in the
Proposed § 1.59A-6(b)(3)(iii)(A) would provide that mark-to-market gains and losses from the securities leg of an intercompany securities lending transaction are not treated as QDPs. As proposed, taxpayers would not be required to include those amounts in their QDP reporting. A conforming amendment in proposed § 1.59A-3(b)(2)(iv) would provide that mark-to-market gains and losses from the securities leg of a securities lending transaction are not taken into account when determining the amount of a taxpayer's base erosion payment.
Proposed § 1.59A-6(b)(3)(iv) would provide rules for determining whether a taxpayer made a substitute payment or other payment pursuant to a securities lending transaction to a foreign related party. Specifically, the rule would provide that a taxpayer may determine the amount of a substitute payment or other payment that it has paid to a foreign related party by using the amount actually paid by the taxpayer to the foreign related party if the taxpayer can specifically identify each recipient of the substitute payment or other payment. If the taxpayer cannot determine the recipient of those payments, the rule would provide a method that treats the substitute payments or other payments that a taxpayer pays with respect to borrowed securities as having been paid first to foreign related parties (but not in excess of the total amount of the payments received by the foreign related parties from all payors).
The comment recommended that the final regulations provide definitions for terms used in the regulations such as “qualified derivative payment,” “substitute payment,” “other amounts that relate to the securities lending transaction,” “mark-to-market gains and losses,” “securities leg of a securities lending transaction,” and “cash collateral” to reduce ambiguity. The comment asserted that the ambiguity could potentially lead to substitute payments being misclassified as QDPs rather than base erosion payments. The comment also requested additional examples illustrating the classification of substitute payments.
In response to this comment, the final regulations include cross-references to §§ 1.861-2(a)(7) and 1.861-3(a)(6) to clarify the meaning of the term “substitute payment.”
Although proposed § 1.59A-3(b)(2)(iv)(B) indicates by exclusion that “other amounts that relate to the securities lending transaction” refers to payments relating to the transaction other than mark-to-market gains or losses and the delivery of securities to or receipt of securities from the lender, greater clarity that substitute payments and borrow fees are included in this term may be helpful. Therefore, for consistency purposes, §§ 1.59A-3(b)(2)(iv)(B) and 1.59A-6(b)(3)(iii) of the final regulations have been modified to use the term “items of income, gain, loss, or deduction during the taxable year” and explain that this term refers to amounts such as substitute payments and borrow fees that relate to the securities lending transaction and does not include the delivery or receipt of securities. The final regulations also clarify that the term “mark-to-market gains and losses” with respect to a securities lending transaction refers to the recognition of gain or loss on the transaction as if the taxpayer's position in the securities lending position were sold for its fair market value on the last business day of the taxable year, as described in § 1.59A-6(b)(1)(i).
Proposed § 1.59A-6(b)(3)(iii) would provide cross-references to §§ 1.861-2(a)(7) and 1.861-3(a)(6) for the definition of a “securities lending transaction.” Sections 1.861-2(a)(7) and 1.861-3(a)(6) define the term “securities lending transaction” as “a transfer of one or more securities that is described in section 1058(a) or a substantially similar transaction.” These cross-references were intended to indicate that “securities leg of a securities lending transaction” refers to the components of the transaction that relate to the transfer of a security. The final regulations have been modified to clarify that the securities leg of a securities lending transaction refers to the rights, obligations, and transfers of securities and payments under the transaction other than the obligation to provide or right to receive cash collateral and interest (sometimes referred to as rebate) thereon.
Some of the terms cited by the comment are already defined in other parts of the regulations or are commonly understood industry terms. For example, the term “qualified derivative payment” is defined in section 59A(h)(2)(A) and § 1.59A-6(b); therefore, no additional definition is required. Additionally, “cash collateral” is a commonly understood industry term that does not require a definition and is already used in the existing regulations at § 1.59A-6(d)(2)(iii)(B).
The final regulations do not adopt the comment to include examples illustrating the classification of substitute payments. The Treasury Department and IRS are of the view that additional examples would not add clarity because the final regulations now cross-reference regulations illustrating the meaning of a substitute payment, and the examples in proposed § 1.59A-6(b)(3)(iii)(B) clearly indicate the types of payments that are referenced by the term “substitute payment.”
The final regulations also make clarifying edits to the specific
The comment also recommended that the final regulations provide additional clarifying examples illustrating mark-to-market adjustments and the operation of the allocation method of proposed § 1.59A-6(b)(3)(iv). The Treasury Department and the IRS consider the examples that were provided in proposed § 1.59A-6(b)(3)(iii)(B) to be sufficiently illustrative of the mechanics of mark-to-market adjustments; therefore, the clarity of these rules will not be improved by adding additional examples in the final regulations. The Treasury Department and the IRS agree, however, that an example illustrating the allocation method would be helpful. Therefore, the final regulations include an example of the allocation method in § 1.59A-6(b)(3)(iv)(D).
Finally, the comment requested additional transition relief with respect to the reporting requirements of § 1.6038A-2(b)(7)(ix) such as a two-year phased implementation. The comment suggested that in the first phase, the IRS could adopt reduced reporting requirements or grant safe harbor treatment for systems unable to capture detailed data immediately to allow time for internal systems upgrades and process testing before requiring full compliance. As an alternative, the comment suggested permitting taxpayers to submit evidence of system limitations as the basis for temporary relief, while establishing clear compliance milestones. The final regulations do not adopt this comment. Instead, the final regulations retain the transition relief provided in the proposed regulations, which delays the applicability date of § 1.6038A-2(b)(7)(ix). The rules relating to QDP reporting apply to payments made in taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2027. It is expected that this delayed applicability date will give taxpayers sufficient time to build and update the systems needed to track QDPs.
The preamble to the proposed regulation explained that proposed §§ 1.59A-3(b)(2)(iv) (application of BEAT netting rule to securities lending transactions) and 1.59A-6(b)(3)(ii) through (iv) (QDP rules relating to securities lending transactions) would apply to taxable years beginning on or after the date that final regulations are filed with the
These final regulations are not subject to review under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866 pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement (July 4, 2025) between the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget regarding review of tax regulations.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) (PRA) generally requires that a Federal agency obtain the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before collecting information from the public, whether such collection of information is mandatory, voluntary, or required to obtain or retain a benefit. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget. These final regulations do not create or impose any additional information collection requirements in the form of reporting, recordkeeping requirements, or third-party disclosure statements. The collection requirements are within Form 8991 and its instructions which are included in the OMB Control Number 1545-0123.
Generally, the final regulations affect only aggregate groups of corporations with average annual gross receipts of at least $500 million and that make payments to foreign related parties. Generally, only large businesses have both substantial gross receipts and make payments to foreign related parties. In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business, and no comments were received.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) 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 preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. The final regulations do not have federalism implications and do not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive order.
The principal authors of these final regulations are D. Peter Merkel and Sheila Ramaswamy of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, the Treasury Department and IRS amend 26 CFR part 1 as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv)
(B)
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii)
(B)
(
(
(
(iv)
(B)
(C)
(
(
(
(D)
(
(a)
(c)
(g) * * * Paragraph (b)(7)(ix) of this section applies to payments made in taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2027. * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of the Safety Zone, Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, and Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, on all waters of the Chicago River (Main Branch) for a fireworks display from December 31, 2025 into January 1, 2026. This action is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by potential fall-out from a fireworks display. During the enforcement period listed below, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.
The regulation in 33 CFR 165.930 will be enforced for the Chicago River (Main Branch) regulated area in § 165.930(a)(4), from 11:30 p.m. on December 31, 2025, through 12:15 a.m. on January 1, 2026.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Kyle Goetz, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 630-986-2155, email:
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone regulation in 33 CFR 165.930 for a fireworks display from 11:30 p.m. on December 31, 2025, through 12:15 a.m. on January 1, 2026. This regulation specifies the location of the regulated area for this event—the Chicago River (Main Branch) in § 165.930(a)(4). All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port (COTP) Lake Michigan, or designated on-scene representative, for entry into, transiting, mooring, laying up, or anchoring within the safety zone during the enforcement time listed in this notice of enforcement. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the COTP Lake Michigan or designated representative. Upon being hailed by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel must proceed as directed.
In addition to this notification of enforcement in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve portions of the state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Arizona pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM
This rule is effective January 20, 2026.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2023-0539. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Michael Dorantes, Geographic Strategies and Modeling Section (AIR-2-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA, telephone number: (415) 972-3934, email address:
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires each state to submit to the EPA, within three years after the promulgation of a primary or secondary NAAQS or any revision thereof, a SIP revision that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA contains the infrastructure SIP requirements that generally relate to the information, authorities, compliance assurances, procedural requirements, and control measures that constitute the “infrastructure” of a state's air quality management program. These infrastructure SIP requirements (or “elements”) required by section 110(a)(2) are as follows:
• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
• Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate pollution transport.
• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and international pollution abatement.
• Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional government agencies.
• Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
• Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
• Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
• Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility protection.
• Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submittal of modeling data.
• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
• Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities.
There are certain infrastructure SIP requirements under section 110(a)(2) that are not addressed in this final action. First, two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three-year submittal deadline of section 110(a)(1). These two elements are: (i) section 110(a)(2)(C), to the extent that it refers to permit programs required under part D (nonattainment new source review (NSR)), and (ii) section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D. As a result, this action does not address the nonattainment NSR requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) or the entirety of section 110(a)(2)(I). Additionally, this action does not address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) pertaining to contributions to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other States, referred to as “prongs 1 and 2” and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) pertaining to interference with visibility protection in other States, referred to as “prong 4.” The EPA has proposed action on Arizona's SIP revision with respect to prongs 1 and 2 in a separate rulemaking,
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted two SIP revisions to address the infrastructure SIP requirements in CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2012 PM
We are taking final action on these submittals with respect to the 2012 PM
We evaluated Arizona's 2012 PM
40 CFR part 51, subpart H (“Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes”) contains EPA's implementing regulations for CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) (§§ 51.150 through 51.153). 40 CFR 51.150 of subpart H provides criteria for the classification of areas for emergency episode planning purposes based on measured concentrations of ambient air pollutants, specifically sulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone. The priority thresholds for classification of AQCR are listed at 40 CFR 51.150, and the specific classifications of AQCR in Arizona are listed at 40 CFR 52.121. Consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 51.153, reclassification of an AQCR must rely on the most recent three years of air quality data. Under 40 CFR 51.151 and 51.152, regions classified under the more stringent classifications of Priority I, IA, or II are required to have SIP-approved emergency episode contingency plans, while those classified Priority III are not required to have plans. We also interpret 40 CFR 51.153 as establishing the means for states to review air quality data and request a higher or lower classification for any given region and as providing the regulatory basis for the EPA to reclassify such regions, as appropriate, under the authorities of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(G) and 301(a)(1). For reasons detailed in our notice of proposed rulemaking and the TSD, we determined that counties in the Maricopa Intrastate AQCR are required to have emergency episode plans for PM
We also proposed a revision to 40 CFR 52.121 to add La Paz County to the list of constituent counties for the Mohave-Yuma Intrastate AQCR, and to 40 CFR 81.268, we proposed to add La Paz County to the delimited area of the Mohave-Yuma Intrastate AQCR.
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period that ended on July 15, 2024. During this period, the EPA received four comments. Three of these comments were from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the remaining comment was from another organization. Copies of each comment have been added to the docket for this action and are accessible at
One comment from a different organization argued that the EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2012 PM
After reviewing the comment, the EPA has determined that the comment fails to raise issues germane to the
As detailed in section I. of this rulemaking, we are taking final action to approve certain portions of Arizona's I-SIP submittals for the 2012 PM
• 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission limits and other control measures.
• 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
• 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for enforcement of control measures and regulation of new and modified minor stationary sources.
• 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—International pollution abatement, CAA section 115.
• 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies.
• 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
• 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency episodes.
• 110(a)(2)(H)—Consultation with government officials.
• 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation with government officials, public notification, and visibility protection.
• 110(a)(2)(K)—Air quality modeling and submission of modeling data.
• 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting fees.
• 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/participation by affected local entities.
The EPA previously proposed to partially approve and partially disapproval the following PSD-related CAA requirements under 110(a)(2). At this time, we are not finalizing our proposed action on these elements and will instead address the requirements in a separate rulemaking:
• 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for regulation of new and modified major source stationary sources.
• 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—Interference with PSD (prong 3).
• 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—Interstate pollution abatement, CAA section 126.
• 110(a)(2)(J)—PSD.
We note that the EPA proposed to approve prongs 1 and 2 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in a separate rulemaking.
For the reasons described in our proposed rulemaking and TSD, we are finalizing approval of two rules and one plan included with the 2022 I-SIP supplement into the Arizona SIP: AAC R18-2-220 “Air Pollution Emergency Episodes,” the accompanying plan “Procedures for the Prevention of Emergency Episodes,” and the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulation VI, “Emergency Episodes: Rule 600 Emergency Episodes”. Based on our analysis, we find that these rules meet the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2), 110(l), and 193.
For the reasons described in our proposed rulemaking, and in response to the State's request, we are taking final action to revise 40 CFR 52.121 to add La Paz County to the list of constituent counties for the Mohave-Yuma Intrastate AQCR, and to 40 CFR 81.268, to add La Paz County to the delimited area of the Mohave-Yuma Intrastate AQCR.
In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. The EPA is finalizing the incorporation of AAC R18-2-220 “Air Pollution Emergency Episodes,” the “Procedures for the Prevention of Emergency Episodes,” and the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulation VI, “Emergency Episodes: Rule 600 Emergency Episodes,” into the Arizona SIP, which are incorporated by reference in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 17, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control.
42 U.S.C. 7401
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
(s)
42 U.S.C. 7401,
The Mohave-Yuma Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (Arizona) has been revised to consist of the territorial area encompassed by the boundaries of the following jurisdictions or described area (including the territorial area of all municipalities (as defined in section 302(f) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7602(f)) geographically located within the outermost boundaries of the area so delimited): In the State of Arizona: La Paz County, Mohave County, and Yuma County
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; notification of delegation.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving updates to the Code of Federal Regulations that reflect Oklahoma's current New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) delegation status and the mailing address for the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). The ODEQ submitted updated regulations for receiving delegation of EPA authority for implementation and enforcement of certain NSPS. The updated State regulations incorporate by reference certain NSPS promulgated by EPA, as they existed through June 30, 2023. The delegation of authority for implementation and enforcement applies to sources subject to the delegated NSPS, including those located in certain areas of Indian country as discussed herein.
This rule is effective on January 20, 2026.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0580. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Clovis Steib, EPA Region 6 Office, Infrastructure and Ozone Section, Air and Radiation Division (ARSI), 214-665-7566,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
The background for this action is discussed in detail in our July 7, 2025, proposal (90 FR 29826). In that document we proposed to approve updates to the delegation of NSPS to ODEQ. The delegation provides ODEQ with the primary responsibility to implement and enforce the delegated NSPS standards, as they existed through June 30, 2023.
EPA received two anonymous comments. One comment was deemed to be non-relevant to this action. The other comment requests EPA encourage ODEQ to consider carbon dioxide emissions as part of its broader regulatory and permitting context and in its implementation of NSPS standards. We thank the commenter for the comment but find the request to be beyond the scope of the current NSPS delegation. This action aims to approve ODEQ's requested updates to its current NSPS delegation, it does not speak to Oklahoma's broader regulatory scheme or alter the requirements of the delegated NSPS standards. As such, we are finalizing the NSPS delegations to ODEQ as proposed.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in
The EPA has approved Oklahoma's SAFETEA request to administer all of the State's EPA-approved environmental regulatory programs in the requested areas of Indian country. As requested by Oklahoma, the EPA's approval under SAFETEA does not include Indian country lands, including rights-of-way running through the same, that: (1) qualify as Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, under 18 U.S.C. 1151(c); (2) are held in trust by the United States on behalf of an individual Indian or Tribe; or (3) are owned in fee by a Tribe, if the Tribe (a) acquired that fee title to such land, or an area that included such land, in accordance with a treaty with the United States to which such Tribe was a party, and (b) never allotted the land to a member or citizen of the Tribe (collectively “excluded Indian country lands”).
The EPA's approval under SAFETEA expressly provided that to the extent the EPA's prior approvals of Oklahoma's environmental programs excluded Indian country, any such exclusions are superseded for the geographic areas of Indian country covered by the EPA's approval of Oklahoma's SAFETEA request. The approval also provided that future revisions or amendments to Oklahoma's approved environmental regulatory programs would extend to the covered areas of Indian country (without any further need for additional requests under SAFETEA).
As explained above, the EPA is finalizing an update to the Oklahoma NSPS delegation which will apply statewide in Oklahoma. Consistent with the EPA's SAFETEA approval, this NSPS delegation will apply to areas of Indian country pursuant to the SAFETEA approval, including to all
EPA is taking final action to approve updates to the delegation of certain NSPS to ODEQ, and amending 40 CFR part 60 to (1) include a table of the specific NSPS provisions delegated to the ODEQ and (2) update the mailing address for the ODEQ for submittal of documents required under the delegated NSPS provisions, so as to provide the ODEQ with the authority to implement and enforce certain newly incorporated NSPS promulgated by the EPA and amendments to existing standards currently delegated, as they existed though June 30, 2023.
Under the CAA, EPA previously delegated to the ODEQ the authority to implement and enforce certain NSPS for sources located in Oklahoma, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7411(c)(1);
For this action, a review of all applicable Statutory and Executive Orders are indicated as follows:
This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
This action is certified to not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This update to the delegation of certain NSPS to ODEQ will apply to certain areas of Indian country throughout Oklahoma as discussed in the preamble, and therefore has tribal implications as specified in E.O. 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). However, this action will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. This action will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments because no actions will be required of Tribal governments. This action will also not preempt tribal law as no Oklahoma tribe implements a regulatory program under the CAA and thus does not have applicable or related Tribal laws. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes (December 7, 2023), the EPA has offered consultation to all 38 Tribal governments whose lands are located within the exterior boundaries of the State of Oklahoma and that may be affected by this action and provided information about this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to regulatory actions considered significant under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of Executive Order 13045. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it approves a state program.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rule does not involve technical standards. This action is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 17, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 60 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(b) * * *
(38) State of Oklahoma: State of Oklahoma, Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, P.O. Box 1677, Oklahoma City, OK 73101-1677.
(e) * * *
(4) The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) has been delegated the following 40 CFR part 60 standards promulgated by EPA, as amended in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) has submitted updated regulations for receiving delegation and approval of its program for the implementation and enforcement of certain New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for all sources (both part 70 and non-part 70 sources), as provided for under previously approved delegation mechanisms. The updated State regulations incorporate by reference certain NSPS and NESHAP promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at parts 60, 61 and 63, as they existed through July 1, 2021. The EPA is providing notice that it is taking final action to approve the delegation of certain NSPS and NESHAP to LDEQ. The delegation of authority under this action does not apply to sources located in Indian country.
This rule is effective on January 20, 2026.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-1054. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Clovis Steib, EPA Region 6 Office, Infrastructure and Ozone Section (ARSI), telephone number: 214-665-7566, email address:
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.
The background for this action is discussed in detail in our June 23, 2025, proposal (90 FR 26482). In that document we proposed to approve updating the delegation of certain NSPS and NESHAP to LDEQ. The delegation will provide LDEQ with the primary responsibility to implement and enforce the delegated standards.
During the update of the aforementioned delegations, we identified the need to correct certain subparts that were mistakenly included and/or omitted in the Technical Support Document (TSD) submitted with the proposal for this action and filed in the docket. These corrections are the logical outgrowth from our finalization of the LDEQ's proposed delegations for NSPS and NESHAP. They are now reflected in the respective tables located in the amendatory language section of this action.
EPA received an anonymous public comment. The comment states that administrative practice is required and necessary to achieve goals. We thank the commenter for the comment and note administrative practices were followed for this action. This action finalizes updates to LDEQ's current NSPS and NESHAP delegations, following a proposed action and a public comment period. As such, we are finalizing the NSPS and NESHAP delegations to LDEQ as proposed.
The EPA is taking final action to approve updates to the delegation of certain NSPS to LDEQ, and to update the Louisiana NESHAP delegation to provide the LDEQ with the authority to implement and enforce certain newly incorporated NESHAP promulgated by the EPA and amendments to existing standards currently delegated, as they existed through July 1, 2021.
Under the CAA, the Administrator has the authority to approve delegation requests that comply with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7411(c) and 7412(1). In reviewing delegation submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria and objectives of the CAA and of the EPA's implementing regulations. Accordingly, this action merely approves the State's request as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
This action is certified to not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This final approval to update the delegation of certain NSPS to LDEQ and the approval of LDEQ's request to update their NESHAP delegation will not apply in areas of Indian Country, and therefore has no tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. This action will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments because no actions will be required of tribal governments. This action will also not preempt tribal law as no Louisiana tribe implements a regulatory program under the CAA and thus does not have applicable or related tribal laws.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to regulatory actions considered significant under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of Executive Order 13045. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it approves a state action implementing a federal standard.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. This action is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 17, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uranium, Vinyl chloride.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative practice and procedure, Business and industry, Carbon oxides, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
(2)
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii)
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a) * * *
(19) * * *
(i) The following table lists the specific part 63 standards that have been delegated unchanged to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality for all sources. The “X” symbol is used to indicate each subpart that has been delegated. The delegations are subject to all of the conditions and limitations set forth in Federal law, regulations, policy, guidance, and determinations. Some authorities cannot be delegated and are retained by EPA. These include certain General Provisions authorities and specific parts of some standards. Any amendments made to these rules after July 1, 2021, are not delegated.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Direct final rule; request for comments.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM, we) is issuing this direct final rule (DFR) to amend BLM regulations to extend the phase-in date for compliance with the minimum bond amount for Statewide oil and gas bonds. The current regulation requires operators to increase or replace existing Statewide bonds to meet the $500,000 minimum bond amount by June 22, 2026. This rule extends that deadline to June 22, 2027, aligning it with the phase-in date for individual lease bonds.
The final rule is effective on February 17, 2026, unless significant adverse comments are received by January 20, 2026. If significant adverse comments are received, notice will be published in the
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
Peter Cowan, Senior Minerals Leasing Specialist, email:
For a summary of the final rule, please see the abstract description of the document in Docket Number BLM-2025-0269 on
Oil and gas leasing on Federal lands managed by the BLM is governed by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA), 30 U.S.C. 181
The BLM seeks to delay this requirement as we are pursuing a separate but related rulemaking in the coming months, which could significantly change the timeline for this requirement. This delay will provide operators with relief while the BLM pursues this change.
This rule is consistent with broader energy policy goals, as reflected in Executive Order (E.O.) 14154, “Unleashing American Energy” (90 FR
• Reducing regulatory burdens on domestic energy producers;
• Promoting energy independence through expanded access to Federal lands;
• Streamlining compliance timelines to avoid unnecessary disruptions to operations; and
• Encouraging capital investment in exploration and production by minimizing near-term financial strain.
Extending the Statewide bond phase-in deadline aligns with these priorities by providing operators with additional time to secure financing or to restructure bonding instruments. It also ensures parity between Statewide and lease-level bonding compliance, simplifying implementation and reducing confusion.
This action reflects the Department of the Interior's commitment to regulatory certainty, economic growth, and responsible resource development. It does not alter the minimum bond amounts.
E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866, while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that agencies must base regulations on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The Department developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 through 612) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a). As the Department is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this DFR, the RFA does not apply.
This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Specifically, the DFR: (a) will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector. The rule merely extends the deadline for complying with the increased Statewide bond requirement. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule does not result in a taking of private property or otherwise have regulatory takings implications under E.O. 12630. The rule merely extends an existing phase-in period. The rule will not result in private property being taken for public use without just compensation because this rule only extends the compliance deadline for an existing Statewide bond requirement. A takings implication assessment is therefore not required.
Under the criteria of section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This DFR complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Among other things, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation;
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to Tribal self-governance and sovereignty. The Department evaluated this DFR under E.O. 13175 and the Department's consultation policies. The Department determined that this DFR has no substantial, direct effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and that consultation under the Department's Tribal consultation policies is not required. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to extend the phase-in date for Federal onshore Statewide bond amounts.
This rule does not impose any new information collection burdens under the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and assigned OMB control number 1004-0185. This rule does not impose an information collection burden because the Department is not making any changes to the information collection requirements.
This DFR does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321
This DFR is not a significant energy action as defined in E.O. 13211. Therefore, a statement of energy effects is not required.
Government contracts, Government employees, Mineral royalties, Oil and gas exploration, Oil and gas reserves, Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Bureau of Land Management amends 43 CFR part 3100 as follows:
25 U.S.C. 396d and 2107; 30 U.S.C. 189, 306, 359, and 1751; 43 U.S.C. 1701
(c) Principals must increase or replace all bonds not meeting the appropriate minimum bond amount in paragraph (a) of this section by:
(1) June 22, 2027, for Statewide; and
(2) June 22, 2027, for lease bonds.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; correction.
The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) published a document in the
Effective June 12, 2028.
Joshua Gehret, Cybersecurity and Communications Reliability Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-7816 or
In the
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) proposes to revise its Senior Executive Service (SES) Candidate Development Program (SESCDP) regulations to implement certain SES training and development requirements. The SES represents the Federal Government's leadership, composed of executive positions above the GS-15 level. SESCDPs serve as a crucial succession management tool for Federal agencies, designed to identify and prepare high-potential employees for future roles within the SES. These programs aim to cultivate leaders equipped with a government-wide perspective and the competencies necessary to tackle complex challenges.
Comments must be received on or before February 17, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN number “3206-AO89” and title, using the following method:
•
All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or RIN for this
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule may be found in the docket for this rulemaking at
Nicole Wright, Deputy Associate Director, Executive Services and Workforce Development, 202-606-8046 or by email at
The Senior Executive Service (SES) is a corps of top-level Federal executives who provide leadership and oversee government operations, bridging the gap between political appointees and career civil servants. The SES was established by the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978 and became effective in July 1979. The CSRA envisioned a senior executive corps with solid executive expertise, public service values, and a broad perspective of the Government. The CSRA established the SES as a distinct personnel system that applies the same executive qualifications requirements to all members. The system was designed to provide greater authority to agencies to manage their executive resources, including the flexibility for selecting and developing Federal executives within a framework that preserves the larger corporate interests of the Government.
An SESCDP is a structured program designed to identify and prepare individuals who aspire to become senior executive leaders, exhibit readiness or near-readiness for executive-level responsibilities, demonstrate leadership across organizational boundaries, and show potential to manage complex, cross-agency initiatives. As a strategic succession tool, SESCDPs serve to strengthen selected candidates' leadership skills and characteristics based on current standards. Participation provides governmentwide leadership opportunities to interact with senior employees outside their department and/or agency, interagency training experiences, executive-level development assignments, mentoring, and coaching. Further, an SESCDP boosts participants' executive competencies and expands their understanding of governmentwide programs and issues beyond their individual agency and profession, broadening participants' understanding of missions, programs, core values, and management challenges.
Graduates of an OPM-approved SESCDP, who are selected through civil service-wide competition and are certified by OPM's Qualifications Review Board (QRB), may receive a career SES appointment without further competition. The QRB certifies the executive qualifications of candidates for initial career SES appointments. QRB members judge the overall scope, quality, and depth of a candidate's executive qualifications and experience within the context of the Executive Core Qualifications. QRB certification does not guarantee placement in the SES, and SESCDP participation is not required for selection into the SES.
On October 30, 2004, the President signed the Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004 (Act), Public Law 108-411, into law. The Act made several significant changes in the law governing the training and development of Federal employees, supervisors, managers, and executives. The first change required each agency to evaluate, on a regular basis, its training programs and plans with respect to the accomplishment of its specific performance plans and strategic goals, and to modify its training plans and programs as needed to accomplish the agency's performance plans and strategic goals.
The second major change the Act required was for agencies to consult with OPM to establish comprehensive succession management programs designed to provide training to employees to develop managers for the agency. It also required agencies, in consultation with OPM, to establish programs to provide training to managers regarding actions, options, and strategies a manager may use in relating to employees with unacceptable performance, mentoring employees, improving employee performance and productivity, and conducting employee performance appraisals.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum
To advance this directive, on May 29, 2025, OPM released the memorandum,
Through the introduction of more stringent SESCDP certification requirements, OPM aims to enhance training and development for aspiring SES and accelerate the placement of well-prepared leaders to ensure leadership continuity. OPM has reviewed evaluation feedback from agencies and graduates of SESCDPs over the years, which suggest some adjustments can be made to enhance the experience for SESCDP participants and aim for better outcomes. To accomplish this transformation, OPM proposes to adjust the formal training content, adopt a more streamlined program cohort duration, and utilize developmental assignments of a longer minimum duration. In turn, agencies will have a more appropriate timeframe to conduct an SESCDP and allow for aspiring SES to learn in an environment that promotes governmentwide cohesion and prepares them to deliver results as accountable senior executives.
OPM has reviewed the supervisory, management and executive development regulations governing the SESCDP and is issuing this proposed rule in response to the President's directives and pursuant to its regulatory authority in 5 U.S.C. 3396 (a) and (b). The following are the principal results sought by the proposed changes to 5 CFR part 412:
○ Agencies have effective and cost-efficient SESCDPs that will support agency succession planning and candidate development;
○ Agencies identify and select individuals that have demonstrated executive ability and further develop them professionally to step into the SES with the experiences to handle the challenges presented at the highest caliber of public service;
○ Agencies maintain a minimum placement rate of program graduates receiving OPM QRB certification as determined by OPM policy to ensure a return on investment; and
○ Agencies are better equipped to collect SESCDP evaluation data to identify and implement program enhancements or alternative approaches to improve program administration.
To assist agencies in accomplishing these results, we are proposing changes to 5 CFR part 412, subpart C “Senior Executive Service Candidate Development Programs.” In addition to modifying §§ 412.301 and 412.302, OPM also proposes to add a new § 412.303 to address SESCDP oversight and evaluation. The following are the major proposed changes in part 412, subpart C:
Section 412.301 provides the requirements for an agency to obtain approval from OPM to conduct an SESCDP. OPM proposes to add a requirement for each Department or Agency HQ-level seeking approval to submit a blanket, enterprise-wide policy for itself and all subcomponents. OPM also proposes to prescribe program policy parameters and require agencies to use an OPM-provided program policy template when applying for program and policy approval. The template submission process streamlines program creation by standardizing most elements and aligning all policies across agencies for uniformity. The proposal would amend § 412.301(b) to require a participating agency to include in its policy a description of SESCDP program methodologies, modifications, and improvements by using the OPM-developed SESCDP policy template, as well as program evaluation templates. Further, the proposal would also require agencies to obtain OPM re-approval for an SESCDP on a triennial basis to ensure alignment and strategic linkage with agency succession plans.
OPM has directed all agencies that currently operate SESCDPs to ensure alignment with the new Administration policies. OPM also directed that, no later than October 31, 2025, those agencies must submit updated policies for OPM review and approval.
Section 412.302 provides the criteria for an SESCDP. Currently, SESCDPs must be a minimum of 12 months and can run up to 24 months. This length of time involves considerable expense and resources to ostensibly turn “almost ready” talent into “ready now” talent. OPM proposes to limit program cohort duration from a minimum of 9 months to a maximum of 12 months. Additionally, to allow flexibility based on extenuating circumstances, agencies may be granted by OPM an extension of program cohort length up to 15 months for the affected participant(s). This reduced duration serves as part of a re-envisioned SESCDP to more effectively identify and prepare “almost ready” talent and decrease the time needed for high-potential executive talent to reach optimal performance.
Current SESCDPs must provide at least 80 hours of formal interagency or multi-sector training experience. OPM proposes to increase this to 100 hours of formal training which must include topics identified by the agencies that best serve the development of their participants and must also include topic areas specific to: strategic planning, financial management, human resource management, government efficiency, management and supervision, and accountability. Targeted training in the above-specified areas will serve to improve leadership skills such as decision-making, communicating, problem-solving, and adaptability. The number of specific hours allocated to each of these topics is at the discretion of the agencies.
OPM proposes that participants in an agency SESCDP must receive at least two validated executive assessments (
Finally, OPM proposes to require a minimum 10 hours each of coaching and mentoring and to require at least one developmental assignment of 120 continuous days outside the scope of the candidate's position of record and require the assignments to include roles at the executive level where the candidate is held responsible for achieving organizational or agency results during the developmental assignment. The purpose of the new developmental assignment provision is to enhance and broaden the candidate's experience, increase his or her knowledge, and maximize his or her understanding of the overall functioning of the agency, so the candidate is prepared for a range of agency positions at the SES level.
OPM proposes to add a Program Evaluation requirement. Agencies would be required to implement programmatic changes based on that feedback. Each SESCDP would be required to obtain re-approval from OPM based on demonstrated program effectiveness.
OPM is issuing this proposed rule pursuant to its authority to issue regulations governing the development for and within the SES in 5 U.S.C. 3396. Succession planning, through the identification of high performers, coupled with enhanced leadership preparation and development, plays a critical part in agency mission success. Building a pipeline of high performing GS-14s, 15s, and equivalents equipped with the skills, knowledge, technical expertise, and strategic mindset necessary to excel in senior leadership roles is crucial. Therefore, in order to build and maintain this “ready now” pipeline, a reformed SESCDP, focused and targeted, is needed and will contribute to increased succession readiness, particularly through the strategic placement of program graduates who receive OPM SES QRB certification. These prescribed changes will also drive a shift in the culture of the SES and implement more impactful SES training and development requirements.
Inconsistencies among SESCDPs have yielded mixed results across participating agencies. That variability has resulted in different training and development experiences for SESCDP participants and leads to some programs that are more effective than others in preparing their leaders. This causes fluctuating levels of candidate placement rates and creates challenges in supporting government-wide succession planning efforts. Additionally, OPM and agencies lack visibility on standardized government-wide program data. The absence of consistent metrics prevents OPM and agencies from comparing results across programs and assessing the impact and value to SESCDP participants and the government.
SESCDPs are designed to strengthen executive core qualifications (ECQ) competencies for selected high-performing aspiring executives through a demanding learning and developmental experience. An SESCDP provides candidates with governmentwide leadership challenges, opportunities to interact with senior employees outside their assigned department and/or agency, interagency training experiences, executive-level development assignments, mentoring, and coaching.
This experience boosts participants' executive competencies and expands their understanding of governmentwide programs and issues beyond their individual agency of assignment and their profession, broadening participants' understanding of missions, programs, core values, and management challenges. Utilizing an SESCDP can support an agency's talent management and succession planning efforts through building an equipped pipeline of “ready now” aspiring leaders. This allows senior agency leaders to make strategic and timely placements to improve performance, accomplish agency mission, and effectively provide services to the American public.
The proposed program changes will add a more unified structure to the SESCDPs and ensure a more aligned cadre of graduates through this succession management track. Templated program areas, from policy to program evaluations, will allow for a more integrated comparison of programs over time, allowing decision makers to further tailor the programs to meet the needs of agencies governmentwide and fully aligned with incumbent SES demonstrated leadership competencies. Ultimately, by increasing program standards and training requirements, an SESCDP will better equip program participants to excel in senior leadership roles and effectively implement the President's agenda. This will not only increase the President's confidence in the ability of the Executive Branch to serve the Nation but also build trust with the American people.
This proposed rule would affect the operations of the 13 Federal agencies that currently have an OPM-approved SESCDP policy—ranging from cabinet-level departments to small independent agencies. There are also two other Federal agencies that previously informed OPM that they would be submitting a SESCDP policy for approval. We estimate that this rule would require individuals employed by these agencies to spend time creating an updated SESCDP policy—whether updating their current SESCDP policy or creating a policy to start a new SESCDP—to reflect the updated program structure and administration. There would also be potential cost savings for the two sub-level agencies that have currently approved SESCDP policies as, moving forward, they would fall under their top-level agency policy.
Typically, an agency's Executive Resources or Training and Development staff handles tasks associated with overseeing the management of SESCDP policies and programs. Therefore, for this cost analysis, OPM assumes the average salary rate of Federal employees performing this work will be the rate in 2025 for GS-14, step 5, in the Washington, DC, locality pay table ($161,486 annual locality rate and $77.38 hourly locality rate). Typically, there are two types of roles who oversee the administration of an SESCDP—program managers and program coordinators—and their combined time would average the equivalent of one FTE at this grade level. We assume the total dollar value of labor, which includes wages, benefits, and overhead, is equal to 200 percent of the wage rate,
To comply with the regulatory changes in the proposed rule, affected agencies would need to review the rule and update their policies and procedures. We estimate that, in the first year following publication of a final rule, this would require an average of 100 hours of work by employees with an average hourly cost of $154.76 per hour. Accounting for the 11 agencies with current approved policies, and the two agencies planning to submit for initial policy approval, this would result in estimated costs of about $15,000 per agency, or about $200,000 total. Further, because federal agencies are not required to obtain an OPM-approved SESCDP policy, each additional agency that decides to apply for a policy approval would equal an estimated cost of $15,000 per agency. For the second and third years of having an approved policy, agencies would see a cost savings of $15,000 each year, as the 100 hours of work to review the rule and update policies would not be required. However, following the third year, this cost would be incurred again when the agency must submit a policy re-approval.
When calculating other operational program costs per SESCDP participant, OPM estimates the average number of participants per program is about 25 participants per cohort. In addition, when calculating program costs for the assessment of applicants, OPM estimates that the assessments would be administered to those applicants on the Best Qualified list, which we estimate to be 40 people per cohort.
These additional program costs would include the increase in formal training hours, the addition of a second validated executive assessment, and the addition of 10 coaching hours to develop a candidate at the executive level. The current average cost of a formal training hour per SESCDP participant is $150. By adding 20 more formal training hours, the cost of this program element increases the cost per participant by $3,000. The current average cost of administering one validated executive assessment is $350 per assessment. Typically, these assessments require the results to be interpreted to the participant by a professional, adding additional cost. Adding a second assessment for use during the program is an additional $350. Finally, the cost of external coaching services can range anywhere from $200 to $3,000 per hour. However, when identifying sources that provide the level of professional expertise and coaching services needed to support SESCDP participants, it was estimated to cost approximately $1,000 per hour.
However, to offset costs pertaining to coaching requirements, agencies can utilize federal coaches (
It is also important to note that the recruitment and hiring costs to onboard an SES can vary from agency to agency. OPM anticipates that the SESCDPs under this revised framework will more reliably produce high-caliber SES candidates that are ready to step into SES positions. This proposed rule would require a minimum level of SESCDP graduate placement rate of participants set by OPM as evaluation criteria, reflecting the improved effectiveness of the OPM-approved SESCDPs. OPM expects that this would allow agencies to realize cost savings, as they could offset SES recruitment and hiring costs by increasing the amount of SESCDP graduates placed in vacant executive positions.
OPM anticipates that total costs for agencies who are able to leverage the internal savings mentioned above would be an estimated $167,000 per agency, or $2.2M across all participating agencies. If all participating agencies must, or choose, to leverage external developmental services or resources, that cost would increase to approximately $417,000 per agency, or $5.4M total.
The standardization of program policies will save time for agencies by reducing policy drafting and approval timelines. Decreasing the program cohort duration allows for a more expedited timeline of identifying near ready talent and preparing them fully to fill SES vacancies. Common practice in program evaluation allows for measuring the individual SESCDP participant input on program outcomes, and the standardized feedback will allow for easier comparison from program to program. Additionally, adding an organizational standard evaluation feedback tool provides an opportunity for the impact to be measured more easily for return on investment to the organization, as referenced by Njah et al., which can aid in continued decisions about the impacts that the program outcomes have on the organization.
Utilization of validated assessments during the recruitment process would support agencies in identifying those candidates who are on the cusp of becoming senior executives and that are best suited to participate in an SESCDP. Further, use of an assessment—such as a 360-degree assessment—during the course of the SESCDP will also provide valuable feedback to candidates, especially when used as a part of the coaching relationship. Because this kind of assessment provides feedback from a variety of perceptions, coaches can utilize feedback, “. . . to bring a measure of objectivity and structure to the coaching engagement.”
An alternative to this rulemaking is to not modify current regulatory program requirements and instead issue further OPM guidance encouraging agencies to be increasingly rigorous in their management of their SESCDPs. OPM could recommend that agencies incorporate these changes as promising or best practices, with the goal to increase program oversight, participation, and performance. However, previous attempts to achieve this result through recommendations and informal guidance to agencies have not been successful and, instead, have allowed agencies to continue to modify program methodologies, resulting in varying program policies and results. According to feedback from agencies with approved policies, program managers and coordinators have consistently suggested that OPM standardize improved program requirements so that their SESCDPs would be more aligned. Therefore, solidifying the requirements through OPM-developed templates would reduce the burden on agencies and would help produce consistent data points for comparison to ensure quality implementation of SESCDPs government wide. Additionally, this will help provide universal datapoints to agency leadership to illustrate the effectiveness of an agency's SESCDP, how it compares to other agency programs, and ensure program accountability to produce measurable high-quality, timely, and cost-effective results.
OPM requests comments on the implementation and potential impacts of this proposed rule. Such information will be useful for better understanding the effect of this amendment on SESCDP. The type of information in which OPM is interested includes, but is not limited to, the following:
• What research should OPM consider regarding the time requirements allotted for training, mentoring, and coaching in addition to what has been mentioned?
• Should OPM prescribe a specific number of hours for each of the proposed training topics listed in § 412.302? Should the number of hours be equally allocated to each topic, or should agencies have the flexibility to ensure each topic is appropriately covered?
• What is the benefit of expanding executive assessments on the effectiveness of development programs?
• What promising practices have similar executive development programs in the private sector adopted? How have they impacted talent management and succession planning efforts?
• What additional executive development research should be considered regarding proposed changes to these elements of the regulation?
In the final rule, OPM may adopt changes from the proposed requirements based on the information it receives in response to these questions.
OPM has examined the impact of this rule as required by E.O.s 12866 and 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public, health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for rules that have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. This rulemaking does not reach that threshold but has otherwise been designated a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not expected to be an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because it imposes no more than de minimis costs.
The Director of OPM certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will apply only to Federal agencies and employees.
This rulemaking will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
This rulemaking meets the applicable standards set forth in section 3(a) and (b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that would impose spending costs on State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector, in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold is currently approximately $206 million. This rulemaking will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, in excess of the threshold. Thus, no written assessment of unfunded mandates is required.
This regulatory action will not impose any reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Education, Government employees.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, OPM proposes to amend 5 CFR part 412 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 1103(c)(2)(C), 3396, 3397, and ch. 41.
(b) An agency covered by 5 U.S.C., chapter 31, subchapter II, may apply to OPM to conduct an SESCDP alone or on behalf of a group of agencies. (In this subpart, the term “agency” refers to either a single agency or a group of agencies acting in partnership under this subpart.) Any agency developing an SESCDP must submit a single overarching policy document to OPM
(c) An agency must seek OPM re-approval (see § 412.303) on a triennial basis and must also consult OPM before implementing a change substantially altering how the SESCDP complies with the requirements of this regulation. OPM re-approval must be obtained before an agency initiates a new SESCDP.
(d) An approved SESCDP policy will serve as an umbrella program policy and establish enterprise-wide requirements for the entire agency. An agency with an OPM-approved SESCDP policy may authorize a major agency component or subcomponent employing senior executives to conduct an SESCDP. The major agency component or subcomponent must utilize and adhere to the approved agency policy when administering an individual SESCDP cohort.
(a)
(b)
(1) Consistent with the merit system principles in 5 U.S.C. 2301(b)(1) and (2), agencies must ensure that recruitment for the program is from all groups of qualified individuals within the civil service, or all groups of qualified individuals whether or not within the civil service.
(2) The number of expected SES vacancies must be considered as one factor in determining the number of selected candidates, and agencies, to the maximum extent possible, should ensure program participation includes candidates from outside of the agency.
(3) Agencies must require each applicant to complete one validated executive assessment during the program application process and each SESCDP participant to complete at least one additional validated executive assessment during the course of the SESCDP. Agencies must consider the results of the assessment conducted during the application process in identifying those candidates who are best suited to participate in an SESCDP. Agencies must use the in-program assessment results to identify and adjust, as needed, areas of continuing development for each SESCDP participant while they progress through the program cohort.
(c)
(1) A documented development plan based upon a competency-based needs determination and approved by the agency ERB. The candidate must utilize the OPM-standardized Executive Development Plan (EDP) template, which will:
(i) Address the executive core qualifications (ECQs);
(ii) Address Federal Government leadership challenges crucial to the senior executive;
(iii) Provide increased knowledge and understanding of the overall functioning of the agency, so the participant is prepared for a range of positions and responsibilities;
(iv) Include interaction with senior employees outside the candidate's department or agency to foster a broader perspective; and
(v) Address Governmentwide or multi-agency applicability in the nature and scope of the training;
(2) A formal interagency and/or multi-sector training experience lasting at least 100 hours that, at a minimum, addresses the topics of strategic planning, financial management, human capital management, human resource management, government efficiency, management and supervision, and accountability. The number of specific hours allocated to each training topic is at the discretion of the agency. The agency may add additional agency-specific training topics as appropriate and any additional topics prescribed through OPM guidance and policy. The training experience must include interaction with senior employees outside the candidate's department or agency.
(3) A developmental assignment of at least 120 continuous days of full-time service to a position other than, and substantially different from, the candidate's position of record. The assignment must include executive-level responsibility and differ from the candidate's current and past assignments in ways that broaden the candidate's experience, as well as challenge the candidate with respect to leadership competencies and the ECQs. Assignments need not be restricted to the agency, the Executive Branch, or the Federal Government, so long as they can be accomplished in compliance with applicable law and Federal and agency-specific ethics regulations. The candidate is held accountable for organizational or agency results achieved during the assignment. If the assignment is in a non-Federal organization, the ERB must provide for adequate documentation of the individual's actions and accomplishments and must determine the assignment will contribute to development of the candidate's executive qualifications.
(4) A mentor who is a member of the SES or is otherwise determined by the ERB to have the knowledge and capacity to advise the candidate, consistent with goals of the SESCDP. The mentor and the candidate are jointly responsible for a productive mentoring relationship and are required to meet for a minimum of 10 hours during the course of the SESCDP. However, the agency should establish methods to assess these relationships and, if necessary, facilitate them or make appropriate changes in the interest of the candidate.
(5) A leadership or executive-level coach who is certified with an accredited coaching organization and is determined by the ERB to have the knowledge and capacity to advise the candidate, consistent with the goals of the SESCDP. The coach and the candidate are jointly responsible for a productive coaching relationship and are required to meet for a minimum of 10 hours during the course of the SESCDP. However, the agency must
(a) Agencies must complete and maintain program evaluations pursuant to training evaluation requirements in 5 CFR 410.202 and must use OPM-developed evaluation templates for completion, respectively, by individual SESCDP participants and agency program managers:
(1) Upon completion of each individual SESCDP cohort;
(2) Annually for the overarching SESCDP; and
(3) To collect evaluation data for the purpose of identifying and implementing program enhancements or alternative approaches to program administration.
(b) To seek OPM re-approval of an SESCDP policy, an agency must submit its current program policy and completed overarching program evaluation template. Evaluations must include initial SES placement rates for graduates who receive a QRB certification and demonstrate that the agency maintains a minimum placement rate as required by OPM policy and guidance. Individual participant program cohort evaluation templates are not required for re-approval; however, OPM reserves the right to request templates for each individual cohort during the current approval period.
{December 16, 2025}
The Director of OPM, Scott Kupor, reviewed and approved this document and has authorized the undersigned to electronically sign and submit this document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD) Model MBB-BK 117 A-1, MBB-BK 117 A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4, MBB-BK 117 B-1, MBB-BK 117 B-2, and MBB-BK 117 C-1 helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a main rotor head (MRH) having the same part number (P/N) and serial number (S/N) as another MRH due to incorrect modification instructions where the modified part serial number was not re-identified and the MRH can be operated with the wrong associated log card if accidently interchanged. This proposed AD would require performing a one-time consistency check of the P/N and S/N of the MRH, performing corrective actions if applicable, determining if the MRH has been modified, and re-identifying the modified MRH. The proposed AD would also allow replacing the MRH as an optional action and would prohibit the installation of an affected MRH on any helicopter. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by February 2, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this proposed AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110. It is also available at
Promita Dey, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (316) 946-4106; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, issued EASA AD 2025-0028, dated February 7, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0028) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK117 A-1, MBB-BK117 A-3, MBB-BK117 A-4, MBB-BK117 B-1, MBB-BK117 B-2, and MBB-BK117 C-1 helicopters. The MCAI states that an occurrence was reported of two MRHs having an identical P/N and S/N. The MCAI further states that a subsequent investigation determined that the duplicate identification was due to incorrect modification instructions for the MRH in an Airbus Helicopters service information notice where the modified part serial number was not re-identified; this could result in the MRH being operated with the wrong associated log card if incorrectly interchanged. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in operation of an MRH and its critical parts beyond certified limits and lead to failure of certain parts and consequent loss of control of the helicopter.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0028, which specifies procedures for a one-time consistency check of the P/N and S/N of the MRH to verify against the existing helicopter log card or equivalent record and, depending on the results, contacting Airbus Helicopters for approved instructions. EASA AD 2025-0028 also specifies procedures for performing an additional check of the existing helicopter log card or equivalent record to determine if the MRH has been modified and procedures for re-identifying an MRH that has been modified. EASA AD 2025-0028 allows replacing the MRH with a serviceable part in accordance with the instructions of the applicable Aircraft Maintenance Manual as an optional action to accomplishing the initial consistency check and the corrective actions. EASA AD 2025-0028 prohibits installing an affected MRH on any helicopter.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority (CAA) of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2025-0028, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. See “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI” for a general discussion of these differences.
Where the MCAI specifies contacting Airbus Helicopters for repair instructions, this proposed AD would require using a method approved by the FAA, EASA, or Airbus Helicopters' EASA Design Organization Approval.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some CAA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2025-0028 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2025-0028 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2025-0028 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2025-0028. Material required by EASA AD 2025-0028 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 34 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD.
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any actions that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of helicopters that might need these actions.
The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the corrective actions specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by February 2, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD) Model MBB-BK 117 A-1, MBB-BK 117 A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4, MBB-BK 117 B-1, MBB-BK 117 B-2, and MBB-BK 117 C-1 helicopters, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 6220, Main Rotor Head.
This AD was prompted by a report of a main rotor head (MRH) having the same part number (P/N) and serial number (S/N) as another MRH due to incorrect modification instructions where the modified part S/N was not re-identified and the MRH can be operated with the wrong associated log card if accidently interchanged. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and correct the incorrect identification of S/Ns and P/Ns on MRHs which, if not addressed, could result in operation of an MRH and its critical parts beyond certified limits and lead to failure of certain parts and consequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0028, dated February 7, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0028).
(1) Where EASA AD 2025-0028 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where EASA AD 2025-0028 requires compliance in terms of flight hours, this AD requires using hours time-in-service.
(3) Where paragraphs (2) and (4) of EASA AD 2025-0028 specify discrepancy, for the purposes of this AD, a discrepancy can be defined as the serial number on the MRH [Main Rotor Head] not matching the serial number on the helicopters existing log card or equivalent record.
(4) Where the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0028 specifies “check”, this AD requires replacing that text with “inspect”.
(5) Where EASA AD 2025-0028 and the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0028 specifies “MRH log card”, this AD requires replacing that text with “existing helicopter log card or equivalent record”.
(6) Where EASA AD 2025-0028 or the referenced material specifies to contact AH [Airbus Helicopters] to obtain approved instructions, or specifies a part is eligible for installation in accordance with AH instructions, this AD requires those actions done in accordance with a method approved
(7) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2025-0028.
Although the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0028 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that action.
The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD and email to:
For more information about this AD, contact Promita Dey, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (913) 563-8269; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0028, dated February 7, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend the Class D airspace and establish Class E airspace at Chandler and Phoenix, AZ. The name and geographic coordinates of the Mesa Gateway Airport, Phoenix, AZ, would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. The FAA is proposing this action due to biennial airspace reviews, to support instrument flight rule (IFR) operations, and to bring the airspace into compliance with FAA orders.
Comments must be received on or before February 2, 2026.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2025-5571 and Airspace Docket No. 25-AWP-172 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the Class D airspace and establish Class E airspace at the affected airports to support IFR operations.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Class D and Class E airspace are published in paragraphs 5000 and 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These updates would be published subsequently in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 that would modify the Class D airspace and establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Chandler, Arizona, and Phoenix, Arizona, due to biennial airspace reviews.
For the Chandler Municipal Airport, Chandler, AZ, Class D airspace the proposal would: (1) increase the radius from 4 miles to 4.8 miles; (2) increase the vertical limit from 3,000 feet MSL to 3,700 feet MSL; (3) remove Williams Gateway Airport and the associated exclusion area as they are no longer required; (4) add an exclusion area west of 111°53′41″ W; (5) update the airspace legal description header from “Chandler Municipal Airport, AZ” to “Chandler, AZ” to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2R, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; and (6) update the outdated term of “Airport/Facility Directory” to “Chart Supplement.”
For the Mesa Gateway Airport, Phoenix, AZ, the proposal would: (1) increase the radius from 5 miles to 5.4 miles; (2) add an exclusion area for the Chandler Municipal Airport Class D airspace; (3) add an exclusion area within a 1.2-mile radius of Pegasus Airpark, Queen Creek, AZ; (4) update the name of the airport from Williams Gateway Airport to Mesa Gateway Airport and update the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; (5) update the airspace legal description header from “Chandler, AZ” to “Phoenix, AZ” to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and (6) update the outdated term of “Airport/Facility Directory” to “Chart Supplement.”
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Stellar Airport, Chandler, AZ, within a 13.9-mile radius of the airport.
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Mesa Gateway Airport, Phoenix, AZ; (1) within a 7.9-mile radius of the airport; (2) within 4 miles northeast and 8 miles southwest of the 136° bearing for the Mesa Gateway: RWY 30C-LOC extending from the 7.9-mile radius of the airport to 17.7 miles southeast of the Mesa Gateway: RWY 30C-LOC; (3) and within 7.9 miles northeast and 4 miles southwest of the 136° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.9-mile radius of the airport to 12.6 miles southeast of the airport.
This action is the result of biennial airspace reviews at these airports, would support IFR operations, and bring the airspace into compliance with current FAA orders.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface up to and including 3,700 feet MSL within a 4.8-mile radius of Chandler Municipal Airport, excluding that portion west of latitude 111°53′41″ W. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,900 feet MSL within a 5.4-mile radius of Mesa Gateway Airport, excluding that portion within the Chandler Municipal Airport, Chandler, AZ, Class D airspace; and excluding that portion within a 1.2-mile radius of Pegasus Airpark; and excluding that portion within the Phoenix, AZ, Class B airspace. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 13.9-mile radius of Stellar Airpark.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.9-mile radius of Mesa Gateway Airport; and within 4 miles northeast and 8 miles southwest of the 136° bearing from the Mesa Gateway: RWY 30C-LOC extending from the 7.9-mile radius of the Mesa Gateway Airport to 17.7 miles southeast of the Mesa Gateway: RWY 30C-LOC; and within 7.9 miles northeast and 4 miles southwest of the 136° bearing from the Mesa Gateway Airport extending from the 7.9-mile radius of Mesa Gateway Airport to 12.6 miles southeast of the Mesa Gateway Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Morganton, NC, by expanding the airspace to encompass Carolinas Healthcare System Blue Ridge, Morganton, NC. It would also update the name of the former Morganton-Lenoir Airport to Foothills Regional Airport, Morganton, NC, as the airport has changed its name. Finally, it would remove the Grace Hospital reference along with the point in space coordinates, as Grace Hospital no longer exists. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport.
Comments must be received on or before February 2, 2026.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2025-1185 and Airspace Docket No. 25-ASO-13 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Rachel Cruz, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone: (404) 305-5571.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it would amend Class E airspace in Morganton, NC.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Operations office (see
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to modify Class E airspace by expanding the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of the Carolinas Healthcare System Blue Ridge, Morganton, NC. It would also update the airport name from the former Morganton-Lenoir Airport, Morganton, NC, to Foothills Regional Airport, Morganton, NC, as the airport has changed its name. Additionally, it would update the coordinates for Foothills Regional Airport, Morganton, NC, to reflect its most accurate coordinates. Finally, it would remove Grace Hospital along with its Point in Space Coordinates, as that hospital no longer exists. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures,” prior to any final regulatory action by the FAA.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface within a 9.5-mile radius of the Foothills Regional Airport and within 2.5 miles each side of the 205° bearing from Fiddlers NDB, extending from the 9.5-mile radius to 7 miles southwest of the NDB and that airspace within a 7-mile radius of Carolinas Healthcare System Blue Ridge; excluding that airspace within the Hickory, NC, Class E airspace area.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Proposed rule and notice of public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment.
We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), announce receipt of a proposed amendment to the North Dakota abandoned mine land (AML) reclamation plan (the North Dakota plan) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). The proposed amendment updates the purposes for which the
We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4:00 p.m., Mountain Daylight Time (M.T.), January 20, 2026. If requested, we may hold a public hearing or meeting on the amendment on January 12, 2026. We will accept requests to speak at a hearing until 4:00 p.m., M.T. on January 2, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by State Amendment Tracking System (SATS) No. ND-058-FOR, by any of the following methods:
•
•
In addition, you may review a copy of the proposed amendment during regular business hours at the following location: Attn: Jonathan Emmer, AML Division Director, North Dakota Public Service Commission, 600 East Boulevard, Dept. 408, Bismarck, North Dakota 58505-0480. Telephone: (701) 328-4094. Email:
Jeffrey Fleischman, Denver Field Division Chief, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Casper Area Office, P.O. Box 11018, 100 East B Street Casper, Wyoming 82601-1018. Telephone: (307) 204-4397. Email:
OSMRE's Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program was established by title IV of the Act (30 U.S.C. 1201
Section 405 of the Act (30 U.S.C. 1235) allows States and Tribes to assume exclusive responsibility for AML reclamation activity on lands within their jurisdiction if they develop and submit to the Secretary of the Interior for approval, a reclamation plan for the reclamation of abandoned coal mines. On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the North Dakota Abandoned Mine Plan on July 27, 1992. You can find background information on the North Dakota plan, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the North Dakota program in the July 27, 1992,
By letter dated September 10, 2025 (Administrative Record No. ND-058-01), North Dakota sent us an amendment to its plan under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
This proposed amendment updates the purposes for which the North Dakota abandoned mine reclamation fund may be used and creates a set-aside trust account in the State treasury. The definition of eligible lands and water and project priorities are also revised. The full text of the plan amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed above under
We are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable plan approval criteria of 30 CFR 884.14 and 884.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the North Dakota reclamation plan.
If you submit written or electronic comments on the proposed rule during the 30-day comment period, they should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and explain the reason for any recommended change. We appreciate any and all relevant comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on the final regulations will be those that either involve personal experience or include citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its legislative history, its implementing regulations, case law, other pertinent State or Federal laws or regulations, technical literature, or other relevant publications.
We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see
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.
If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under
To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.
If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. Pursuant to OMB guidance, dated October 12, 1993 (OMB Memo M-94-3), the approval of reclamation plan amendments is exempted from OMB review under Executive Order 12866.
When a State submits a plan amendment to OSMRE for review, our regulations at 30 CFR 884.14 and 884.15, and agency policy require public notification and an opportunity for public comment. We accomplish this by publishing a notice in the
We will conclude our review of the proposed amendment after the close of the public comment period and will determine whether the amendment should be approved, approved in part, or not approved. At that time, we will also make the determinations and certifications required by the various laws and executive orders governing the rulemaking process and include them in the final rule.
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes revisions to update the existing annual service performance reporting requirements for the Postal Service's Market Dominant products. The proposed revisions are based on both recent legal developments and the Commission's experience with the existing rules. This document informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) enhanced the Commission's role in overseeing how the Postal Service reports information.
Following a multi-year evaluation process, on July 5, 2018, the Commission approved the use of the Internal Service Performance Measurement (SPM) System.
The recent enactment of the Postal Service Reform Act of 2022 (PSRA) codified a requirement for the Postal Service to set reasonable performance targets for each product and to provide those targets to the Commission for the Commission to evaluate compliance each year.
Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 503, 3652, 3653, 3691, and 3692, the Commission proposes revisions to the service performance reporting rules at 39 CFR part 3055, subpart A.
First, the Commission proposes revisions to existing sections 3055.4 and 3055.5 to more specifically address changes to internal service performance measurement systems. These revisions would establish a burden of proof that proposed changes to such systems would be required to meet and would prevent the Postal Service from implementing changes without prior Commission approval. They would also codify the Commission's existing authority to initiate a proceeding to review such systems at any time, and would implement a procedure whereby interested persons could petition the Commission to initiate such a proceeding.
Second, the Commission proposes revisions to existing section 3055.5 to require the Postal Service to begin providing notice of all changes to service standard delivery day ranges and changes to origin/destination ZIP Code pairs that affect the number of days to delivery, at least 30 days prior to implementation.
Third, the Commission proposes revisions to existing sections 3055.6 and 3055.7 in recognition of the PSRA's requirement that the Postal Service establish and file with the Commission reasonable performance targets, which the Commission must use to evaluate compliance for each product. 39 U.S.C. 3692(a). The Postal Service would be required to provide sufficient information about the criteria used to select the targets for the Commission to be able to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the targets are, in fact, reasonable.
The Commission finds that each of these revisions should improve the quality of service performance data and further the public interest. 39 U.S.C. 3652(e)(2)(B)-(C).
Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend 39 CFR part 3055 as follows:
39 U.S.C. 503, 3622, 3651, 3652, 3653, 3691, 3692, 3705.
(a) Service performance measurements obtained from internal service performance measurement systems or hybrid service performance measurement systems (which are defined as systems that rely on both an internal and an external measurement component) shall not be used to comply with any reporting requirement under subparts A or B of this part without prior Commission approval.
(b) The Postal Service shall file notice with the Commission describing any proposed changes to internal or hybrid service performance measurement systems (including proposed changes to any associated reporting methodologies or the use of proxies). In proposing such changes, the Postal Service must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that internal or hybrid service performance measurement systems will be capable of producing accurate, reliable, representative, and useful service performance data and results. The Commission may summarily dismiss (without prejudice to refiling) any proposal that fails to include this information. The Postal Service's proposal must specify any planned implementation date(s), any requested decision date(s), and the reasons therefor. Preponderance of the evidence means proof by information that, compared with that opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not.
(c) Changes to internal or hybrid service performance measurement systems proposed pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section may not be implemented without prior Commission approval.
(d) The Commission may initiate a proceeding at any time to consider whether internal or hybrid service performance measurement systems are producing accurate, reliable, representative, and useful service performance data and results. Any interested person, including a public representative, may submit a petition to the Commission to initiate such a proceeding.
(a) The Postal Service shall file notice with the Commission describing all changes to external service performance measurement systems and service goals (including performance targets), 30 days prior to planned implementation. The Postal Service shall also file notice with the Commission describing all changes to reporting methodologies, including the use of proxies (other than reporting methodologies or the use of proxies associated with internal or hybrid service performance measurement systems as described by section 3055.4 of this part), 30 days prior to planned implementation. The Commission may initiate a proceeding at any time to consider such changes if it appears that the changes might have a material impact on the accuracy, reliability, or utility of the reported measurement, or if the changes might have a material impact on the characteristics of the underlying product.
(b) No later than 30 days before planned implementation of any change to service standard delivery day ranges or origin/destination ZIP Code pairs that affect the number of days to delivery, the Postal Service shall file notice with the Commission describing the exact nature and scope of implementation. Each notice shall use plain language to list all locations affected by the change in service standards (at the level of granularity of the service standard), the categories of affected market dominant products, the current service standard, the planned service standard, and the date of the planned change. If the change in service standards is associated with a Change in the Nature of Postal Services docket pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3661 and part 3020 of this chapter, then each notice shall be filed in the applicable Change in the Nature
Whenever the Postal Service proposes the addition of a new market dominant product or a change to an existing market dominant product, it also shall propose new or revised (as necessary) service performance measurement systems, service standards, service goals (including performance targets), data reporting elements, and data reporting methodologies.
(a) Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3692(a)(1), the Postal Service shall establish reasonable performance targets for each market dominant product for each fiscal year and provide such targets to the Commission not later than 60 days after the beginning of the fiscal year in which they will apply. In setting reasonable performance targets, the Postal Service must consider and balance:
(1) the need for each target to establish a clear path toward improving performance and enabling the provision of high-quality service; and
(2) the need for each target to be realistically attainable considering the Postal Service's network, workforce, transportation capacity, and financial resources, and actual service standards in effect.
(b) The Postal Service's filing made pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section shall contain sufficient information about the criteria used to select the targets for the Commission to be able to determine (based on the contents of the Postal Service's filing alone), by a preponderance of the evidence, that the targets set by the Postal Service are reasonable. Preponderance of the evidence means proof by information that, compared with that opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not.
(c) The Commission will use each reasonable target set by the Postal Service to evaluate compliance for each market dominant product for a given fiscal year pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3653(b)(2).
By the Commission.
Administrative Conference of the United States.
Notice.
The Assembly of the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) will meet during a one-day fully virtual plenary session to consider four proposed recommendations and to conduct other business. Written comments may be submitted in advance, and the meeting will be accessible to the public.
The meeting will take place on Wednesday, January 21, 2026, from 9:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. (ET). The meeting may adjourn early if all business is finished.
This meeting will be fully virtual for both ACUS members and the public. Information on how the public can access the meeting will be available on the agency's website prior to the meeting at
Shawne McGibbon, General Counsel (Designated Federal Officer), Administrative Conference of the United States, Suite 706 South, 1120 20th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036; Telephone 202-480-2080; email
The Administrative Conference of the United States makes recommendations to federal agencies, the President, Congress, and the Judicial Conference of the United States regarding the improvement of administrative procedures (5 U.S.C. 594). The membership of the Conference, when meeting in plenary session, constitutes the Assembly of the Conference (5 U.S.C. 595).
Additional information about the proposals and the agenda, as well as any changes or updates to the same, can be found at the 84th Plenary Session page on ACUS's website prior to the start of the meeting:
Office of Human Resources Management, Departmental Administration.
Notice of Performance Review Board appointments.
This notice lists the approved candidates who will comprise a standing roster on Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Senior Executive Service and Senior Professional Performance Review Boards (PRB), as required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). The Department will use this roster to select board members. Agriculture has two PRBs with representatives from each USDA Mission Area. The PRB provides a written recommendation to the Secretary for final approval of each executive's performance rating, performance-based pay adjustment, and performance award. The PRBs are advised by the Office of Human Resources Management, Office of General Counsel, and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights to ensure compliance with laws and regulations.
The board membership is applicable beginning on November 18, 2025.
Deedra Fogle, Acting Chief Human Capital Officer, Office of Human Resources Management, telephone: (202) 768-5519, or Tonique Washington, Acting Director, Executive Resources Management Division, telephone: (202) 720-0027.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the USDA PRB members are named below:
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of virtual business meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the New Jersey Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will a public meeting via Zoom. The purpose is for the committee to discuss topic ideas, select a topic, and begin the Proposal Stage.
Tuesday, January 13, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Victoria Moreno, Designated Federal Officer, at
Committee meetings are available to the public through a registration link (above). Any interested members of the public may attend committee meetings. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make oral statements as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of each meeting will include a list of persons who are present. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the scheduled meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website,
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the Rhode Island Advisory Committee to the Commission will hold a public meeting via Zoom. The purpose of the meeting is to hear topic presentations as part of the concept stage.
Friday, February 27, 2026; 1:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom.
Victoria Moreno, Designated Federal Officer, at
This virtual committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may join at the link to listen to this meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the Zoom meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Evelyn Bohor,
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website:
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Notice of virtual business meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the South Carolina Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a public meeting via Zoom. The purpose of the meeting is to continue discussing potential civil rights topics of study, selecting a topic of study, and beginning the Proposal Stage.
Tuesday, January 27, 2026, from 10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom.
Victoria Moreno, Designated Federal Officer, at
This Committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested members of the public may attend this meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make oral comments as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the scheduled meeting. Written comments may be submitted via the following form:
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of web conference.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a Crab Modeling Workshop on January 13-15, 2026, and the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands Crab Plan Team (BSAI CPT) will meet on January 15, 2026.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 13, through Thursday, January 15, 2026, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Pacific Time.
The BSAI CPT Modeling Workshop, held January 13-15, 2026, is a hybrid meeting. The in-person meeting will be held at the Traynor Room, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115, in Building 4. If you plan to attend in person, please notify Anita Kroska (
The half-day Crab Plan Team Meeting on January 15, 2026, will be held virtually from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Pacific Time. Join online through the link at
Anita Kroska, Council staff; phone; (907) 271-2809; email:
The CPT Modeling Workshop agenda will include (a) tools for constructing model-based indices of survey data, (b) GMACS coding updates, stock assessment model developments, simulations, and (c) other business. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
The Crab Plan Team agenda will include (a) harvest control rule (HCR) workshop updates; (b)
You can attend the meetings online using a computer, tablet, or smartphone, or by phone only. Connection information will be posted online at:
Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted electronically to
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the renewal of collection of certain information by the Commission's Office of Customer Education and Outreach (“OCEO”). Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before February 17, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery,” and Collection Number 3038-0107, by any of the following methods:
• The Agency's website, at
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method. All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
Dan Rutherford, Associate Director, Office of Customer Education and Outreach, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418-6623; email:
Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondent, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered is intended to be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the Commission (if released, the Commission must indicate the qualitative nature of the information);
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
With respect to the collection of information, the Commission invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burdens of 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,
You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.
Notice of record of decision.
On November 20, 2025, the Department of the Air Force (DAF) signed the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for SpaceX Starship-Super Heavy at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS), FL.
Ms. Hilary Rummel, NEPA Project Manager,
The DAF has decided to allow SpaceX to redevelop Space Launch Complex (SLC)-37 at CCSFS for Starship-Super Heavy launch and landing operations. Upon execution of the real property agreement and associated documentation, as analyzed in the Final EIS and while adhering to the mitigation measures identified, SpaceX is authorized to: (1) undertake construction activities necessary to redevelop SLC-37 and associated infrastructure for Starship-Super Heavy operations; (2) conduct prelaunch operations, including the transportation of launch vehicle components and static fire tests; and (3) conduct up to 76 launches and 152 landings annually, once a supplemental analysis of airspace impacts by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is completed. The DAF will assess the airspace analysis conducted by the FAA and finalize a revised ROD prior to Starship-Super Heavy launches or landings occurring at CCSFS.
The DAF decision documented in the ROD was based on matters discussed in the Final EIS, inputs from the public and regulatory agencies, and other relevant factors. The Final EIS was made available to the public on November 26, 2025 through the project website (
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a revision of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 17, 2026.
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 Matt Soldner, 202-453-7441.
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.
NAEP is conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education. NCES is responsible for designing and executing the assessment, including designing the assessment procedures and methodology, developing the assessment content, selecting the final assessment content, sampling schools and students, recruiting schools, administering the assessment, scoring student responses, determining the analysis procedures, analyzing the data, and reporting the results.
The National Assessment Governing Board (henceforth referred to as the Governing Board or NAGB), appointed by the Secretary of Education but independent of the Department, is a bipartisan group whose members include governors, state legislators, local and state school officials, educators, business representatives, and members of the general public. The Governing Board sets policy for NAEP and is responsible for developing the frameworks and test specifications that serve as the blueprint for the assessments.
NAEP consists of two assessment programs: the NAEP Long-term Trend (LTT) assessment and the main NAEP assessment. The LTT assessments are given at the national level only and are administered to students at ages 9, 13, and 17 in a manner that is very different from that used for the main NAEP assessments. LTT reports mathematics and reading results that present trend data since the 1970s. LTT does not
The main NAEP assessments report current achievement levels and trends in student achievement at grades 4, 8, and 12 for the nation and, for certain assessments (
The NAEP assessments contain two different types of items: “cognitive” assessment items, which measure what students know and can do in an academic subject, and “survey” or “non-cognitive” items, which gather information such as demographic variables, as well as construct-related information, such as courses taken. The survey portion includes a collection of data from students, teachers, and school administrators. Since NAEP assessments are administered uniformly using the same sets of test forms across the nation, NAEP results serve as a common metric for all states and select urban districts. The assessment stays essentially the same from year to year, with only carefully documented changes. This permits NAEP to provide a clear picture of student academic progress over time.
The possible universe of student respondents for NAEP 2027 is estimated to be 12,000 students at grade 8 attending the approximately 308 public and private schools in a variety of states and the District of Columbia and may include Bureau of Indian Education Schools.
This request is to conduct NAEP in 2027, specifically for the Grade 8 Science Pilot.
NAEP will administer the assessment using school devices and the internet. For schools that cannot meet the minimum specification for the use of school devices, NAEP will provide an alternate delivery model utilizing NAEP Chromebooks. NAEP has transitioned to primarily administer on school devices with a staged approach so that trends can be measured across time. NAEP conducted a School-based Equipment study in 2024 (OMB #1850-0803 v.347) as well as a Field Test in 2025 (OMB #1850-0803 v.353) to provide more information about student and school interactions with the eNAEP system on school devices, as compared to NAEP Chromebooks and Surface Pros, to inform the use of school devices at a larger scale in NAEP assessments beginning in 2026. Also, a 2026 bridge study will compare NAEP devices and school devices to evaluate whether scores from the two different assessment models are comparable. Note: in this study, some schools that qualify to be assessed on school devices will be assessed on NAEP devices, since the two different school types (
This Clearance package is the first submission for the 2027 assessment, with both 60-day and 30-day consecutive public comment period notices that will be published in the
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice and request for comments.
EIA invites public comment and other Federal agencies to comment on a proposed information collection. EIA plans to collect information from the public to fulfill its data security requirements when providing access to confidential microdata for the purpose of evidence building. EIA's data security agreements and other paperwork along with the corresponding security protocols allow EIA to maintain careful controls on confidentiality and privacy, as required by law. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment on the proposed data security information collection, prior to submission of the information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
EIA must receive all comments on this proposed information collection no later than February 17, 2026. If you anticipate any difficulties in submitting your comments by the deadline, contact the person listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by OMB control number 1905-NEW, by email at
Samson Adeshiyan, EIA Clearance Officer, at (202) 586-7777 or by email at
The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 mandates that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) establish a Standard Application Process (SAP) for requesting access to certain confidential data assets. While the adoption of the SAP is required for statistical agencies and units designated under the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act (CIPSEA), it is recognized that other agencies and organizational units within the Executive branch may benefit from the adoption of the SAP to accept applications for access to confidential data assets. The SAP is a process through which agencies, the Congressional Budget Office, State, local, and Tribal governments, researchers, and other individuals, as appropriate, may apply to access confidential data assets held by a Federal statistical agency or unit for the purposes of developing evidence. With the Interagency Council on Statistical Policy (ICSP) as advisors, the entities upon whom this requirement is levied are working with the SAP Project Management Office (PMO) and with OMB to implement the SAP. The SAP Portal is a single web-based common application for the public to request access to confidential data assets from Federal statistical agencies and units. The National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), within the National Science Foundation (NSF), submitted a
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Data collected, accessed, or acquired by statistical agencies and units is vital for developing evidence on conditions, characteristics, and behaviors of the public and on the operations and outcomes of public programs and policies. This evidence can benefit the stakeholders in the programs, the broader public, as well as policymakers and program managers at the local, State, Tribal, and National levels. The many benefits of access to data for evidence building notwithstanding, EIA is required by law to maintain careful controls that allow it to minimize disclosure risk while protecting confidentiality and privacy. The fulfillment of EIA's data security requirements places a degree of burden on the public, which is outlined below.
The SAP Portal is a web-based application for the public to request access to confidential data assets from Federal statistical agencies and units. The objective of the SAP Portal is to increase public access to confidential data for the purposes of evidence building and reduce the burden of applying for confidential data. Once an individual's application in the SAP Portal has received a positive determination, the data-owning agency(ies) or unit(s) will begin the process of collecting information to fulfill their data security requirements.
The paragraphs below outline the SAP Policy, the steps to complete an application through the SAP Portal, and the process for agencies to collect information fulfilling their data security requirements.
At the recommendation of the ICSP, the SAP Policy establishes the SAP to be implemented by statistical agencies and units and incorporates directives from the Evidence Act. The policy is intended to provide guidance as to the application and review processes using the SAP Portal, setting forth clear standards that enable statistical agencies and units to implement a common application form and a uniform review process. The SAP Policy was submitted to the public for comment in January 2022 (87 FR 2459).
The SAP Portal is an application interface connecting applicants seeking data with a catalog of data assets owned by the Federal statistical agencies and units. The SAP Portal is not a new data repository or warehouse; confidential data assets will continue to be stored in secure data access facilities owned and hosted by the Federal statistical agencies and units. The Portal will provide a streamlined application process across agencies, reducing redundancies in the application process. This single SAP Portal will improve the process for applicants, tracking and communicating the application process throughout its lifecycle. This reduces redundancies and burden on applicants that request access to data from multiple agencies. The SAP Portal will automate key tasks to save resources and time and will bring agencies into compliance with the Evidence Act statutory requirements.
Individuals begin the process of accessing confidential data by discovering confidential data assets through the SAP data catalog, maintained by Federal statistical agencies at
Individuals who have identified and wish to access confidential data assets may apply for access through the SAP Portal. Applicants must create an account and follow all steps to complete the application. Applicants begin by entering their personal, contact, and institutional information, as well as the personal, contact, and institutional information of all individuals on their research team. Applicants proceed to provide summary information about their proposed project, to include project title, duration, funding, timeline, and other details including the data asset(s) they are requesting and any proposed linkages to data not listed in the SAP data catalog, including non-Federal data sources. Applicants then proceed to enter detailed information regarding their proposed project, including a project abstract, research question(s), literature review, project scope, research methodology, project products, and anticipated output. Applicants must demonstrate a need for confidential data, outlining why their research question cannot be answered using publicly available information.
Upon submission of their application, applicants will receive a notification that their application has been received and is under review by the data owning agency or agencies (in the event where data assets are requested from multiple agencies). At this point, applicants will also be notified that application approval does not alone grant access to confidential data, and that, if approved, applicants must comply with the data-owning agency's security requirements outside of the SAP Portal, which may include a background check.
In accordance with the Evidence Act and the direction of the ICSP, agencies will approve or reject an application within a prompt timeframe. In some cases, agencies may determine that additional clarity, information, or modification is needed and request the applicant to “revise and resubmit” their application. Data discovery, the SAP application process, and the submission for review are planned to take place within the web-based SAP Portal. As
In the event of a positive determination, the applicant will be notified that their proposal has been accepted. The positive or final adverse determination concludes the SAP Portal process. In the instance of a positive determination, the data-owning agency (or agencies) will contact the applicant to provide instructions on the agency's security requirements that must be completed to gain access to the confidential data. The completion and submission of the agency's security requirements will take place outside of the SAP Portal.
In order for researchers to access confidential data onsite at EIA's headquarters in Washington, DC, they must fulfill all requirements for becoming temporary agents of EIA. To fulfill these requirements, a Data Access Agreement (DAA) must be signed between EIA and the researcher's employing institution, and the team members must complete EIA's CIPSEA training and sign a Non-disclosure Agreement, affirming their U.S. citizenship and their commitment not to disclose confidential data to unauthorized parties.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on the applicant.
l.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at
m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
n.
Valatie Falls Hydro Power, Inc. proposes to continue operating the project in a run-of-river mode with a continuous minimum flow of 18 cubic feet per second (cfs) provided into the channel on the north side of Seven Pine Island and 8 cfs provided into the channel on the south side of Seven Pine Island. An existing downstream fish bypass system would continue to be operated seasonally from March 15 through May 15 and from September 1 through December 15 passing an additional 15 cfs downstream through a 1-foot-diameter pipe into the sluiceway located adjacent to the south spillway. The Valatie Falls Project has an average annual generation of approximately 500,000 kilowatt-hours.
o. A copy of the application is available for review on the Commission's website at
You may also register online at
p. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
q.
r. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 day s from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-552, Annual Report of Natural Gas Transactions, and FERC-549E, Price Index Data Providers and Developers. There is no change to the information collection requirements.
Comments on the collections of information are due February 17, 2026.
Please submit comments via email to
•
•
Kayla Williams may be reached by email at
FERC Form No. 552 had its genesis in the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Wild Trail Project (Project), proposed by Northwest Pipeline, LLC (Northwest) in the above-referenced docket.
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. To ensure consideration of your comments on the proposal prior to making a decision on the project, it is important that the Commission receive your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 14, 2026. Instructions for filing comments are provided on page 3.
FERC is the lead federal agency for authorizing interstate natural gas transmission facilities under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (NGA) and the lead federal agency for preparation of the EA. The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis. The BLM will adopt and use the EA, along with other supporting documentation, to consider the issuance of a Mineral Leasing Act right-of-way grant for the Project, as the proposed compressor station site is on federal lands managed by the BLM. Although the BLM provided input to the conclusions and recommendations presented in the EA, the BLM will present its own conclusions and recommendations in its respective Record of Decision for the project.
The EA addresses the potential environmental effects of the following project facilities:
• construction and operation of the new Daggett Compressor Station, including one gas-fired turbine with 11,110 nominal horsepower and ancillary facilities;
• installation of 24-inch-diameter suction and discharge yard piping to interconnect the Daggett Compressor Station to Northwest's existing 26-inch-diameter Northwest Pipeline; and
• minor modifications to the existing Clay Basin Meter Station.
The Commission mailed a copy of the
The EA is not a decision document. It presents Commission staff's
Your comments should focus on the EA's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental effects. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP25-497-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of the Commission's decision. At this point in this proceeding, the timeframe for filing timely intervention requests has expired. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene out-of-time pursuant to Rule 214(b)(3) and (d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and (d)) and show good cause why the time limitation should be waived. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202)502-6595 or
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. Go to
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. To ensure consideration of your comments on the proposal prior to making a decision on the Project, it is important that the Commission receive your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 12, 2026. Instructions for filing comments are provided on pages 2 and 3.
FERC is the lead federal agency for authorizing interstate natural gas transmission facilities under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (NGA) and the lead federal agency for preparation of the EA. The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The proposed Project includes construction and operation of the following facilities:
• a 15.9-mile, 20-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline;
• a 0.6-mile, 20-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline;
• two meter stations; and
• other ancillary facilities including interconnects, valves, and pig launchers/receivers.
The Commission mailed a copy of the
The EA is not a decision document. It presents Commission staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues for the Commission to consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this proceeding. Under section 7(c) of the NGA, the Commission determines whether interstate natural gas transportation facilities are in the public convenience and necessity and, if so, grants a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate them.
Your comments should focus on the EA's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental effects. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket numbers (CP25-94-000 and CP25-94-001) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of the Commission's decision. At this point in this proceeding, the timeframe for filing timely intervention requests has expired. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene out-of-time pursuant to Rule 214(b)(3) and (d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and (d)) and show good cause why the time limitation should be waived. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202)502-6595 or
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. Go to
On December 10, 2025, Fall River Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Fall River) submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a copy of its application for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification filed with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (Idaho DEQ), as defined in 40 CFR 121.5. Pursuant to the Commission's regulations,
If Idaho DEQ fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before the above date, then the certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-592 (Standards of Conduct for Transmission Provider and Marketing Affiliates of Interstate Pipelines), which will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a review of the information collection requirements. There are no changes to the reporting requirements for this information collection.
Comments on the collection of information are due January 20, 2026.
Send written comments on FERC-592 to OMB through
Please also submit a copy of your comments to the Commission via email to
•
• All other delivery methods: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
Kayla Williams, (202) 502-6468.
Respondents maintain and provide the information required by 18 CFR part 358 on their public websites. This
This form (log/format) provides the electronic formats for maintaining information on discounted transportation transactions and capacity allocation to support monitoring of activities of interstate pipeline marketing affiliates.
• the Commission would have difficulty effectively monitoring whether pipelines are giving discriminatory preference to their marketing affiliates; and
• non-affiliated shippers, state commissions, and others would have difficulty determining whether they have been harmed by affiliate preference and preparing submissions for rate cases and other proceedings.
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
On August 31, 2021, Fall River Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Fall River) filed an application for a new major license for the existing 7.45-megawatt Felt Project (FERC No. 5089). The Felt Project is located on the Teton River in Teton County, Idaho. The project occupies federal lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on October 1, 2025, Commission staff issued a notice that the project was ready for environmental analysis (REA Notice). Based on the information in the record, including comments filed on the REA Notice, staff does not anticipate that licensing the project would constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, staff intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the application to license the Felt Project.
The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested parties. All comments filed on the EA will be analyzed by staff and considered in the Commission's final licensing decision.
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202)502-6595 or
The application will be processed according to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Ingrid Brofman at (202) 502-8347 or at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental document that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Leaf River Capacity Expansion Project (Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by Leaf River Energy Center LLC (LREC) in Smith, Jasper, and Clarke counties, Mississippi. The Commission will use this environmental document in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies regarding the project. As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. This gathering of public input is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the environmental document on the important environmental issues. Additional information about the Commission's NEPA process is described below in the
By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of issues to address in the environmental document. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 12, 2026. Comments may be submitted in written form. Further details on how to submit comments are provided in the
Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the environmental document. Commission staff will consider all written comments during the preparation of the environmental document.
If you submitted comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on October 31, 2025, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP26-17-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You are not required to enter into an agreement.
LREC provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” which addresses typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner topics of interest are available for viewing on the FERC website (
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP26-17-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings. Go to
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
LREC proposes to expand existing natural gas storage caverns and create a new natural gas storage cavern. The Leaf River Capacity Expansion Project would allow LREC to increase the certificated natural gas storage capacity at its existing New Home Salt Dome storage facility by 17.62 billion cubic feet (“Bcf”). According to LREC, the project would help satisfy market demand for incremental natural gas storage and is needed to provide critical natural gas grid reliability, and to help reduce price volatility and physical supply and demand imbalances in the Gulf Coast natural gas market.
The Leaf River Capacity Expansion Project would consist of the following facilities:
• one new salt dome cavern with 12.52 billion cubic feet of working gas capacity, a well pad site, wellhead equipment, and other pipeline appurtenances;
• a new service corridor that includes 16-inch- and 24-inch-diameter gas headers, 16-inch-diameter raw water and brine lines, and appurtenant facilities connecting to the new cavern well;
• two new gas-powered centrifugal compressors with a total of 27,010 horsepower (hp) at an existing compression facility; and
• installation of a 6,130 hp gas-powered centrifugal compressor within the existing fence line of a booster station.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Constructing the proposed facilities would disturb about 32.0 acres of land. Following construction, LREC would maintain about 18.0 acres of land for permanent operation of the proposed facilities, and the remaining acreage would be restored and be allowed to revert to former uses.
Any environmental document issued by the Commission will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under the relevant general resource areas:
• geology and soils;
• water resources and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• threatened and endangered species;
• cultural resources;
• land use;
• air quality and noise; and
• reliability and safety.
Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your comments will help Commission staff identify and focus on the issues that might have an effect on the human environment and potentially eliminate others from further study and discussion in the environmental document.
Following this scoping period, Commission staff will determine whether to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EA or the EIS will present Commission staff's independent analysis of the issues. If Commission staff prepares an EA, a
With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project and includes a mailing address with their comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
(1) Send an email to
(2) Return the attached “Mailing List Update Form” (appendix 2).
Additional information about the project is available from the FERC website at
Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection FERC-574 (Gas Pipeline Certificates: Hinshaw Exemption). There are no proposed changes to the reporting requirements.
Comments on the collection of information are due February 17, 2026.
Please submit comments via email to
•
•
Kayla Williams may be reached by email at
The exemption applies to companies engaged in the transportation, sale, or resale of natural gas in interstate commerce if: (a) they receive gas at or within the boundaries of the state from another person at or within the boundaries of that state; (b) such gas is ultimately consumed in such state; (c) the rates, service and facilities of such company are subject to regulation by a State Commission; and (d) that such State Commission is exercising that jurisdiction. 18 CFR part 152 specifies the data required to be filed by pipeline companies for an exemption.
On May 30, 2023, Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA) filed an application for a new license to continue to operate and maintain the 105.176-megawatt Pensacola Hydroelectric Project No. 1494 (Pensacola Project). On September 23, 2025, Commission staff issued a study plan determination (SPD) for an outstanding request for a study plan modification related to a contaminated sediment transport study. The SPD included an Integrated Licensing Process Plan and Schedule (Process Plan and Schedule), which among other things, required the filing of a final report for the contaminated sediment transport desktop study by April 21, 2026.
On October 23, 2025, GRDA requested an 180-day extension of time to file the final study report. GRDA requested the additional time to: (1) identify and consult with experts from federal and state agencies, Tribes, local governments, and interested non-governmental agencies; (2) allow time for GRDA and the stakeholders to refamiliarize themselves with the administrative record, as well as for GRDA to retain a consultant to conduct the study; and (3) prepare the study report.
GRDA's request is reasonable, and, therefore, is granted. The revised Process Plan and Schedule, which reflects the 180-day extension of time to file the final study report, is provided below. Further revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Allan Creamer at (202) 502-8365, or by email at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-539 (Gas Pipeline Certificates: Import & Export Related Applications), which will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). There are no proposed changes since the updates included in RM22-8-000.
Comments on the collections of information are due February 17, 2026.
Please submit comments via email to
•
•
Kayla Williams may be reached by email at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and Printing (EPA ICR Number 1157.14, OMB Control Number 2060-0073) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2025. Public comments were previously requested via the
Comments may be submitted on or before January 20, 2026.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0070, to EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and Program Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0833; email address:
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2025. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Public comments were previously requested via the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Secondary Aluminum Production (EPA ICR Number 1894.12, OMB Control Number 2060-0433) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2025. Public comments were previously requested via the
Comments may be submitted on or before January 20, 2026.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0021, to EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and Program Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0833; email address:
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2025. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Public comments were previously requested via the
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before February 17, 2026. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before February 17, 2026. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections.
Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Audience disclosure: The information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.503(e)(1) require that a noncommercial educational FM broadcast station that interrupts regular programming to conduct fundraising activities on behalf of third-party non-profit organizations must air a disclosure during such activities clearly stating that the fundraiser is not for the benefit of the station itself and identifying the entity for which it is fundraising. The information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.621(f)(1) require that a noncommercial educational TV broadcast station that interrupts regular programming to conduct fundraising activities on behalf of third-party non-profit organizations must air a disclosure during such activities clearly stating that the fundraiser is not for the benefit of the station itself and identifying the entity for which it is fundraising. The audience disclosure must be aired at the beginning and the end of each fundraising program and at least once during each hour in which the program is on the air.
Retention of information on fundraising activities in local public inspection file: The information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.3527(e)(14) require that each noncommercial educational FM broadcast station and noncommercial educational TV broadcast station that interrupts regular programming to conduct fundraising activities on behalf of a third-party non-profit organization must place in its local public inspection file, on a quarterly basis, the following information for each third-party fundraising program or activity: The date, time, and duration of the fundraiser; the type of fundraising activity; the name of the non-profit organization benefitted by the fundraiser; a brief description of the specific cause or project, if any, supported by the fundraiser; and, to the extent that the station participated in tallying or receiving any funds for the non-profit group, an approximation, to the nearest $10,000, of the total funds raised. The information for each calendar quarter is to be filed by the tenth day of the succeeding calendar quarter (
The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on Thursday, December 18, 2025, which is scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m. in the Commission Meeting Room of the Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC.
While attendance at the Open Meeting is available to the public, the FCC headquarters building is not open access and all guests must check in with and be screened by FCC security at the main entrance on L Street. Attendees at the Open Meeting will not be required to have an appointment but must otherwise comply with protocols outlined at:
The meeting will be webcast at:
Press Access—Members of the news media are welcome to attend the meeting and will be provided reserved seating on a first-come, first-served basis. Following the meeting, the Chairman may hold a news conference in which he will take questions from credentialed members of the press in attendance. Also, senior policy and legal staff will be made available to the press in attendance for questions related to the items on the meeting agenda. Commissioners may also choose to hold press conferences. Press may also direct questions to the Office of Media Relations (OMR):
Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from the Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the internet from the FCC Live web page at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before February 17, 2026. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
The Commission seeks to evaluate WEA performance, particularly with respect to the accuracy of providers' geo-targeting capabilities. To do so, the Commission will use surveys to collect information and evaluate performance during a WEA test. Survey respondents affiliated with alert originators, partnered with the Commission in different geographic areas of the country, will be asked to complete a survey. The survey will be accessible by a hyperlink embedded in a WEA test alert and by a URL provided by the Commission. The Commission has developed a survey, which is available at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before February 17, 2026. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
This collection also includes the third-party disclosure requirement of 47 CFR 73.3580 (OMB approval was received for Section 73.3580 under OMB Control Number 3060-0031). Section 73.3580, as amended in the Commission's 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order, discussed below, requires local public notice of the filing of all applications to assign or transfer control of a broadcast station authorization, including those of an FM or TV translator or booster station or LPTV station. Notice is given by an applicant posting notice of the application filing on its station website, its licensee website, its parent entity website, or on a publicly accessible, locally targeted website, for 30 consecutive days beginning within five business days of acceptance of the application for filing. The online notice must link to a copy of the application as filed in the Commission's LMS licensing database. Applicants for assignment or transfer of control of a LPTV station that locally originates programming must also make a total of six on-air announcements giving notice that their applications have been accepted for filing.
Federal Communications Commission.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before February 17, 2026. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Federal Communications Commission.
The liquidation of the assets for the receivership has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors. Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than 30 days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing, identify the receivership to which the comment
10 a.m., Thursday, January 8, 2026.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 504 North, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).
Open.
The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:
Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).
Rory P. Smith (202) 525-8649 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
10 a.m., Thursday, January 15, 2026.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 504 North, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).
Open.
The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:
Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).
Rory P. Smith (202) 525-8649 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
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, Benjamin W. McDonough, Deputy Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than January 2, 2026.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), Office of Management and Budget (OMB); Department of Defense (DOD); General Services Administration (GSA); and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and OMB regulations, OFPP, DoD, GSA, and NASA invite the public to comment on an extension concerning examination of records by Comptroller General and contract audit. OFPP, DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments on: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of Federal Government acquisitions, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. OMB has approved this information collection for use through April 30, 2026. OFPP, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose that OMB extend its approval for use for three additional years beyond the current expiration date.
OFPP, DoD, GSA, and NASA will consider all comments received by February 17, 2026.
OFPP, DoD, GSA, and NASA invite interested persons to submit comments on this collection through
9000-0034, Examination of Records by Comptroller General and Contract Audit.
This clearance covers the information that contractors must submit to comply with the following Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requirements, as codified in Chapter 1 of Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations:
FAR 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders—Commercial Products and Commercial Services. Paragraph (d) of this clause requires contractors to make available at its offices at all reasonable times the records, materials, and other evidence for examination, audit, or reproduction by the Comptroller General of the United States, or an authorized representative. As used in this clause, records include books, documents, accounting procedures and practices, and other data, regardless of type and regardless of form.
FAR 52.214-26, Audit and Records—Sealed Bidding. This clause requires contractors required to submit certified cost or pricing data in connection with the pricing of a modification under a contract and to make all records available to the contracting officer, or its authorized representative, including computations and projections related to the proposal for the modification; the discussions conducted on the proposal(s), including those related to negotiating; pricing of the modification; or performance of the modification. This clause requires contractors to make all records available to the Comptroller General of the United States, or an authorized representative, in the case of pricing a modification. This clause allows the Comptroller General to interview any current employee regarding such transactions.
FAR 52.215-2, Audit and Records—Negotiation. This clause requires contractors to maintain records for cost-reimbursement, incentive, time-and-materials, labor-hour, or price redeterminable contracts, or any combination of these, for contracting officers, or an authorized representative, to examine and audit all records and other evidence sufficient to reflect properly all costs claimed to have been incurred or anticipated to be incurred directly or indirectly in performance of a contract. The right of examination includes inspection at all reasonable times of contractor's plants, or parts of them, engaged in performing the pertinent contract. Contractors required to submit certified cost or pricing data in connection with a pricing action under a contract must make all records available to the contracting officer, or its authorized representative, including computations and projections related to the proposal for the contract, subcontract, or modification; the discussions conducted on the proposal(s), including those related to negotiating; pricing of the contract, subcontract, or modification; or performance of the contract, subcontract or modification. Also, this clause requires contractors to make all records available to the Comptroller General of the United States, or an authorized representative, to examine any of the contractor's directly pertinent records involving transactions under the pertinent contract or subcontract. This clause allows the Comptroller General to interview any current employee regarding such transactions.
The information must be retained so that audits necessary for contract surveillance, verification of contract pricing, and reimbursement of contractor costs can be performed. This information collection does not require contractors to create or maintain any record that the contractor does not maintain in its ordinary course of business.
Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), Office of Management and Budget (OMB); Department of Defense (DOD); General Services Administration (GSA); and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and OMB regulations, OFPP, DoD, GSA, and NASA invite the public to comment on an extension concerning reporting purchases from sources outside the United States. OFPP, DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments on: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of Federal Government acquisitions, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. OMB has approved this information collection for use through April 30, 2026. OFPP, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose that OMB extend its approval for use for three additional years beyond the current expiration date.
OFPP, DoD, GSA, and NASA will consider all comments received by February 17, 2026.
OFPP, DoD, GSA, and NASA invite interested persons to submit comments on this collection through
9000-0161, Reporting Purchases from Sources Outside the United States.
This clearance covers the information that offerors must submit to comply with the FAR provision 52.225-18, Place of Manufacture. This provision requires offerors of manufactured end products to indicate in response to a solicitation, by checking a box, whether the place of manufacture of the end products it expects to provide is predominantly manufactured in the United States or outside the United States. Contracting officers use the information as the basis for entry into the Federal Procurement Data System for further data on the rationale for purchasing foreign manufactured items. The data is necessary for analysis of the application of the Buy American statute and the trade agreements.
Office of Government Ethics (OGE).
Notice of request for agency and public comments.
After this first round notice and public comment period, the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) plans to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) renew its approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act for an existing information collection related to OGE's Legal Expense Fund regulation at 5 CFR part 2635, subpart J.
Written comments by the public and the agencies on this proposed extension are invited and must be received on or before February 17, 2026.
Comments may be submitted to OGE by any of the following methods:
McEvan Baum at the U.S. Office of Government Ethics; telephone: 202-482-9287; TTY: 800-877-8339; Email:
The LEF regulation requires that employees who wish to establish a legal expense fund do so through a trust with a single, named employee beneficiary and a trustee. It also requires an employee beneficiary to file quarterly reports that include information (1) regarding members of the public who make financial donations to help pay for the employee beneficiary's legal expenses (donors) and (2) members of the public who receive payments from a legal expense fund (payees). The employee beneficiary must also file a termination report upon the termination of the trust and/or executive branch employment. The trust documents, quarterly reports, and termination reports will be posted directly on OGE's website in accordance with 5 CFR 2635.1007(g). Together, this information collection (IC) is titled “OGE Legal Expense Fund Information Collection.” The IC was approved by OMB and assigned OMB Control Number 3209-0012 on July 21, 2023.
The following table estimates the total annual burden resulting from the OGE Legal Expense Fund Information Collection.
OGE estimates that there will be approximately three new legal expense funds filed each year. It is anticipated that there may be an average of five legal expense fund trusts in existence each year. Each trust is anticipated to have approximately 20 donors, whose reporting requirements are tied to the frequency with which they donate, and approximately two payees, who will submit information each time they receive a distribution. The burden for collecting this information from donors and payees is on the trustees. These estimates are based in part on OGE's knowledge of several legal expense funds that have been established for Executive branch employees, as well as OGE's consultation with the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate regarding the legal expense funds that they oversee.
Based on the above, OGE estimates an average annual time burden during the next three years of 109.2 hours. Using an estimated rate of $340 per hour for the services of a professional trustee or private representative, the estimated annual cost burden is $37,128.
Under OMB's implementing regulations for the Paperwork Reduction Act, any recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirement contained in a rule of general applicability is deemed to involve ten or more persons. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4)(i).
OGE plans to submit the instruments described above to OMB for a three-year extension of approval without modification, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
Specifically, OGE seeks public comment on the following:
1. What problems do you have using the form?
2. Are there sections of the form or instructions that are unclear?
3. Is there information provided that is confusing?
4. What additional information would be helpful?
5. Is it clear from the form that the filing requirement begins once a Legal Expense Fund is approved under Subpart J of 5 CFR part 2635, regardless of whether a reportable contribution or distribution is made during a reporting period?
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is soliciting nominations for membership on the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (BSC, NCIPC). The BSC, NCIPC consists of 18 experts in fields associated with surveillance, basic epidemiologic research, intervention research, and implementation, dissemination, and evaluation of promising and evidence-based strategies for the prevention of injury and violence.
Nominations for membership on the BSC, NCIPC must be received no later than February 28, 2026. Packages received after this time will not be considered for the current membership cycle.
All nominations should be emailed (recommended) to
Christopher R. Harper, Ph.D., Designated Federal Officer, Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway NE, Mailstop S-1069, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone (404) 718-8330. Email address:
Nominations are being sought for individuals who have expertise and qualifications necessary to contribute to the accomplishments of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (BSC, NCIPC) objectives. Nominees will be selected based on expertise in the fields of pertinent disciplines involved in injury and violence prevention, including, but not limited to, epidemiology, statistics, trauma surgery, rehabilitation medicine, behavioral science/psychology, health economics, program evaluation, political science, law, criminology, informatics and other aspects of injury management. Federal employees will not be considered for membership. Members may be invited to serve for up to four-year terms. Selection of members is based on candidates' qualifications to contribute to the accomplishment of BSC, NCIPC objectives
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) policy stipulates that committee membership be balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. Appointments shall be made without discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, age, disability, or sex. Nominees must be U.S. citizens and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Current participation on Federal workgroups or prior experience serving on a Federal advisory committee does not disqualify a candidate; however, HHS policy is to avoid excessive individual service on advisory committees and multiple committee memberships. Committee members are Special Government Employees, requiring the filing of financial disclosure reports at the beginning and annually during their terms. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reviews potential candidates for BSC, NCIPC membership each year and provides a slate of nominees for consideration to the Secretary of HHS for final selection. HHS notifies selected candidates of their appointment near the start of the term in September, or as soon as the HHS selection process is completed. Note that the need for different expertise varies from year to year and a candidate who is not selected in one year may be reconsidered in a subsequent year. Candidates should submit the following items:
Current curriculum vitae, including complete contact information (telephone numbers, mailing address, email address).
At least one letter of recommendation from person(s) not employed by HHS. Candidates may submit letter(s) from current HHS employees if they wish, but at least one letter must be submitted by a person not employed by an HHS agency (
Nominations may be submitted by the candidate or by the person/organization recommending the candidate.
The Director, Office of Strategic Business Initiatives, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), announces the award of approximately $1,600,000 over a five-year period, in response to an unsolicited proposal that has been submitted by University of Southern Denmark (SDU). The award will support a comparable study of the optimal timing and delivery of monovalent Hepatitis B vaccinations on newborns in Guinea-Bissau. Activities will include conducting a randomized controlled trial to assess the effects of neonatal Hepatitis B vaccination on early-life mortality, morbidity, and long-term developmental outcomes. The award is in response to an unsolicited proposal.
The period for this award will be January 5, 2026, through January 4, 2031.
Sam Beyda, Office of the Director, Office of the Chief of Staff, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway NE, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: (404) 404-639-7000, E-Mail:
The proposed work being funded will support a single-blind, multi-center, phase IV randomized controlled trial enrolling over 14,000 neonates in Guinea-Bissau to evaluate the impact of neonatal monovalent Hepatitis B vaccination (HBV0) on all-cause mortality, severe morbidity, and long-term developmental outcomes. The study will also assess potential sex-differential effects of the vaccine. While the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends three vaccines at birth in low-income settings—Bacille Calmette Guérin (BCG), oral polio vaccine (OPV0), and HBV0—there is limited evidence on the broader health effects of HBV0. This study aims to fill that gap by rigorously evaluating the overall health impact of HBV0 in early life.
CDC performed an objective review of the proposed work and determined, in accordance with its process for reviewing unsolicited proposals that the
The award is being made non-competitively because there is no current, pending, or planned funding opportunity announcement under which this proposal could compete.
Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services seeks approval of the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) Innovative Strategies (PREIS) Local Evaluation Support: Final Evaluation Report Template for PREIS grantees. PREIS grant recipients are required to carry out local evaluations of their programs and submit a final evaluation report to ACF documenting their analyses and findings. This request includes guidance for grant recipients in the form of templates. Information will inform technical assistance (TA) to support grantees in developing and submitting the final reports to ACF to fulfill a grant requirement. We do not intend for this information to be used as the principal basis for public policy decisions.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
The template will be used by grant recipients upon Office of Management and Budget approval until September 2026 (or until the end of their grant, if a no-cost extension is granted), which will allow them to submit draft versions of their final evaluation reports before revising and finalizing their reports by the end of their grant. Grant recipients will complete the PREIS Final Evaluation Report Template using the instructions which are included within each template section.
The information collected is meant to contribute to the body of knowledge on ACF programs. It is not intended to be used as the principal basis for a decision by a federal decision-maker and is not expected to meet the threshold of influential or highly influential scientific information.
Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Administration for Children and Families' (ACF) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) intends to continue collecting demographic, programmatic, and outcome data on Services for Survivors of Torture (SOT) grant recipients and the clients they serve. ORR collects information from the grantee cohort under the Survivors of Torture Program Data Points (PDP) and Program Performance Progress Report (PPR) (Office of Management and Budget (OMB) #: 0970-0599; Expiration date: February 28, 2026) to learn more about the populations served; the types and effectiveness of services provided; methods, challenges, and facilitators of implementing services; and grant recipients' progress towards programmatic goals. Revisions are proposed as described in the discussion section that follows.
Comments due February 17, 2026.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ACF is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. You can obtain copies of the proposed collection of information and submit comments by emailing
Grant recipients will provide aggregated data on new and continuing clients annually, including demographic information, characteristics related to experiences of torture, services received, length of service, and wellbeing across six outcome domains.
Grant recipients will also provide information about community attendance at trainings and pro-bono services donated to the program. In the PPR, grant recipients will provide program narrative and program metric information on grant-funded activities and progress towards grant goals semi-annually.
Information collected will be used in aggregate by ORR to provide reports to stakeholders, including a required Report to Congress, and responses to funding requests.
ORR has made changes to the data collection, which include removing a total of twelve subcategories for two program indicators and reducing the frequency of reporting percentage-based outcomes in the program metrics. ORR has also added one subcategory in one program indicator. Overall, these changes have reduced the estimated reporting burden by 30 percent.
Estimated annual burden has been updated to reflect a reduction in estimated time per response from an average of 6 hours per response to an average of 4 hours per response.
Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and
Notice; correction.
The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published a notice in the
ACF Paperwork Reduction Act Staff;
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the availability of a final guidance entitled “Use of Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Medical Devices.” FDA is issuing this guidance to clarify how FDA evaluates real-world data (RWD) to determine whether they are of sufficient quality for generating real-world evidence (RWE) that can be used in FDA regulatory decision-making for medical devices. This final guidance supersedes the final guidance, “Use of Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Medical Devices,” issued August 31, 2017, and provides expanded and updated recommendations.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the internet. See the
Soma Kalb, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 318, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6359; or Phillip Kurs, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 240-402-7911.
FDA is issuing this guidance to clarify how FDA evaluates RWD to determine whether they are of sufficient quality for generating RWE that can be used in FDA regulatory decision-making for medical devices. This guidance provides expanded and updated recommendations to the 2017 guidance, “Use of Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Medical Devices” (the 2017 RWE Guidance) and supersedes the 2017 RWE Guidance. On December 29, 2022, the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (FDORA) was signed into law as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 117-328. Section 3629 of FDORA “Facilitating the Use of Real World Evidence” directs FDA to issue or revise existing guidance on considerations for the use of RWD and RWE to support regulatory decision-making. FDA issued the draft guidance on December 19, 2023, to propose revisions to the 2017 RWE Guidance to satisfy the requirement under section 3629(a)(2), and is finalizing this guidance to fulfill a commitment in section V.F. of the Medical Device User Fee Amendments Performance Goals and Procedures, Fiscal Years 2023 Through 2027 (MDUFA V).
This guidance includes FDA's recommendations and considerations on the factors that sponsors should assess to demonstrate whether the RWD are relevant and reliable for a particular regulatory decision relating to medical devices. These recommendations and considerations apply regardless of the RWD source and encompass processes for conducting studies to generate RWE. FDA recognizes that there may be other approaches to address the considerations identified in this guidance. We encourage sponsors to discuss their approach with FDA, especially if the approach diverges from the recommendations in this guidance.
The topics covered within this guidance are framed specifically for the use of RWD/RWE in regulatory submissions. This guidance includes additional clarity regarding the recommended methodologies for collection and analysis of RWD to generate RWE, and provides updated examples on previously used and accepted methodologies. This guidance also provides additional clarity regarding the use of clinical data collected from the use of a device authorized under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and describes the type of information that could be applicable to support a determination under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) (
FDA recognizes and anticipates that the Agency and industry may need up to 60 days to perform activities to operationalize the recommendations within this final guidance. For regulatory submissions that will be currently pending with FDA after publication of this final guidance, as well as those submissions received within 60 days following publication of this final guidance, FDA generally does not anticipate that sponsors will be ready to include the newly recommended information outlined in this final guidance in their submission. FDA, however, intends to review any such information if submitted at any time.
A notice of availability of the draft guidance appeared in the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Use of Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Medical Devices.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. FDA considered the applicability of Executive Order 14192, per OMB guidance in M-25-20, and finds this action to be deregulatory in nature.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
While this guidance contains no new collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in the following table have been approved by OMB:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance document entitled “Questions and Answers Regarding Mandatory Cosmetics Recalls: Guidance for Industry.” The draft guidance document, when finalized, will provide answers to common questions that might arise about FDA's mandatory recall authority for cosmetics. It is intended to inform regulated industry about the Agency's current thinking on implementation of certain aspects, including the criteria, process, and expectations, for mandatory recalls of cosmetic products.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by February 17, 2026 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)). Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Inspectorate Policy, Office of Inspections and Investigations, Food and Drug Administration, Element Building, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20852. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist the office in processing your requests. See the
Patrick Clouser, Office of Inspections and Investigations, Food and Drug Administration, Element Building, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20852, 240-402-5276,
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance document entitled “Questions and Answers Regarding Mandatory Cosmetics Recalls: Guidance for Industry.” The purpose of this draft guidance document, when finalized, is to provide guidance to industry on the implementation of the mandatory cosmetics recall provisions of section 611 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act or the Act), which was added by section 3502 of the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA). The guidance is in the form of Questions and Answers and provides answers to common questions that might arise about these mandatory recall provisions and FDA's current thinking regarding their implementation.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on mandatory cosmetics recalls. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
As we develop final guidance on this topic, FDA will consider comments on costs or cost savings the guidance may generate, relevant for Executive Order 14192.
FDA tentatively concludes that this draft guidance contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Child Health and Human Development Council.
The meeting 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.
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., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Advisory Child Health and Human Development Council, January 26, 2026, 12:00 p.m. to January 27, 2026, 05:00 p.m., Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child, Health and Human Development National Institutes, 6710 B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817 which was published in the
The originally scheduled two-day meeting was changed to a one-day meeting that will be held on January 26, 2026, from 12:00 p.m. to 05:00 p.m. The January 26, 2026, meeting is open to the public and its agenda will cover the open meeting agenda topics from the initial
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is requesting public input on its proposal to establish harmonized and transparent policy requirements for protecting human participant research data. Specifically, NIH proposes (1) establishing policy requirements for which data should be controlled-access under NIH data sharing policies, and (2) revising the NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy to simplify and harmonize requirements.
To ensure consideration, comments must be submitted in writing by March 18, 2026.
Comments may be submitted electronically to
Comments are voluntary and may be submitted anonymously. You may also voluntarily include your name and contact information with your response. Other than your name and contact information, please do not include in the response any personally identifiable information or any information that you do not wish to make public. Proprietary, classified, confidential, or sensitive information should not be included in your response. After the NIH Office of Science Policy (OSP) has finished reviewing the responses, the responses may be posted to the OSP website without redaction.
Taunton Paine, Director, Division of Scientific Data Sharing, NIH Office of Science Policy, at (301) 496-9838 or
NIH serves as the steward of a wide range of research data and continuously works to optimize open sharing with appropriate protections throughout the entire data lifecycle. Given its numerous established data policies, NIH is proposing a holistic update to its data policy framework to strengthen data protections, clarify requirements, and reduce duplicative burden.
First, NIH is proposing a new NIH Controlled-Access Data Policy to support the research community in fulfilling NIH data sharing expectations. This proposed policy specifies human participant data types required to be managed via controlled-access and provides criteria for assessing the need for controls for other data types. It also provides a standard set of expectations across NIH Institutes, Centers and
1. Executive Order 14117 and the Department of Justice's final rule “Preventing Access to Americans' Bulk Sensitive Personal Data and United States Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern or Covered Persons” 28 CFR part 202 (see:
2. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, requiring updates to genomic data sharing policies and practices to account for national security risks, Public Law No: 117-328. (see:
3. The Government Accountability Office report on Human Genomic Data, recommending NIH develop and implement procedures to proactively and comprehensively monitor researcher compliance with data management and security measures for human genomic data, GAO-25-107377 (see:
Second, NIH is proposing to revise the NIH Genomic Data Sharing (GDS) Policy to reduce duplicative policy requirements and improve overall performance. The GDS Policy, issued in 2014, promotes broad, responsible, and timely sharing of genomic research data derived from NIH research. As a landmark policy, it has played a crucial role in facilitating rapid access to valuable genomic data while ensuring participant protection through rigorous informed consent and privacy safeguards. Since 2014, NIH has issued the NIH Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Policy as well as streamlined and strengthened its controlled-access practices, including:
• harmonizing the oversight and management of controlled-access data repositories and access management systems (see:
• modernizing security standards for controlled-access data subject to the GDS Policy (see:
• establishing minimum expectations for access to controlled-access data by developers (see:
• prohibiting access to NIH controlled-access data repositories and associated data by institutions located in countries of concern (see:
NIH is proposing to revise the GDS Policy to enhance efficiency and reduce redundancies with these recent directives and policy developments.
NIH requests public input on both the Draft NIH Controlled-Access Data Policy and the proposed revisions to the NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy.
This Policy applies to all NIH-supported research generating human data or deriving data from human data, cell lines, or biospecimens. This Policy applies to the NIH Intramural Research Program and all NIH funding mechanisms (
This Policy does not apply to NIH research that only involves:
• Generation and sharing of non-human data
• Collection and sharing of human cell lines and biospecimens (see:
Human data or data derived from human cell lines or biospecimens already shared prior to the effective date of this Policy should be assessed for risk but are not required to be controlled to comport with this Policy. Additionally, this Policy is not intended to address sharing data for regulatory approval or to comply with regulatory requirements (
The following data types, listed below, must be protected throughout the data lifecycle. Institutions conducting NIH-supported research must ensure that these data types are protected even if not sharing through a controlled-access data repository. These categories are based on the data types provided in 28 CFR part 202, as well as other data commonly generated or used in NIH-supported research that warrant additional controls. These data types may only be shared without access controls if (1) there is informed consent explicitly stating data are to be shared openly without controls. In these instances, institutions must still review to determine that openly sharing these data pose very low risk when shared and used; or (2) open sharing is required or authorized by Federal law or international agreements to which the United States is a party. Protected data types include:
Controlled-access data repositories sharing human participant data types identified in this Policy must adhere to security and operational standards appropriate for safeguarding of human data. NIH Controlled-Access Data Repositories (CADRs) subject to the “Required Security and Operational Standards for NIH Controlled-Access Data Repositories” are fully compliant with the requirements of this Policy (
• Prospective review of requests to access controlled data;
• Authentication of the identity of data requesters;
• Restrictions for sharing data with countries of concern as identified in Part 202; and
• Employing security standards for protection of controlled data (
NIH does not consider repositories only requiring user registration and/or provide non-binding guidance on data usage to be controlled-access repositories.
Data not explicitly required to be managed via controlled-access under this Policy should be assessed for the need for controls. Criteria for making these assessments include any of the following:
1. Explicit limitations on subsequent use, such as those imposed by laws, regulations, policies, informed consent, and agreements.
2. Potential sensitivities, such as information regarding potentially stigmatizing traits, illegal behaviors, or other information that could be perceived as causing group harm or used for discriminatory purposes. Sensitive data may also include data from individuals, groups, or populations with unique attributes that increase the risk of re-identification.
3. Lack of adequate data de-identification or the possibility of re-identification cannot sufficiently be reduced.
NIH is proposing several revisions to the GDS Policy to reduce duplicative policy requirements and improve overall performance. Importantly, the core tenets of this policy will remain intact. The effective date for changes will align with the target effective date of the NIH Controlled-Access Data Policy described above.
1.
•
•
•
2.
3.
•
•
○ Identities of research participants cannot be readily ascertained or otherwise associated with the data by the repository staff or secondary data users (45 CFR 46.102(e); Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects); and
○ Either remove 18 identifiers enumerated at 45 CFR 164.514(b)(2) (the HIPAA Privacy Rule) or meet the Expert Determination standard according to 45 CFR 164.514(b)(1)
•
•
• Consent is obtained from next-of-kin or applicable legal authority in cases where the individual is deceased
• Consent is obtained from a Legally Authorized Representative, next-of-kin, or other forms of surrogate or proxy decision-making in cases where the individual lacks capacity to consent for themselves
• Assent is obtained from minors, with parental permission
•
NIH currently does not allow users to develop their own imputation panels or servers. NIH has heard interest from the research community in allowing Approved Users to develop their own imputation panels and servers using controlled-access data from studies subject to the GDS Policy. NIH requests input on clarifying that Approved Users
NIH invites public input on any aspect of the Draft NIH Controlled-Access Data Policy and the proposed revisions to the NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy. Input is specifically requested on:
1.
2.
3.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30-days of the date of this publication.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact:
Dr. Arlyn Garcia-Perez, Director of Policy and Analysis, Office of Intramural Research, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 1 Center Drive MSC 0140, Building 1, Room 160, MSC-0140, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 or call non-toll-free number (301) 496-1921 or (301) 496-1381 or Email your request, including your address to:
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The Office of Intramural Research (OIR), Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 652.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of meetings of the National Advisory Dental and Craniofacial Research Council.
The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting and is partially open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need special assistance to view the meeting, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below or use the Federal Relay, 1-800-877-8339, in advance of the meeting. The open session will be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting website (
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.
The meeting identified below has been scheduled in the event the Council is unable to complete all agenda items identified for the January 21, 2026, meeting. Information on the agenda items and/or the necessity to hold the meeting listed below will be posted on the Institute/Center homepage (link identified below).
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Revocation of customs brokers' national permits.
This document provides notice of the revocation by operation of law of certain customs brokers' national permits for failure to submit a 2025 permit user fee.
Mohammad O. Qureshi, Chief, Broker Management Branch, Office of Trade, (202) 909-3753, or
This document provides notice that, pursuant to section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1641), and sections 111.45(b) and 111.96(c) of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 111.45(b) and 19 CFR 111.96(c)), the following customs brokers' national permits were revoked by operation of law, without prejudice,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities.
Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, National Flood Insurance Program, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Assistant Administrator for the Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The current effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal Regulations. The current effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Assistant Administrator for the Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, National Flood Insurance Program, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the
Comments are to be submitted on or before March 18, 2026.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2567, to David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, National Flood Insurance Program, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, National Flood Insurance Program, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Comments are to be submitted on or before March 18, 2026.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2569, to David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, National Flood Insurance Program, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, National Flood Insurance Program, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal Regulations. The current effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Assistant Administrator for the Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, National Flood Insurance Program, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having an effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of March 17, 2026 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, National Flood Insurance Program, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Assistant Administrator for the Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities.
Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, National Flood Insurance Program, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Assistant Administrator for the Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal Regulations. The current effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Assistant Administrator for the Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, National Flood Insurance Program, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Office of the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of determination.
The Secretary of Homeland Security has determined, pursuant to law, that it is necessary to waive certain laws, regulations, and other legal requirements in order to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads in the vicinity of the international land border in the state of New Mexico.
This determination takes effect on December 18, 2025.
Important mission requirements of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) include border security and the detection and prevention of illegal entry into the United States. Border security is critical to the nation's national security. Recognizing the critical importance of border security, Congress has mandated DHS to achieve and maintain operational control of the international land border. Secure Fence Act of 2006, Public Law 109-367, section 2, 120 Stat. 2638 (Oct. 26, 2006) (8 U.S.C. 1701 note). Congress defined “operational control” as the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.
Congress has provided to the Secretary of Homeland Security a number of authorities necessary to carry out DHS's border security mission. One of those authorities is found at section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as amended (“IIRIRA”). Public Law 104-208, Div. C, 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-554 (Sept. 30, 1996) (8 U.S.C. 1103 note), as amended by the REAL ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, Div. B, 119 Stat. 231, 302, 306 (May 11, 2005)
The El Paso Sector is an area of high illegal entry. Between fiscal year 2021 and fiscal year 2025, Border Patrol apprehended over 1,232,000 illegal aliens attempting to enter the United States between border crossings in the El Paso Sector. In that same time period, Border Patrol seized over 14,734 pounds of marijuana, over 1,623 pounds of cocaine, over 42 pounds of heroin, over 3,139 pounds of methamphetamine, and over 255 pounds of fentanyl.
Since the President took office, DHS has delivered the most secure border in history. More can and must be done, however. As the statistics cited above demonstrate, the El Paso Sector is an area of high illegal entry where illegal aliens regularly attempt to enter the United States and smuggle illicit drugs, and given my mandate to achieve and maintain operational control of the border, I must use my authority under section 102 of IIRIRA to install additional barriers and roads in the El Paso Sector. Therefore, DHS will take immediate action to construct additional barriers and roads in a segment of the border in the El Paso Sector. The segment where such construction will occur is referred to herein as the “project area,” which is more specifically described in Section 2 below.
I determine that the following area in the vicinity of the United States border, located in the state of New Mexico within the U. S. Border Patrol El Paso Sector, is an area of high illegal entry (the “project area”): Starting at Border Monument 73 and extending east and north to Border Monument 47.
There is presently an acute and immediate need to construct additional physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the border of the United States in order to prevent unlawful entries into the United States in the project area pursuant to section 102(a) and 102(b) of IIRIRA. In order to ensure the expeditious construction of additional physical barriers and roads in the project area, I have determined that it is necessary that I exercise the authority that is vested in me by section 102(c) of IIRIRA.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 102(c) of IIRIRA, I hereby waive in their entirety, with respect to the construction of physical barriers and roads (including, but not limited to, accessing the project areas, creating and using staging areas, the conduct of earthwork, excavation, fill, and site preparation, and installation and upkeep of physical barriers, roads, supporting elements, drainage, erosion controls, safety features, lighting, cameras, and sensors) in the project area, all of the following statutes, including all federal, state, or other laws, regulations, and legal requirements of, deriving from, or related to the subject of, the following statutes, as amended: The National Environmental Policy Act (Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (Jan. 1, 1970) (42 U.S.C. 4321
This waiver does not revoke or supersede any other waiver determination made pursuant to section 102(c) of IIRIRA. Such waivers shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with their terms. I reserve the authority to execute further waivers from time to time as I may determine to be necessary under section 102 of IIRIRA.
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 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Anna Guido, PRA Compliance Officer, Paperwork Reduction Act Division, PRAD, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 8210, Washington, DC 20410; email at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Guido.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The
This proposed collection, titled Standards for Success Reporting, has three key components that improve data collection and reporting for participating programs. First is the standardization of data collection and reporting requirements across programs which increases data comparability and utilization. Second is the ability to report on measurable outcomes and to align them with higher-level agency objectives. And third is the collection of record-level data, instead of aggregate data. Collecting de-identified data at the level of the service recipient allows for more meaningful analysis, improved management, and the ability to demonstrate the progress and achievements of the funding recipients and the programs. Standards for Success accepts data submission by direct data input through the HUD-funded GrantSolutions online data collection and reporting tool (OLDC) and by data file upload, accommodating file formats in Microsoft Excel or Extensible Markup Language (XML).
Currently across HUD, there are several reporting models in place for its discretionary programs. The reporting models provide information on a wide variety of outputs and outcomes and are based on unique data definitions and outcome measures in program-specific performance and progress reports. In Fiscal Year 2013, 9 program offices at HUD used 6 systems and 15 reporting tools to collect over 700 data elements in support of varied metrics to assess the performance of their funding recipients. The proposed data collection and reporting requirements described in this notice are designed to provide HUD programs with a tested alternative to their existing disparate reporting methodologies, forms, systems, and requirements.
The lack of standardized data collection and reporting requirements imposes an increased burden on funding recipients with multiple HUD funding streams. The need for a comprehensive standardized reporting approach is underscored by reviews conducted by external oversight agencies, including the HUD Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). These oversight agencies have questioned the soundness and comparability of data reported by HUD prior to Standards for Success. To address these issues, HUD is using its statutory and regulatory authority to improve and strengthen performance reporting for its discretionary programs.
The Secretary's statutory and regulatory authority to administer housing and urban development programs include provisions allowing for the requirement of performance reporting from funding recipients. This legal authority is codified at 42 U.S.C. 3535(r). The individual privacy of service recipients is of the highest priority. The reporting repository established at HUD to receive data submission from funding recipients will not include any personally identifiable information (PII). Additionally, if the data from a funding recipient has 25 or fewer individuals served during a fiscal year as reported in the record-level reports, then the results for the demographic data elements for the 25 or fewer individuals will also be redacted or removed from the public-use data file and any publicly available analytical products in order to ensure the inability to identify any individual.
Eligible entities receiving funding by HUD are expected to implement the proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements with available HUD funds. It is important to note that affected HUD funding recipients are required to only submit a subset of the universe of data elements presented. The participating HUD program offices determine the specific data collection and reporting requirements, which considers the type and level of service provided by the respective HUD program.
The reporting requirements in this proposal better organize the data than participating programs collected in the past, standardize outcomes and performance measures, and allow program offices at HUD to select which data elements are relevant for their respective programs. Documents detailing the data elements are available for review by request from Malik
Information collected and reported will be used by funding recipients and HUD for the following purposes:
• To continuously improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of discretionary-funded programs;
• To provide management information for use by HUD in program administration and oversight, including the scoring of applications and the monitoring of funding-recipient participation, services, and outcomes;
• To provide data for program evaluation; and
• To better measure and analyze performance information to identify successful practices to be replicated and prevent or correct problematic practices and improve outcomes in compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the GPRA Modernization Act.
The data collection and reporting requirements may expand to other HUD programs. Program implementation will be determined by the program. HUD will provide technical assistance to funding recipients throughout the implementation.
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 comment in response to these questions.
Section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.
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 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Anna Guido, PRA Compliance Officer, Paperwork Reduction Act Division, PRAD, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 8210, Washington, DC 20410; email at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The
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 comment in response to these questions.
Section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Berkshire Museum intends to repatriate a certain cultural item that meets the definition of a sacred object and that has a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to Jason Vivori, Berkshire Museum, 39 South Street, Pittsfield, MA 01201, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Berkshire Museum, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one sacred object is an 'ahu 'ula (feather cape). The 'ahu 'ula was gifted to the Berkshire Athenaeum by Clara E. Bidwell of Pittsfield, MA in 1877, and transferred to the Berkshire Museum in 1906. The donor was the cousin of Mercy Patridge Whitney. The object was first described in 1899 by William T. Brigham in his study of Hawaiian featherwork. The museum lacks sufficient documentation regarding the acquisition of the 'ahu'ula by Mercy Patridge Whitney to establish right of ownership or to establish lineal descent.
The Berkshire Museum has determined that:
• The one sacred object described in this notice are specific ceremonial objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural item described in this notice and the Hui Iwi Kuamo'o.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Berkshire Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural item are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Berkshire Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University (PMAE) intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Jane Pickering, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the PMAE, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of 88 cultural items have been requested for repatriation from sites in Blount, Green, Knox, and unknown counties in Eastern Tennessee. The 88 unassociated funerary objects are 88 lots consisting of consisting of ceramic items; lithic or stone items; shell or shell items; faunal remains or faunal items; metal or metal items; and other natural materials. The sites represented are “Eastern Area”; “Indian Cemetery? On French Broad River”; “Stone Tomb in Chilowee Valley”; “Grave”; “Grave Mound”; “near Concord”; and “Vance's Mound.” Collectors and donors included Rev. E.O. Dunning as part of PMAE Expeditions (1869-1871); Charles C. Jones (unknown collection sate); William H. Claflin, Jr. (donation 1985); and C.S. Stratton (1879).
The PMAE has determined that:
• The 88 unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the PMAE must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The PMAE is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Mercyhurst University has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Anne Marjenin, Mercyhurst University, 501 East 38th Street, Erie, PA 16546, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of Mercyhurst University, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, five individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. In 1965, the Sugar Creek Valley Chapter of the Archaeological Society of Ohio, with the assistance and guidance of Raymond C. Vietzen (1907-1995), removed multiple individuals from the Riker Site in Tuscarawas County, Ohio.
Vietzen, an avocational archaeologist, collector, and author, established the Indian Ridge Museum in Elyria, Ohio, and the Archaeological Society of Ohio (formerly the Ohio Indian Relic Collectors Society). The Indian Ridge Museum, founded in the 1930s, served as Vietzen's laboratory and repository, and it remained in operation until the mid-1990s. After Vietzen's death, the facility fell into disrepair, and most of the items he had acquired and housed at the museum were sold. In 1998, the Ohio Historical Society (presently the Ohio History Connection) removed ancestral human remains and some of the remaining items from the facility and temporarily housed them at the Ohio Historical Society. In October of 2003, these remains were transferred from the Ohio Historical Society to Mercyhurst College (presently Mercyhurst University).
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains described in this notice.
Mercyhurst University has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of five individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Cayuga Nation; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Kaw Nation, Oklahoma; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan; Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; Oneida Indian Nation; Oneida Nation; Onondaga Nation; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Seneca Nation of Indians; Seneca-Cayuga Nation; Shawnee Tribe; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Tonawanda Band of Seneca; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; Tuscarora Nation; and the Wyandotte Nation.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Mercyhurst University must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. Mercyhurst University is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Indianapolis Museum of Art, Inc. D.B.A. Newfields intends to repatriate a certain cultural item that meets the definition of a sacred object and that has a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to Jennifer Gallatin Rigsby, Indianapolis Museum of Art, Inc. D.B.A. Newfields, 4000 Michigan Road, Indianapolis, IN 46208, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Indianapolis
A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one sacred object is a basket. The basket was given to the museum in 1924 by Mrs. Wood Levette Wilson who obtained the basket from the Chittenden Collection. The basket is made of coiled willow or sumac; round; edged with deer-hide and hair rope; band of woven decoration, black, red and with four black symbolic motifs; arrow head fastened to top inside.
The Indianapolis Museum of Art, Inc. D.B.A. Newfields has determined that:
• The one sacred object described in this notice is a specific ceremonial object needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural item described in this notice and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation, California.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Indianapolis Museum of Art, Inc. D.B.A. Newfields must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural item are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Indianapolis Museum of Art, Inc. D.B.A. Newfields is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (State Parks) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Cameron Spencer, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, PO Box 42650, Olympia, WA 98504-2650, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of State Parks, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing at least six individuals have been identified. The 65,502 associated funerary objects are unmodified shell, perforated shell, unmodified bone, modified bone and antler objects, fire modified rock, stone tools, ochre, charcoal, bulk material, and botanical material. Between 2000 and 2008, State Parks contracted Cascadia Archaeology to survey and subsequently perform excavation and data recovery of site 45-IS-2 for the purposes of upgrading sewer and utility lines. No known individuals were identified. No hazardous chemicals are known to have been used to treat the ancestral remains while in the care of State Parks.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
State Parks has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of six individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 65,502 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe; Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington; Swinomish Indian Tribal Community; Tulalip Tribes of Washington; and the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the State Parks must
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Missouri Historical Society (MHS) intends to repatriate a certain cultural item that meets the definition of a sacred object and that has a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to Brady Wolf, Missouri Historical Society, 225 S Skinker Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63105, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the MHS, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The number of sacred objects is one catlinite effigy pipe.
At an unknown time prior to 1842 General Stephen Watts Kearny acquired a carved catlinite pipe depicting an oral history of the Pawnee Nation. The pipe passed down his family line to his daughter-in-law Mrs. Henry S. Kearny and granddaughter Mrs. Mary Kearny Coombe who donated the pipe to the MHS in 1926. MHS records indicate no known hazardous substances.
The MHS has determined that:
• The one sacred object described in this notice are specific ceremonial objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural item described in this notice and the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the MHS must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural item are considered a single request and not competing requests. The MHS is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections intends to repatriate a certain cultural item that meets the definition of an object of cultural patrimony and that has a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to Hugh Radde, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the UCSB Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one object of cultural patrimony is a coiled basket (Accession 224.266). The maker of the object is unknown. It was likely made sometime around CE 1900-1920. The basket was most likely made in Palm Springs, California, within the traditional use area of the Cahuilla. It
The UCSB Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections has determined that:
• The one object of cultural patrimony described in this notice has ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural item described in this notice and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation, California.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the UCSB Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural item are considered a single request and not competing requests. The UCSB Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of Michigan intends to repatriate a certain cultural item that meets the definition of a Sacred Object, and that has a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to Dr. Ben Secunda, University of Michigan, Office of Research, Suite G269, Lane Hall, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1274, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the University of Michigan, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one sacred object is one lot of organic powder. The sacred object was removed from the Allegany Reservation, in Cattaraugus County, New York in 1925. It was then found in collections at the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission collections in 1949, and a portion of the organic powder was subsequently sent to the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropological Archaeology's (UMMAA) Ethnobotany Range in 1950. No known time period is associated with the Sacred Object.
The University of Michigan has determined that:
• The one sacred object described in this notice is, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, a specific ceremonial object needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, and has ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision).
• There is a connection between the cultural item described in this notice and the Seneca Nation of Indians.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of Michigan must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural item are considered a single request and not competing requests. The University of Michigan is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, State Museum of Pennsylvania intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of sacred objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Barbara Frederick, The State Museum of Pennsylvania, 300 North Street, Harrisburg, PA 17120, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the State Museum of Pennsylvania, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of two lots of cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The two lots of sacred objects are beads and marbles. Both lots are from the Big Cove Community, located on present day Qualla Boundary, one lot consists of marbles, and the second lot consists of beads having belonged to Will West Long, a known Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI) tribal member. Both lots were received by The State Museum of Pennsylvania in the 1940's. Museum records do not indicate the presence of potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the cultural items.
The State Museum of Pennsylvania has determined that:
• The two lots of sacred objects described in this notice are specific ceremonial objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the State Museum of Pennsylvania must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The State Museum of Pennsylvania is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology (SCIAA) intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Nina Schreiner, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, College of Arts and Sciences, University of South Carolina, 1321 Pendleton Street, Columbia, SC 29208, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the SCIAA, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of five cultural items have been requested for repatriation. From 1967 to 1969, four lots of unassociated funerary objects were removed from sites 38OC1, 38PN2, 38PN4, and 38PN34 in Oconee and Pickens counties, SC during the Keowee-Toxaway Reservoir Survey conducted by SCIAA for Duke Power Company of Charlotte, NC. In 1984, one lot of unassociated funerary objects was removed from site 38OC186 in Oconee County, SC by Dr. Chester B. DePratter of SCIAA, Dr. Mark Williams of the University of Georgia, Athens, GA, and Dr. Marvin T. Smith of Garrow and Associates, Atlanta, GA. The expedition was jointly funded by the LAMAR Institute of Watkinsville, GA and SCIAA. The unassociated funerary objects are culturally affiliated with Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. SCIAA is unaware of the presence of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the cultural items.
The SCIAA has determined that:
• The five unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the SCIAA must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The SCIAA is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of Florida, Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH) intends to repatriate a certain cultural item that meets the definition of an object of cultural patrimony and that has a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to David Blackburn, University of Florida, Florida Museum of Natural History, 1659 Museum Road, Gainesville, FL 32611, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the FLMNH, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one object of cultural patrimony is a replica cocoon rattle (Cat: 000056228; Acc: 2012-02-11). The rattle was made by Craig and Carson Bates, members of the Sierra Miwok Tribe sometime in 1994, and later donated to FLMNH in 2012. The rattle is made from cleaned moth cocoon lashed with deer sinew to a goose quill. FLMNH has no prior knowledge of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the cultural items.
The FLMNH has determined that:
• The one object of cultural patrimony described in this notice is, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, specific ceremonial objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, and have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision).
• There is a connection between the cultural item described in this notice and the Robinson Rancheria.
Additional written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the FLMNH must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural item are considered a single request and not competing requests. The FLMNH is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Luke Swetland, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 2559 Puesta del Sol, Santa Barbara, CA 93105, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual were removed from Yavapai County, Arizona. In 1935, these human remains were removed from the ranch of Mr. Bell somewhere between Camp Verde, and Rimrock, Arizona. The human remains consist of one cranium and mandible. Archival records indicate, “This skull was exhumed on the ranch of Mr. Bell, Rim Rock, Arizona in 1935, and was presented by Mr. Bell to Dr. Lyon.” Dr. B.J. Lyon donated this cranium to the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History in 1936. No associated funerary objects are present.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains described in this notice.
The Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of at least one individual of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Hopi Tribe of Arizona.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh (UWO) has completed an inventory of associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice to Adrienne Frie, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, 800 Algoma Blvd., Oshkosh, WI 54901, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of UWO, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
In 1930, J.P. Schumacher and others associated with the Neville Public Museum excavated one of the burial mounds located at the site now known as the Shoemaker's Point Mounds and Cemetery (47-DR-0043), Door County, WI. The mounds were known to archaeologists since at least the beginning of the 20th century and were excavated by various individuals, including Schumacher, in many campaigns. Schumacher's 1930 excavation into the mound removed “several bundle burials” and one Ancestor laying in an extended position with a stone pipe in their right hand and iron “trade” knife in their left hand. Additionally, six iron “trade” arrow points were found in the burial. In 1930, the Neville Public Museum accessioned a “limestone pipe, a lithic projectile point, four iron trade points, and an iron trade knife” from Schumacher's excavation. No Ancestral remains are mentioned in these accession records, though are referenced in later records. In 1940, the Neville Public Museum transferred possession of these funerary items and at least two sets of Ancestral remains to the Door County Museum, at which point they were put on display. At an unknown point between 1961-1980, Carol Mason, affiliated with the University of Wisconsin—Fox Valley, acquired the funerary objects, though no records exist to explain exactly which items and if the associated Ancestral remains were also acquired. UWO took possession of the funerary objects when UWO absorbed the previously-named University of Wisconsin—Fox Valley in 2018. They were identified and transferred to UWO main campus in 2022. While the Ancestor who these objects belonged to were once held by the Neville Public Museum and the Door County Museum, their current whereabouts remain unknown. There are five associated funerary objects present. Of those five associated funerary objects, one is missing. The
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
UWO has determined that:
• The five objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan; Oglala Sioux Tribe; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska; and the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Written requests for repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, UWO must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. UWO is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Augustana University intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and/or objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Gina Palefsky, Archaeology Laboratory, Augustana University, 2001 S Summit Avenue, Sioux Falls, SD 57105, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of Augustana University, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of 10 cultural items have been requested for repatriation: three sacred objects and seven objects of cultural patrimony. The three sacred objects are a pipe bowl, pipestem, and rattle. The pipe bowl is t-shaped, made of catlinite (pipestone), and has six “x” shapes faintly etched on one side of the pipe. The pipestem is wide, flat, and wooden, with green painted sections and remnants of purple quillwork and red and blue ribbon suspensions.
All three sacred objects described above were donated to Augustana University's Center for Western Studies in the winter of 2012-2013 by Abbot Denis Quinkert and Director Colleen Cordell of the American Indian Culture Research Center at Blue Cloud Abbey, an American Benedictine monastery near Marvin, Grant County, South Dakota. Through consultation, these sacred objects were determined to be culturally affiliated with the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota. Augustana University does not have information indicating that these sacred items were treated with or exposed to potentially hazardous substances.
The seven objects of cultural patrimony are three hammer heads, a pair of gloves, a spoon, a bowl, and a quirt. The three hammer heads are made of catlinite (pipestone). None of the hammer heads have handles; one has leather fringe with a red, white, and purple quill-wrapped slat around the hammer head. The gloves are made of soft hide with partially beaded gauntlets that have short leather fringe on the edges. The beadwork is of a stylized floral design in red, light blue, dark blue, and green. Documents attribute these gloves to the Santee Sioux, circa 1900. The spoon is made of bison horn and has a bird effigy handle. Documents attribute the spoon to the Eastern Sioux, circa 1860-1870. The bowl is a slightly elongated wooden bowl with carved handles. Documents attribute the bowl to the Eastern Sioux, with an estimated date of pre-1850. The quirt is a sawtooth wood quirt with brass tacks on both sides; a long strip of leather and a feather fragment are attached, along with a floral beadwork wrist strap. Documents attribute this quirt to the Sioux, circa 1880. All seven objects of cultural patrimony described above were donated to Augustana University's Center for Western Studies in the winter of 2012-2013 by Abbot Denis Quinkert and Director Colleen Cordell of the American Indian Culture Research Center at Blue Cloud Abbey, an American Benedictine monastery near Marvin, Grant County, South Dakota. Through consultation, these objects of cultural patrimony were determined to be culturally affiliated with the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota. Augustana University does not have information indicating that these cultural items were treated with or exposed to potentially hazardous substances.
Augustana University has determined that:
• The three sacred objects described in this notice are specific ceremonial objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization.
• The seven objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Augustana University must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. Augustana University is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Concord Antiquarian Society, doing business as Concord Museum, intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Jessica Desany, Concord Museum, 53 Cambridge Turnpike, Concord, MA 01742, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Concord Museum, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of 13 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The 13 unassociated funerary objects are stone bifaces, a polished stone, and a box of red ochre. These 13 items were taken from the following locations in Maine by Benjamin Lincoln Smith (b.1900, d.1981), an amateur archaeologist, in the mid-19th century: the Hartford Barn site, Orland, Hancock County; Indian Island Cemetery, Old Town, Penobscot County; and in or around the Katahdin Iron Works, Piscataquis County. The Concord Museum records indicate no known hazardous substances.
The Concord Museum has determined that:
• The 13 unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians; Mi'kmaq Nation (
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Concord Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Concord Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Brown University (HMA) has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Kellie Bowers, Brown University, Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, 300 Tower Street, Bristol, RI 02889, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the HMA, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing at least six individuals have been identified from the Seekonk Poor Farm in Seekonk, Massachusetts. No associated funerary objects are present. In 1962, human remains were discovered during earth removal operations and Maurice Robbins, of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society, was notified. Robbins then contacted Alex Ricciardelli, Acting Director of the HMA. Robbins removed three individuals from unmarked graves and Ricciardelli and a team of Brown University students removed three more.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains described in this notice.
The HMA has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of six individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah).
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the HMA must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The HMA is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University (PMAE) has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Jane Pickering, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the PMAE, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Based on the available information, human remains representing, at least, 14 individuals have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Human remains representing, at minimum, 14 individuals were collected in the Hawaiian Island. The human remains are hair clippings collected from two individuals who were recorded as being 17 years old, five individuals who were recorded as being 16 years old, two individuals who were recorded as being 15 years old, one individual recorded as being 13 years old and four individuals of unknown age. Museum documentation indicated the clippings are Native American, likely collected by Alfred Tozzer as part of a research study between 1916 and 1920. It is likely Tozzer donated the hair clippings to the PMAE.
Based on the available information and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains described in this notice.
The PMAE has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 14 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Hui Iwi Kuamo'o and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the PMAE must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The PMAE is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Thomas J. Pluckhahn, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, 4202 E Fowler Avenue, SOC 107, Tampa, FL 33620-8100, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, 76 individuals have been identified in the collections referred to as “Mixed/Unprovenienced Assemblage #1 (HCM Boxes 6, 8, 9; SOC125 Boxes A, B, C, and D; USFAC Boxes 8A, E, and F; SPHM Box 5; USF Anthropology Biolaboratory).” The 27 associated funerary objects are: one fragment of pottery and 26 non-human animal bones. These 12 boxes each include numerous small bags that are either un-labelled or labelled only by element. Overlapping catalogue numbers/numbering systems suggest the human
Human remains representing, at least, three individuals have been identified in the collections referred to as “Mixed/Unprovenienced Assemblage #2 (USFAC Box A, Catalogue #s: USFAC-012, FL-009, USFAC-013, II-90).” There are no associated funerary objects. This collection consists of a single box with two bags labelled “misc juvenile.” We have not been able to locate any inventories with corresponding catalogue numbers or any records documenting the acquisition of these human remains. However, the taphonomy is consistent with a pre-Columbian age and we assume these might have been associated with collections known to be from Florida archaeological sites. We are not aware of the presence of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the human remains.
Human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been identified in the collections referred to as “Mixed/Unprovenienced Assemblage #3 (USFAC Box B, Catalogue #s: USFAC-030, USFAC-026, USFAC-023).” There are no associated funerary objects. This collection consists of a single box with four bags labelled only by number or as “unassociated remains.” We have not been able to locate any inventories with corresponding catalogue numbers or any records documenting the acquisition of these human remains. However, the taphonomy is consistent with a pre-Columbian age and we assume these might have been associated with collections known to be from Florida archaeological sites. We are not aware of the presence of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the human remains.
Human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been identified in the collections referred to as “Mixed/Unprovenienced Assemblage #4 (USFAC Box C, Catalogue #s: USFAC-022, USFAC-018, FL-002, FL-016).” There are no associated funerary objects. This collection consists of a single box with two bags labelled only by number. We have not been able to locate any inventories with corresponding catalogue numbers or any records documenting the acquisition of these human remains. However, the taphonomy is consistent with a pre-Columbian age and we assume these might have been associated with collections known to be from Florida archaeological sites. We are not aware of the presence of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the human remains.
Human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been identified in the collections referred to as “Mixed/Unprovenienced Assemblage #5 (USFAC Box D, Catalogue #s USFAC-019, USFAC-009).” There are no associated funerary objects. This collection consists of a single box with two bags labelled only by number or as “unidentified human remains, no provenience.” We have not been able to locate any inventories with corresponding catalogue numbers or any records documenting the acquisition of these human remains. However, the taphonomy is consistent with a pre-Columbian age and we assume these might have been associated with collections known to be from Florida archaeological sites. We are not aware of the presence of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the human remains.
Human remains representing, at least, four individuals have been identified in the collections referred to as “Mixed/Unprovenienced Assemblage #6 (SPHM Box 1).” There are no associated funerary objects. This collection consists of a single box with 10 bags labelled only by element. The box label indicates that these human remains were obtained by donations from the St. Petersburg History Museum, probably sometime in the 1980s. Neither this institution, nor USF Anthropology, has records documenting these acquisitions/donations. However, the taphonomy is consistent with a pre-Columbian age and we assume these might have been associated with collections known to be from Florida archaeological sites. We are not aware of the presence of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the human remains.
Human remains representing, at least, seven individuals have been identified in the collections referred to as “Mixed/Unprovenienced Assemblage #7 (SPHM Box 4).” There are no associated funerary objects. This collection consists of a single box with three bags, one of which bears the label “flat head . . . skull bones west end of lake . . . cranial, Me . . . [?] 1963.” A box label indicates that these human remains were obtained by donation from the St. Petersburg History Museum, probably sometime in the 1980s. Neither this institution, nor USF Anthropology, has records documenting these acquisitions/donations. However, the taphonomy is consistent with a pre-Columbian age and we assume these might have been associated with collections known to be from Florida archaeological sites. We are not aware of the presence of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the human remains.
Human remains representing, at least, four individuals have been identified in the collections referred to as “Mixed/Unprovenienced Assemblage #8 (SPHM Boxes 01074 and 01075).” There is one associated funerary object, a lightning whelk shell. This collection includes two boxes. One contains six bags of human remains: two labelled “Ind. 1”, one labelled “Ind. 2”, and two labelled “Ind. 3.” The second box contains 15 bags and one glass jar with human remains; eight of the containers are labelled “Ind. 1,” one is labelled “Ind. 2” and the others are either unlabelled or labelled only by element. One of the bags describes Individual 1 as coming from “St. Pete, FL.” Florida. The box labels indicate that these human remains were obtained by donation from the St. Petersburg History Museum, probably sometime in the 1980s. Neither this institution, nor USF Anthropology, has records documenting these acquisitions/donations. However, the taphonomy is consistent with a pre-Columbian age and we assume these might have been associated with collections known to be from Florida archaeological sites. We are not aware of the presence of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the human remains or the associated funerary object.
Human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been identified in the collections referred to as “Mixed/Unprovenienced Assemblage #9 (Boxes 00617).” There are no associated funerary objects. This collection consists of a single box containing nine bags of human remains: six of the bags are labelled by element and “Individual #1,” the three other bags are labelled by element and “Individual #2.” We have not been able to locate any inventories with corresponding catalogue numbers or any records documenting the acquisition of these human remains. However, the taphonomy is consistent with a pre-Columbian age and we
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified in the collections referred to as “Mixed/Unprovenienced Assemblage #11 (Donation 18).” The two associated funerary objects are two fragments of non-human bone. This collection consists of a single containing 37 individually number elements. This collection appeared on an inventory completed in 1987 with the notation “unknown, found in collections.” We have not been able to identify any other records describing the acquisition of these human remains. However, the taphonomy is consistent with a pre-Columbian age and we assume these might have been associated with collections known to be from Florida archaeological sites. We are not aware of the presence of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the human remains.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified in the collections referred to as “Mixed/Unprovenienced Assemblage #12 (Individual #3, RMLT8-15-19).” There are no associated funerary objects. This collection consists of single box with two bags. We have not been able to identify any other records describing the acquisition of these human remains. However, the taphonomy is consistent with a pre-Columbian age and we assume these might have been associated with collections known to be from Florida archaeological sites. We are not aware of the presence of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the human remains.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida have determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 104 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 30 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Seminole Tribe of Florida; and The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Wilson Museum intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and/or objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Abby Dunham, Wilson Museum, P.O. Box 196, 120 Perkins St., Castine, ME 04421, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Wilson Museum, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of 116 cultural items has been requested for repatriation, including 101 unassociated funerary objects, 14 sacred objects, and one object of cultural patrimony.
One unassociated funerary object is a worked stone from Chattooga County, Georgia, collected by and/or acquired from W.A. Marshall in 1924.
Six unassociated funerary objects are stone tools, ornaments, and worked stone acquired from Warren King Moorehead (Moorehead)on an unknown date from unknown locations in Georgia.
Four unassociated funerary objects are one lot of mica fragments and three lots of pottery sherds collected by Birkbeck Wilson on an unknown date from unknown locations in Georgia.
One unassociated funerary object is a stone knife collected by E.S. Byington for Moorehead on an unknown date from an unknown location in Kentucky, referenced in museum records as “Dreek” County.
Two unassociated funerary objects are stone tools acquired from Moorehead on an unknown date from unknown locations in Kentucky.
Five unassociated funerary objects are stone tools and worked stone collected
One unassociated funerary object is a stone point from an unknown collector on an unknown date from an unknown location in North Carolina.
One unassociated funerary object is a lot of quartz stone points collected by John Howard Wilson on an unknown date from Camden, Kershaw County, South Carolina.
Two unassociated funerary objects are: one lot of approximately 50 stone tools, two pottery sherds, and one animal tooth; and one lot of approximately 35 stone tools and nine pottery sherds collected by John Howard Wilson on an unknown date from Knight's Hill, Camden, Kershaw County, South Carolina.
Four unassociated funerary objects are stone tools acquired by John Howard Wilson from the Charleston Museum on an unknown date, from unknown locations in South Carolina.
Five unassociated funerary objects are worked stones collected by E.S. Byington for Moorehead on an unknown date from the Little River in Blount, Sevier, and Knox Counties, Tennessee.
Seven unassociated funerary objects are stone tools collected by E.S. Byington for Moorehead on an unknown date from Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Tennessee.
Two unassociated funerary objects are stone celts collected by E.S. Byington for Moorehead on an unknown date from the Pigeon River, Cocke County, Tennessee.
One unassociated funerary object is one lot of approximately 115 stone tools celts collected by E.S. Byington for Moorehead on an unknown date from Mine Lick Creek, DeKalb County, Tennessee.
21 unassociated funerary objects are worked stone, stone tools, and pottery sherds collected by Birkbeck Wilson on an unknown date from Dover, Stewart County, Tennessee.
10 unassociated funerary objects are worked stone and stone tools collected by Birkbeck Wilson on an unknown date from Cumberland River, Dover, Stewart County, Tennessee.
Four unassociated funerary objects are stone scrapers collected by Moorehead at an unknown date from Hancock County, Tennessee.
Three unassociated funerary objects are worked stones collected by E.S. Byington for Moorehead on an unknown date from Hardin County, Tennessee.
One unassociated funerary object is a stone spear collected by E.S. Byington for Moorehead on an unknown date from Lincoln County, Tennessee.
One unassociated funerary object is a worked stone collected by Moorehead at an unknown date from Upper Hampton Place, Rhea County, Tennessee.
One unassociated funerary object is a worked stone collected by E.S. Byington for Moorehead on an unknown date from a rock shelter in Sevier County, Tennessee.
Three unassociated funerary objects are stone points collected by an unknown person on an unknown date from Zimmerman's Island, Jefferson County, Tennessee.
Four unassociated funerary objects are stone tools collected by E.S. Byington for Moorehead on an unknown date from unknown locations in Tennessee.
Three unassociated funerary objects are worked stone and stone tools collected by Moorehead on an unknown date from unknown locations in Tennessee.
Three unassociated funerary objects are worked stone and stone tools from an unknown collector on an unknown date from unknown locations in Tennessee.
Four unassociated funerary objects are stone points collected by Moorehead and/or John Howard Wilson at an unknown date from unknown locations in Virgina.
One unassociated funerary object is a stone scraper collected by Moorehead on an unknown date from Mason County, West Virginia.
One sacred object is a pipe collected by Moorehead on an unknown date from an unknown location in Georgia.
Four sacred objects are one worked stone, two stone celts, and one lot of pottery sherds collected by E.S. Byington for Moorehead on an unknown date from a mound on the Little Pigeon River, Haywood County, North Carolina.
One sacred object is one lot of pottery sherds and stone tools collected by John Howard Wilson on an unknown date from a mound near Camden, Kershaw County, South Carolina.
One sacred object is a stone pipe collected by E.S. Byington for Moorehead on an unknown date from a quarry near Franklin, Williamson County, Tennessee.
Two sacred objects are stone pipes collected by Moorehead on an unknown date from a quarry near Franklin, Williamson County, Tennessee.
One sacred object is one lot of pottery sherds collected by E.S. Byington for Moorehead on an unknown date from McMahon Mound, Sevier, Sevier County, Tennessee.
One sacred object is a notched stone collected by Moorehead in 1919 from McMahon Mound, Sevier, Sevier County, Tennessee.
One sacred object is one lot of pottery sherds collected by E.S. Byington for Moorehead in 1919 from North Bank Trench, Romsay Mound, Cooke County, Tennessee.
Two sacred objects are a stone celt and a lot of pottery sherds collected by E.S. Byington for Moorehead in 1919 from a mound a mound on Zimmerman's Island, Jefferson County, Tennessee.
One object of cultural patrimony is a clay figure from the collection of Moorehead collected ca. 1884 from a stone grave near Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee.
The Wilson Museum has determined that:
• The 101 unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• The 14 sacred objects described in this notice are specific ceremonial objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization.
• The one object of cultural patrimony described in this notice has ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Wilson Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Wilson Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation (NYOPRHP) has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is no lineal descendant and no Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Upon request, repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Jessica Vavrasek, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation, Peebles Island State Park, P.O. Box 189, Waterford, NY 12188-0189, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the NYOPRHP, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, two individuals has been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. A necklace containing suspected Native American hand and foot bones with blue glass trade beads in-between the remains was discovered during a visit to view the 80+ year old exhibit dedicated to Dan Beard located within Bear Mountain State Park. The necklace was discovered hung on a replica mantle display. No information is available as to where, when or how it was acquired by Mr. Beard prior to his death and eventual donation of the necklace to the park.
Invitations to consult were sent to the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; and the Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin. The Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians, and the Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin all responded yes to NYOPRHP's request for consultation on this matter with all three Nations agreeing that the Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin would take the lead during this consultation.
The following types of information about the cultural affiliation of the human remains in this notice are available: geographical, and historical. The information, including the results of consultation, identified:
1. No earlier group connected to the human remains.
2. No Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization connected to the human remains.
3. No relationship of shared group identity between the earlier group and the Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that can be reasonably traced through time.
The NYOPRHP has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• No known lineal descendant who can trace ancestry to the human remains in this notice has been identified.
• No Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation to the human remains in this notice has been clearly or reasonably identified.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Upon request, repatriation of the human remains described in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the NYOPRHP must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The NYOPRHP is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to any consulting lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of Kansas has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary object and has determined that there is no lineal descendant and no Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Upon request, repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary object in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary object in this notice to Thomas Torma, The University of Kansas, Office of Audit Risk and Compliance, 1450 Jayhawk Blvd., 351 Strong Hall, Lawrence, KS 66045, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the University of Kansas, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, 52 individuals have been identified. The one funerary object is one lot of artifacts. These ancestors and belongings are currently housed in the University of Kansas's Biodiversity Institute without any known provenience.
Invitations to consult were sent to the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Caddo Nation of Oklahoma; Cherokee Nation; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kaw Nation, Oklahoma; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Nez Perce Tribe; Northern Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Oglala Sioux Tribe; Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Quapaw Nation; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox of the Mississippi in Iowa; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Seneca-Cayuga Nation; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Shawnee Tribe; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Osage Nation; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma; Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco, & Tawakonie), Oklahoma; Wyandotte Nation; and the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
The following Tribes accepted the invitation to consult on these ancestors: Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kaw Nation, Oklahoma; Northern Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation; Quapaw Nation; Shawnee Tribe; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; The Osage Nation; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco, & Tawakonie), Oklahoma; Wyandotte Nation; and the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
The Kaw Nation, Oklahoma has agreed to accept responsibility for the reburial of these individuals.
The following types of information about the cultural affiliation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are available: biological, historical, and museum documentation and records. The information, including the results of consultation, identified:
1. No earlier group connected to the human remains and associated funerary object.
2. No Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization connected to the human remains and associated funerary object.
3. No relationship of shared group identity between the earlier group and the Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that can be reasonably traced through time.
The University of Kansas has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 52 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The one object described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• No known lineal descendant who can trace ancestry to the human remains and associated funerary object in this notice has been identified.
• No Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation to the human remains and associated funerary object in this notice has been clearly or reasonably identified.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary object in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Upon request, repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary object described in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of Kansas must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary object
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco (FAMSF) intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Christina Hellmich, Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, 50 Hagiwara Tea Garden Drive, San Francisco, CA 94118, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of FAMSF and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of two cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The two objects claimed as cultural patrimony are two baskets identified in museum records as “Kern County, California.” FAMSF accessioned a bottleneck basket (Acc. 21466) on May 10, 1902 as a gift from “Mr. Ed. McLeod.” FAMSF accessioned a cup-shaped feather basket (Acc. 46767) on December 31, 1919 as a gift from Mrs. A.G. Boggs. These baskets have been physically on loan to the California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) since 1958, but are under the control of FAMSF. At some point after 1958, the bottleneck basket (Acc. 21466) was noted as Kawaiisu, Shoshonean, and Paiute in CDPR collections records. At some point after 1958, the cup-shaped feather basket (Acc. 46767) was noted as Yuki (?), Huchnom (?) in CDPR collections records. There is no known documentation of the presence of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the cultural items.
In consultation with affiliated Tribal representatives, FAMSF has determined that:
• The two objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Tejon Indian Tribe.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, FAMSF must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. FAMSF is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University (PMAE) and Warren Anatomical Museum collection in the Center for the History of Medicine, Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard University (CHoM) have completed an inventory of human remains and have determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Jane Pickering, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the PMAE and CHoM, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Based on the available information, human remains representing, at least, one individual has been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The remains of the individual were found in the Warren Anatomical Museum collection. Documentation suggests the remains were collected in Oceania, likely the Hawaiian Islands, and that the individual was donated to the Museum by John Collins Warren II (1842-1927) as part of the Jonathan Mason Warren collection in 1883.
Based on the available information and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the information available about the human remains described in this notice.
The PMAE and CHoM have determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains described in this notice, the Hui Iwi Kuamo'o, and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the PMAE must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The PMAE is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University (PMAE) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Jane Pickering, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the PMAE, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, 53 individuals have been identified from sites in Greene, Jefferson, Knox, and unknown counties in Eastern Tennessee as collected by Rev. E.O. Dunning as part of PMAE Expeditions between 1869 and 1871. The 236 associated funerary objects are 236 lots consisting of ceramic items, lithic or stone items, shell or shell items, faunal remains or faunal items, pigments, and other natural materials. The sites represented include “Devil's Gap Cave Tombs”; “Mound, Eastern Area”; Lick Creek Mound or Cooper Mound (40Gn2); McBee Mound or Loy Site (40Je10); and Brakebill Mound (40Kn55).
Human remains representing at least one individual have been identified from the “French Broad River, above Knoxville” in Knox County, Tennessee, as collected by F.A. Stratton and purchased from Stratton by the PMAE in or around 1876. No associated funerary objects are present.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The PMAE has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 54 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 236 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University (PMAE) has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Jane Pickering, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the PMAE, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been identified from the Khustenete Site (Oregon State Site #35CU157) in Curry Co., OR. No associated funerary objects are present. These two individuals may have arrived at the PMAE in 1948 via William S. Laughlin.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains described in this notice.
The PMAE has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon; Elk Valley Rancheria, California and the Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the PMAE must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The PMAE is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Fine Arts Center at Colorado College intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Michael Christiano, Fine Arts Center at Colorado College, 30 W Dale Street, Colorado Springs, CO 80903, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Fine Arts Center at Colorado College, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of two cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The two objects of cultural patrimony are baskets. The baskets (TM 1722 and TM 1725) originated from Kern County, California. The baskets were obtained by Mrs. E.G. Weimer, who transferred them to Alice Bemis Taylor, who donated them to the Taylor Museum (now the Fine Arts Center at Colorado College) in
The Fine Arts Center at Colorado College has determined that:
• The two objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Tejon Indian Tribe.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Fine Arts Center at Colorado College must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Fine Arts Center at Colorado College is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Sonoma State University has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Kirsten Twork, Sonoma State University, 1801 East Cotati Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA 94928, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Sonoma State University, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual removed from CA-NAP-802 near the city of Napa, California, have been reasonably identified. A total of 425 lots of associated funerary objects are flaked stone tools and debitage, ground stone tools, faunal bone, botanical material, and shell. The collection has been housed at Sonoma State University since 1996, under the following Accession Number 96-13.
Based on the information available, one associated funerary object was removed from CA-NAP-261 near Napa, California. The cultural item is a flaked stone tool and debitage. This collection has been housed at Sonoma State University since 1976, under the following Accession Number 76-09.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual removed from CA-NAP-261 near Napa, California, have been reasonably identified. A total of 12,104 lots of associated funerary objects are flaked stone tools and debitage, ground stone tools, faunal bone, shell, baked clay, and botanical remains. In 1977 the site was subject to data recovery investigations as a mitigation for the implementation of the Napa River Flood Control Project. This collection has been housed at Sonoma State University since 1977, under the following Accession Number 77-14.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, two individual removed from CA-NAP-261 near Napa, California, have been reasonably identified. A total of 13 lots of associated funerary objects are unmodified faunal bone, shell, and botanical remains. This collection has been housed at Sonoma State University since 1984, under the following Accession Number 84-01.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual was removed from CA-NAP-14 near Napa, California, have been reasonably identified. The 13,118 lots of associated funerary objects are flaked-stone tolls and debitage, groundstone, unmodified faunal bones, modified faunal bone, and shell beads. This collection has been housed at Sonoma State University since 1991, under the following Accession Number 91-04.
The Knoxville Region isolates were recorded as part of the Cultural Resources Study in the Knoxville Region study spanned 7600 acres across Lake, Napa and Yolo Counties, California. This study was conducted by the Anthropological Studies Center at the request of D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc. in April-July of 1981. The Yolo County isolates were found during intern verification work on the Napa County sites in accession number 81-06. All other Yolo County sites within the Knoxville Region have been repatriated to the Tribe as of January 2025. The eight lots of associated funerary objects are flaked-stone tolls and debitage and have been housed at Sonoma State University since 1981, under the following Accession Number 81-06.
Based on the information available 30 lots of associated funerary objects were removed from CA-NAP-751 and CA-NAP-752 located in American Canyon, California. Additional information on
Based on the information available 441 lots of associated funerary objects were removed from CA-NAP-22, CA-NAP-782, CA-NAP-774, and CA-NAP-779 located in the city of Napa, California, in the vicinity of Suscol Creek. These cultural items were removed from the sites during a pre-construction archaeological investigation for Suscol Springs Vineyard Project by Pacific Legacy. The items include obsidian debitage, non-obsidian stone debitage, dietary shell, faunal bone, modified obsidian, modified non-obsidian stone, obsidian projectile point, and charcoal. The items have been at Sonoma State University since 1998.
Based on the information available 1,157 lots of associated funerary objects were removed from CA-NAP-1099H located in the city of Napa in California. These cultural items were removed from the sites during an archaeological investigation for the Napa Flood Control Project for ASM Affiliates Inc. The items include faunal bone, ground stone tools, and botanical samples. The items have been at Sonoma State University since 2012.
Based on the information available eight lots of associated funerary objects were removed from the American Canyon Pipeline project located in American Canyon, California. These cultural items were removed from the sites during an archaeological investigation for the project, additional information about the project was not available. The items include unmodified obsidian. The items have been at Sonoma State University since 1976.
Based on the information available 13 lots of associated funerary objects were removed from the Lillian Burns Sites located in the city of Napa, California. Information about why the items were removed from the site was not available. The items include modified obsidian, clay, non-obsidian modified stone, non-obsidian stone debitage. The items have been at Sonoma State University since 1977.
Based on the information available 17 lots of associated funerary objects were removed from the Franciscan Project located in the city of Napa, California. Information about why the items were removed from the site was not available. The items include modified obsidian, obsidian debitage, modified non-obsidian stone, and non-obsidian stone debitage. The items have been at Sonoma State University since 2000.
Based on the information available four lots of associated funerary objects were removed from the CA-NAP-334 and CA-NAP-335 located near Knoxville, California in the vicinity of the Zim Zim Creek. The cultural items were removed during the Zim Zim Creek Survey conducted by the Anthropological Studies Center. The items include obsidian projectile point, modified non-obsidian stone, and ground stone tools. The items have been at Sonoma State University since 1974.
Based on the information available 123 lots of associated funerary objects were removed from CA-NAP-492, CA-NAP-493, CA-NAP-603, CA-NAP-604, CA-NAP-606, CA-NAP-608, CA-NAP-609H, CA-NAP-616H, and CA-NAP-617 located near Knoxville, California. The cultural items were removed as part of the Cultural Resources Study in the Knoxville Region conducted by the Anthropological Studies Center at the request of D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers Inc. The items include obsidian debitage, modified obsidian, non-obisidian debitage, and modified non-obsidian stone. The items have been at Sonoma State University since 1981.
Based on the information available 194 lots of associated funerary objects were removed from CA-NAP-491, CA-NAP-492, CA-NAP-493, CA-NAP-604, CA-NAP-609H, CA-NAP-612, CA-NAP-614, CA-NAP-615,CA-NAP-617, and CA-NAP-627 located near Knoxville, California. The cultural items were removed as part of the Test Excavation portion of the Cultural Resources Study in the Knoxville Region conducted by the Anthropological Studies Center at the request of D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers Inc. The items include obsidian debitage, modified obsidian, non-obisidian debitage, and modified non-obsidian stone. The items have been at Sonoma State University since 1982.
Based on the information available 55 lots of associated funerary objects were removed from CA-NAP-911 located near the city of Napa in Napa county, California. The cultural items were removed as part of the NAPLT Light Testing Project. The items include obsidian debitage and modified obsidian. The items have been at Sonoma State University since 1998.
Based on the information available 153 lots of associated funerary objects were removed from CA-NAP-471, CA-NAP-889, CA-NAP-891, CA-NAP-892, and CA-NAP-893/H located near Weeks Lake near Walters Springs in Napa county, California. The cultural items were removed during a cultural resource project by Origer and Associates. The items include obsidian debitage, modified obsidian, non-obisidian debitage, and modified non-obsidian stone. The items have been at Sonoma State University since 1995.
Based on the information available one lot of associated funerary objects were removed from CA-NAP-411 located near the city of Napa in Napa county, California. The cultural items were removed during a cultural resource project by Origer and Associates. The items include obsidian debitage. The items have been at Sonoma State University since 1999.
Based on the information available 358 lots of associated funerary objects were removed from CA-NAP-265 located near the city of Napa in Napa county, California. The cultural items were removed during a cultural resource project by Origer and Associates. The items include obsidian debitage, modified obsidian, non-obisidian debitage, modified non-obsidian stone, unmodified faunal bone, and ground stone tools. The items have been at Sonoma State University since 1993.
Based on the information available seven lots of associated funerary objects were removed from CA-NAP-536 and CA-NAP-540 located near Lake Berryessa in Napa county, California. The cultural items were removed during a cultural resource was surveyed on 1/6/79 by A. Bramelette as part of the Benflaffke Survey of Lake Berryessa. The items include flaked stone debitage. The items have been at Sonoma State University since 1979.
Based on the information available two lots of associated funerary objects were removed from CA-NAP-897 located at the DUC housing site in American Canyon in Napa county, California. The cultural items were removed during a cultural resource project by Origer and Associates. The items include flaked stone debitage. The items have been at Sonoma State University since 2001.
Based on the information available two lots of associated funerary objects were removed from CA-NAP-853 near Lake Marie in Napa county, California. The cultural items were removed during a survey in June 1993 and were entered into collections by J. Rosenthal as part of the Green Valley Ranch/Tuteur Ranch Surveys The items include obsidian projectile points. The items have been at Sonoma State University since 1993.
Based on the information available 282 lots of associated funerary objects were removed from CA-NAP-801 near the city of Napa, California. The cultural
In the case of missing cultural items, any additional items when located will also be repatriated from the collections discussed above. Based on records concerning the human remains, associated funerary objects and the institution in which they are housed, there is no evidence of the ancestors or items being treated with hazardous substances.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The Sonoma State University has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of five individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 28,516 lots of associated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community of the Colusa Rancheria, California; Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation of the Cortina Rancheria (
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Sonoma State University must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Sonoma State University is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology (TDEC-DOA) has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Phillip R. Hodge, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology, 1216 Foster Avenue, Cole Building #3, Nashville, TN 37243, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the TDEC-DOA, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been identified.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual. These materials were donated to the Division of Archaeology in 1983. No record exists as to the original circumstances of collection or donation. There is no known exposure to hazardous substances or treatments.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual. These remains were donated to TDEC-DOA by a private citizen in 1996. There is no known exposure to hazardous substances or treatments.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains described in this notice.
The TDEC-DOA has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Shawnee Tribe; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Osage Nation; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the TDEC-DOA must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The TDEC-DOA is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Sonoma State University has completed an inventory of associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice to Elise-Alexandria Green, Sonoma State University, 1801 East Cotati Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA 94928, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Sonoma State University, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Based on the information available, 773 lots of associated funerary objects have been identified from sites located in Bodega Bay, Sonoma County California.
Based on the information available, 241 lots of associated funerary items were removed from CA-SON-292. In 1992, human remains from archaeological sites CA-SON-292 were repatriated under California Public Resources Code § 5097.94 through the Native American Heritage Commission to the Most Likely Descendants of Coast Miwok and Southern Pomo in Marin and Sonoma Counties, California. This notice accounts for the additional associated funerary objects. The cultural items were removed from their location in 1968 by Western Heritage Inc. and Dr. David A. Fredrickson. The associated funerary items include modified stone, unmodified stone, modified faunal, unmodified faunal, modified shell, unmodified shell, ground stone tools, historic material, charcoal. The items have been housed at Sonoma State University since 1968.
Based on the information available, two lots of associated funerary items were removed from CA-SON-294. CA-SON-294 was excavated in 1968 by Western Heritage Inc. and Dr. David A. Fredrickson. The associated funerary items include historic material. The items have been housed at Sonoma State University since 1968.
Based on the information available, 109 lots of associated funerary items were removed from CA-SON-324. CA-SON-324 was excavated in 1968 by Western Heritage Inc. and Dr. David A. Fredrickson. The cultural items include modified stone, unmodified stone, modified faunal, unmodified faunal, modified shell, unmodified shell, ground stone tools, historic material. The items have been housed at Sonoma State University since 1968.
Based on the information available, 414 lots of associated funerary items were removed from CA-SON-300. The cultural items were removed from their location during the Bodega Bay test excavation in 1976 and have been housed at Sonoma State University since. The cultural items include modified stone, unmodified stone, unmodified faunal, unmodified shell, ground stone tools, historic material, charcoal, botanical material.
Based on the information available, seven lots of associated funerary items were removed from CA-SON-1099. The cultural items were removed from their location during the Filippa Property Survey in 1978 contracted by the Sonoma County Planning Department and have been housed at Sonoma State University since. The cultural items include modified stone and unmodified stone. At the time of the inventory verification these items were not physically located Sonoma State will continue to look for these items with the intent of repatriation.
In the case of missing cultural items, all items when located will also be repatriated from the collections discussed above. Based on records concerning the cultural items and the institution in which they are housed, there is no evidence of the items being treated with hazardous substances
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is identified clearly by information available, including oral traditional, geographical, and biological information described in this notice and the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California.
The Sonoma State University has determined that:
• The 773 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a reasonable connection between the associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California.
Written requests for repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows,
Repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Sonoma State University must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Sonoma State University is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the California State University San Bernardino intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Michael Chavez, CSUSB, 5500 University Parkway, CA 92407, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the California State University San Bernardino, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of 12 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. A total of 11 objects of cultural patrimony are nine arrow shafts, one bow stave and one coyote fur quiver. They have a limited provenience history but according to the appraisal form these objects were discovered in the Palm Springs area and later donated to CSUSB in 2006 with the note “Morongo” included by the donor. There is no documentation of testing or treatments.
The 12th object of cultural patrimony is a single decorated pottery sherd that was discovered and collected from private land within the Joshua Tree National Park Area in the 1930's. At this time there is no additional provenience information for this sherd and given the lack of provenience information the Joshua Tree National Park team released control to CSUSB for the purposes of repatriation. This sherd came to CSUSB at an undisclosed time. There is no documentation of testing or treatment.
The California State University San Bernardino has determined that:
• The 12 objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, California.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the California State University San Bernardino must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The California State University San Bernardino is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Merced College has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Jeff Buechler, Social Sciences Stop 35, Merced College, 3600 M Street, Merced, CA 95348, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of Merced College,
Human remains representing at least two individuals have been identified in Merced College records as having been removed on an unknown date from an unknown location called “Indian Valley”. There are multiple areas in the Central Valley area of California that are referred to as “Indian Valley”. No associated funerary objects are present.
Human remains representing at least 22 individuals were located in the Merced College Anthropology lab space in December 2019 and January 2020. They were not accompanied with any identifying information or provenience, but it is believed that they likely had been removed from California's Central Valley at an unknown date. The one associated funerary object is one possible charmstone.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location and acquisition history of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
Merced College has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 24 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The one object described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley; Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians of California; Bishop Paiute Tribe; Bridgeport Indian Colony; Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Burns Paiute Tribe; California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Cedarville Rancheria, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of California; Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California; Fort Bidwell Indian Community of the Fort Bidwell Reservation of California; Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, California; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians; Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Tribe; Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada; Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California; Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony, Nevada; Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada; Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Nevada; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation; Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada; Susanville Indian Rancheria, California; Table Mountain Rancheria; Tejon Indian Tribe; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe of the Benton Paiute Reservation, California; Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker River Reservation, Nevada; Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California (Carson Colony, Dresslerville Colony, Woodfords Community, Stewart Community, & Washoe Ranches); Wilton Rancheria, California; Winnemucca Indian Colony of Nevada; and the Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell Ranch, Nevada.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Merced College must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. Merced College is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Shiloh Museum of Ozark History has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Stephanie Carter, Shiloh Museum of Ozark History, 118 W Johnson Avenue, Springdale, AR 72764, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Shiloh Museum of Ozark History, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The
Human remains representing, at least, three individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. All of the human remains were purchased by the Shiloh Museum as part of the William Guy Howard Collection in 1966. One set of human remains consists of a skull (cataloged as S-66-1-553). Another set of human remains consists of a skull (cataloged as S-66-1-566). The locations from which these two sets of human remains were removed are unknown. Another set of human remains consists of a femur and tibia (cataloged as S-66-1-1173 and S-66-1-1174). This individual was removed from Ash Cave, Madison County, AR. There are no apparent hazardous substances present.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation with The Osage Nation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains described in this notice.
The Shiloh Museum of Ozark History has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of three individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and The Osage Nation.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Shiloh Museum of Ozark History must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Shiloh Museum of Ozark History is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History (SNOMNH) intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of sacred objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Zachary Garrett, NAGPRA Program Coordinator, Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, University of Oklahoma, 2401 Chautauqua Avenue, Norman, OK 73072-7029, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of SNOMNH, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of 13 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The 13 sacred objects are prayer offerings. These objects were removed from a shrine site, likely LA 46316, in Valencia County, NM. The site is located on land owned by the Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico. These objects were removed from the site by Harmon Maxon (a University of New Mexico student) of Santa Fe, who later gave them to a University of Oklahoma professor, who in turn donated them to SNOMNH. Official representatives of the Pueblo of Acoma and Pueblo of Laguna reviewed these objects in person and identified and confirmed that they are sacred objects and culturally affiliated with the Pueblo of Acoma and Pueblo of Laguna.
In the past, hazardous substances were used to treat the Ethnology Collection at SNOMNH. The Ethnology Collection in part or whole was exposed to Paradichlorobenzene (PBD in textile storage-discontinued around or before 1981), Naphthalene (moth flake packets stored with textiles-discontinued around 1985), and Vapona (no-pest-strips (active ingredient: Dichlorvos DDVP) and pyrethrins, placed in cases with objects, discontinued around 1986). None of these products were ever in direct contact with objects. Any potential treatments of these objects by donors are unknown. The building where the Ethnology collection was previously stored was subject to fumigation multiple times per year from 1983-1985, using Vapo-Mist 500, 5% Vapona Insecticide (active ingredient was dichlorovinyl dimethyl phosphate (DDVP), and also contained petroleum distillates and 1,1,1-trichloethane). Chemical remnants may have remained present in objects, as well as museum cabinets and other furniture used to store collections.
SNOMNH has determined that:
• The 13 sacred objects described in this notice are specific ceremonial objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico and the Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, SNOMNH must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. SNOMNH is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Yale Peabody Museum has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Erika Edwards, Yale Peabody Museum, P.O. Box 208118, New Haven, CT 06520-8118, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Yale Peabody Museum, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, five individuals have been identified. The six associated funerary objects are one lot of fauna, one lot of modified stone, one lot of unmodified stone, one of ceramics, one lot of modified shell, and one of wood. In 1869, Reverend Edward Osborne (E.O.) Dunning removed collections from Brakebill Mound (40Kn55) in Knox County, Tennessee, near the junction of the French Broad and Holston Rivers. The collection was purchased and received by the Yale Peabody Museum in early 1870.
Human remains representing, at least, 22 individuals have been identified. The six associated funerary objects are one lot of fauna, one lot of modified stone, one lot of unmodified stone, one lot of ceramics, one of modified shell, one lot of modified shell and bone (fauna). In early 1870, Dunning removed collections from McBee Mound (40Je10) and its immediate vicinity in Jefferson County, Tennessee. The collection was purchased and received by the Yale Peabody Museum in April 1870.
Human remains representing, at least, 13 individuals have been identified. The five associated funerary objects are one lot of fauna, one lot of modified stone, one lot of ceramics, one of modified shell, one of unmodified shell. Dunning removed collections from Lick Creek Mound (40Gn2) in Greene County, Tennessee, circa 1871-1872. The collections were purchased and received by the Yale Peabody Museum in March 1872. Dunning's initial descriptions of Lick Creek Mound, situated at the confluence of the Nolichucky River and Lick Creek, incorrectly referred to it as Lisles Mound.
Human remains representing, at least, four individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Following Dunning's death in March 1874, a portion of his remaining archaeological collections, excavated between 1869-1872, were donated to the Yale Peabody Museum by his wife. At least two individuals were attributed to an unknown county in Tennessee, and at least two individuals were attributed to an unknown county in Tennessee or North Carolina.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The Yale Peabody Museum has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 44 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 17 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Yale Peabody Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Yale Peabody Museum is responsible for sending a
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Yale Peabody Museum intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of sacred objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Erika Edwards, Yale Peabody Museum, P.O. Box 208118, New Haven, CT 06520-8118, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Yale Peabody Museum, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of five cultural items have been requested for repatriation.
One lot of sacred objects are bone (fauna) implements. In 1869, Reverend Edward Osborne (E.O.) Dunning removed collections from the farm of Adam Brakebill, adjacent to Brakebill Mound (40Kn55) in Knox County, Tennessee, near the junction of the French Broad and Holston Rivers. The collection was purchased and received by the Yale Peabody Museum in early 1870.
One lot of sacred objects are modified stone items. In early 1870, Dunning removed the objects from Island Bottom, a shoal on the Holston River, near McBee Mound (40Je10) and in Jefferson County, Tennessee. The collection was purchased and received by the Yale Peabody Museum in April 1870.
Two sacred objects are one lot of modified stone items removed from Vance's Island, and one stone bird effigy pipe removed from Howell Farm. Dunning described these locales as falling within three miles of Strawberry Plains, in Knox County, Tennessee. The collection was purchased and received by the Yale Peabody Museum in April 1870.
One sacred object is a ceramic vase. Dunning removed the vase from an unknown location within Cocke County, Tennessee and included it with the collections removed from Lick Creek Mound (40Gn2). The item was purchased and received by the Yale Peabody Museum in March 1872.
The Yale Peabody Museum has determined that:
• The five sacred objects described in this notice are specific ceremonial objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Yale Peabody Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Yale Peabody Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Scott Hall, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, 201 North 3rd Avenue, Walla Walla, WA 99362, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, and additional information on
One associated funerary object has been identified from site 45AS2 (Steptoe Burial) in Asotin County, Washington. The associated funerary object is a pestle. Burials from this site were likely from the late prehistoric period (A.D. 1500-1700) with other areas of the site being used during a much wider temporal span. This cultural item was likely removed from site 45AS2 during excavations in 1972 conducted by the University of Idaho under contract with the Army Corps of Engineers. Between 1996 and 2000, the cultural item was transferred from the University of Idaho to Washington State University. The item was recently located in unprovenanced archaeological collections at Washington State University.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified from site 45BN15 (Rabbit Island) in Benton County, Washington. No associated funerary objects are present. There are two distinct time periods represented at site 45BN15. The earlier burials (Rabbit Island I) date to the Frenchman-Springs Phase (3500-1500 BP) while the later burials (Rabbit Island II) predate A.D. 1750. This Ancestor is currently at Central Washington University.
Human remains representing, at least, five individuals have been identified from site 45BN55 (Sheep Island) in Benton County, Washington. No associated funerary objects are present. Site 45BN55 was likely utilized during the late Pre-Contact to early Historic Period. These Ancestors are currently at Central Washington University and Eastern Washington University.
Human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been identified from site 45FR101 (Chiawana) in Franklin County, Washington. No associated funerary objects are present. These Ancestors were likely removed from the site during excavations in 1967. Site 45FR101 was a village site with two main temporal components including an early component from 5900-500 BC and a later component from A.D. 1000-1870. Excavated Ancestors and materials were transported to the University of Idaho before being transported to Washington State University in 2000. One of the Ancestors is currently at Washington State University while the other was recently returned to the University of Idaho by a former student.
Three associated funerary objects have been identified from site 45WT002 (Trestle) in Whitman County, Washington. The three associated funerary objects are: one modified faunal bone, one hawk bell, and one pendant. These cultural items were removed from the site during contract excavations conducted in 1963. Site 45WT002 has been described as having two temporal components with the early site use spanning 6700-2500 BP and the later component being historic (mid-1800s-1900s). The excavated materials were then split between Washington State University and University of Idaho prior to being consolidated at Washington State University where these cultural items still remain.
One associated funerary object has been identified from site 45WW6 in Walla Walla County, Washington. The associated funerary object is one tubular copper bead. This cultural item was likely removed from the site during excavations in 1951 by the Smithsonian River Basin Survey. Site 45WW6 was likely utilized from 700 BP through A.D. 1857. This cultural item is currently at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District Office.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified from an Unknown Site in Washington. The 36 associated funerary objects are: one abalone shell with serrated edge, two lots of copper beads, one lot of dentalium bead fragments, one lot of glass beads, one lot of glass seed beads, two buckles, two lots of buttons, one cloth fragment with copper beads, one cloth fragment with leather and wood, one glass disk, one metal disk, one copper fork, one lot of faunal tooth fragments, one lot of metal fragments, one leather fragment with white beads, one lot of lithic materials, one large metal hook, one piece of rusted metal, one small porcelain dish, one fragment of ribbon, two lots of shoe fragments, one large copper spoon, one copper tube, one piece of coated wire, and one piece of wood. The Ancestor and cultural items were located within Walla Walla District archaeological collections from site 45WT39 at Washington State University, but did not have associated catalog, site, or provenience information. This Ancestor and cultural items likely originated from Palus Cemetery (45FR36), but ultimately their provenience could not be confirmed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of nine individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 41 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation; Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation; Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; and the Nez Perce Tribe.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and, if joined to a request from one or more of the Indian Tribes, the Wanapum Band of Priest Rapids, a non-federally recognized Indian group.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Maidu Museum & Historic Site intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Alesha Martinez, Maidu Museum & Historic Site, 1970 Johnson Ranch Drive, Roseville, CA 95661, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Maidu Museum & Historic Site, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of 14 lots of objects of cultural patrimony have been requested for repatriation. The 14 lots of objects of cultural patrimony are four lots of modified stones, two lots of unmodified stones, two lots of plant material, two lots of faunal material, one lot of historical material, one lot of shell, one lot of anthropogenic soil, and one lot of unidentified material.
In 1976, one lot of objects of cultural patrimony consisting of modified stones was removed from Roseville, Placer County, CA. The objects of cultural patrimony were accessioned at the Maidu Museum & Historic Site under Accession Number 2010.010.
In 1993, one lot of objects of cultural patrimony consisting of modified stones was removed from Granite Bay, Placer County, CA. The objects of cultural patrimony were accessioned at the Maidu Museum & Historic Site under Accession Number 2013.002.
At various unknown dates, four lots of objects of cultural patrimony were removed from west Placer County, CA. These include one lot of modified stones, one lot of unmodified stones, one lot of plant materials, and one lot of faunal materials. The objects of cultural patrimony were accessioned at the Maidu Museum & Historic Site under Accession Numbers 2000.003, 2000.004, 2000.005, 2001.001, 2004.002, and 2006.012.
Eight additional lots of objects of cultural patrimony are reasonably believed to have been removed from somewhere in west Placer County, CA, at various unknown dates. The eight lots of objects of cultural patrimony are one lot of modified stones, one lot of unmodified stones, one lot of plant material, one lot of faunal material, one lot of historical material, one lot of shell, one lot of anthropogenic soil, and one lot of unidentified material from a variety of Accession Numbers at the Maidu Museum & Historic Site, including 2000.006, 2001.003, 2004.004, 2005.002, 2005.004, 2006.014, 2005.002-P, and T2024.000.
The Maidu Museum & Historic Site does not have record of any known potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the cultural items.
The Maidu Museum & Historic Site has determined that:
• The 14 lots of objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Maidu Museum & Historic Site must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Maidu Museum & Historic Site is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Museum of Science, Boston, intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of sacred objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Rebecca Melius, Museum of Science, Boston, 1 Science Park, Boston, MA 02114, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Museum of Science, Boston, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of six cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The six sacred objects are hand-held weapons made of wood. These objects were given to the Museum by an individual donor in the 1950s as part of an unexpected bequest, and provenance was not provided by the late donor. In the early 20th century, the donor traveled to Hawai'i, Samoa, and other Pacific Islands during his military service and for personal reasons. The six objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been acquired by the donor during those tours. The six sacred objects have not been tested for the presence of hazardous materials; they have not been treated with hazardous materials in the past twenty years.
The Museum of Science, Boston, has determined that:
• The six sacred objects described in this notice are specific ceremonial objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Hui Iwi Kuamo'o.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Museum of Science, Boston, must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Museum of Science, Boston, is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Autry Museum of the American West (Southwest Museum Collection) has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Karimah Richardson, Autry Museum of the American West, 4700 Western Heritage Way, Los Angeles, CA 90027, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Autry Museum of the American West, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing at least one individual have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Sometime in 1930, Mr. Hesmel L. Earenfight, during a Southwest Museum expedition led by William and Elizabeth Campbell in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties that operated from 1926-1936, collected human remains (498.G.785) from a wash at Campbell's Site 326. Site 326 is found within the Campbell's Paiute Springs district, 75 miles northeast of Twentynine Palms, San Bernardino County, CA. The human remains entered the Southwest Museum (now part of the Autry Museum of the American West) collection sometime in 1959.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains described in this notice.
The Autry Museum of the American West has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe of the Chemehuevi Reservation, California and the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows,
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Autry Museum of the American West must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Autry Museum of the American West is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC), The State Museum of Pennsylvania intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of sacred objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Barbara Frederick, PHMC, The State Museum of Pennsylvania, 300 North Street, Harrisburg, PA 17120, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of PHMC, The State Museum of Pennsylvania, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of two cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The two sacred objects are a gourd rattle and one lot of organic powder. The sacred objects were removed from the Allegany Reservation, in Cattaraugus County, New York in 1925.
PHMC, The State Museum of Pennsylvania has determined that:
• The two sacred objects described in this notice are, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, a specific ceremonial object needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, and has ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision).
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Seneca Nation of Indians.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, The State Museum of Pennsylvania must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The State Museum of Pennsylvania is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Thomas J. Pluckhahn, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, 4202 E Fowler Avenue, SOC 107, Tampa, FL 33620-8100, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. No
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains described in this notice.
The Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida have determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Seminole Tribe of Florida; and The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the San Francisco State University (SF State) NAGPRA Program has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Alexander Dursin, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94132, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the SF State NAGPRA Program, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Ancestors representing at least two individuals have been identified. There are no associated funerary objects present. Two ancestors are believed to have been removed from Tiburon, Marin County, CA. The exact location of the ancestors' burials are unknown however, they have been marked with a tag marked “Marin County, Seacliff Tiburon.” It is not known how these ancestors were brought to SF State, at what time, or where from. They were labeled with tags marked with “Dr. Hirabayashi” and “Jane Schellenberg.” In 1970, there was an Associate Professor of Anthropology at SF State named Dr. Hirabayashi. In 1998, Julie London determined that these ancestors were culturally unidentifiable. New consultation with Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria has determined these items to be reasonably associated with their Tribe.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains described in this notice.
The SF State NAGPRA Program has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 8, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida and the Florida Department of State (FDOS) has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Thomas J. Pluckhahn, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, 4202 E Fowler Avenue, SOC 107, Tampa, FL 33620-8100, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida and the FDOS and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified in the collections from the Crystal River site (8CI1), in Citrus County, Florida. No associated funerary objects are present. The Crystal River site is a National Historic Landmark, preserved today on the property of Crystal River Archaeological State Park. The remains were excavated in 2013 by Dr. Thomas Pluckhahn of the University of South and were identified during a recent re-inventory of the collection. Crystal River dates to the Middle and Late Woodland periods, from around 1,500 to 1,000 years before present. We are not aware of the presence of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the human remains.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified in the collections from the Roberts Island site (8CI41), in Citrus County, Florida. No associated funerary objects are present. The site is located on Crystal River Preserve State Park. The remains were excavated in 2013 by Dr. Thomas Pluckhahn of the University of South Florida and were identified during a recent re-inventory of the collection. Roberts Island dates to the Late Woodland period, from around 1,250 to 1,000 years before present. We are not aware of the presence of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the human remains.
Both collections were excavated under a FDOS permit, and FDOS retains legal control of this collection. Physical custody is held by the Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains described in this notice.
The Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida and FDOS have determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Seminole Tribe of Florida; and The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida and FDOS must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida and FDOS are responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), San Diego State University (SDSU) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Jaime Lennox, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of SDSU, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. The 10 lots of associated funerary objects representing approximately 500+ associated funerary objects are one lot of shell, one lot of lithics, one lot of unidentified items, one lot of pollen samples, one lot of soil samples, one lot of non-human faunal, one lot of fire affected rock, one lot of historic items, one lot of ground stone, and one lot of charcoal. In 1979, SDSU led excavations at site CA-SDI-6153 (W-2639; La Fleur) located in San Diego County, California, during which associated funerary objects and the burial of an ancestor were uncovered and removed. After excavation, the associated funerary objects were brought to SDSU's campus; it's unclear whether any of the ancestor's remains were brought to SDSU's campus at that time as they were unaccounted for until 2025. The resulting collection was given accession number SDSU-0093 (CMP-SDSU-0093) and included the then unaccounted for ancestor. A notice was published in the
Human remains representing, at least, 54 individuals have been identified. The 15 lots of associated funerary objects representing approximately 180,000+ associated funerary objects are one lot of ground stone, one lot of historic items, one lot of worked non-human faunal, one lot of non-human faunal, one lot of ceramics, one lot of lithics, one lot of non-cultural items, one lot of fire affected rock, one lot of charcoal, one lot of unworked shell, one lot of worked shell, one lot of ochre, one lot of unmodified stone, one lot of soil, and one lot of seeds. The associated funerary objects and ancestral remains were removed from site CA-SDI-4638 (W-389; Bancroft Ranch) located in San Diego County, California during SDSU led excavations between 1970 and 1977. In 1980, the resulting collection was deeded to SDSU and was accessioned as SDSU-0094 (CMP-SDSU-0094). A notice of inventory completion was published in the
No human remains are present. The seven lots of associated funerary objects representing approximately 700+ associated funerary objects are one lot of worked non-human faunal, one lot of lithics, one lot of ground stone, one lot of ceramics, one lot of unworked non-human faunal, one lot of unworked shell, and one lot of worked shell. Associated funerary objects and human remains were collected by Lt. Wayne O. Morris on an unknown date from an unrecorded site referenced as near the Carlton Hills Estates located in San Diego County, California; the collection was then donated to SDSU in 1965 and accessioned as SDSU-0102 (CMP-SDSU-0102). Previous repatriation of human remains from the collection (representing a minimum of one individual) occurred in 2010 to the Tribes listed in the determinations section below; the human remains were published in the
No human remains are present. The three lots of associated funerary objects representing approximately 200+ associated funerary objects are one lot of ceramics, one lot of lithics, and one lot of ground stone. At an unknown date, associated funerary objects and human remains were removed from site CA-IMP-2 located in Imperial County, California by an individual identified as Wakefield; SDSU subsequently received the collection in 1959 and assigned accession number SDSU-0172 (CMP-SDSU-0172). Previous repatriation of the human remains from the collection (representing a minimum of one individual) occurred in 2001 to the Tribes listed in the determinations section below; the human remains were published in the
No human remains are present. The five lots of associated funerary objects representing approximately 400+ associated funerary objects are one lot of unworked shell, one lot of historic items, one lot of ground stone, one lot of chipped stone, and one lot of soil samples. In 1980, associated funerary items were removed via surface collection and excavation at site CA-SDI-215 (Seaside Solana) located in San Diego County, California by cultural resource management firm RECON. SDSU subsequently received the collection from RECON in 1984 and assigned accession number SDSU-0202 (CMP-SDSU-0202). It is unknown whether any potentially hazardous substances were used to treat the human remains or associated funerary objects.
No human remains are present. The seven lots of associated funerary objects representing approximately 8,800+ associated funerary objects are one lot of lithics, one lot of soil samples, one lot of ground stone, one lot of historic items, one lot of unworked non-human faunal, one lot of unworked shell, and one lot of vegetal samples. In 1978, cultural items and human remains were removed via excavation from site CA-
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. The 15 lots of associated funerary objects representing approximately 39,000+ associated funerary objects are one lot of lithics, one lot of soil samples, one lot of ground stone, one lot of unworked non-human faunal, one lot of shell, one lot of historic items, one lot of wood, one lot of charcoal, one lot of fire affected rock, one lot of ceramics, one lot of worked non-human faunal, one lot of unworked shell, one lot of worked shell, one lot of non-cultural items, and one lot of soil samples. In 1979, SDSU led excavations at site CA-SDI-6153 (W-2639; La Fleur) located in San Diego County, California during which associated funerary objects and human remains were removed. After excavation, the associated funerary objects and ancestral remains were brought to SDSU's campus. The majority of the cultural items and the ancestral remains were accessioned as collection SDSU-0093 (CMP-SDSU-0093), for which a notice was published in the
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
SDSU has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 56 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 62 lots of objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Campo Indian Reservation, California; Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians of the Barona Reservation, California; Viejas (Baron Long) Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians of the Viejas Reservation, California); Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians, California; Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel, California; Inaja Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Inaja and Cosmit Reservation, California; Jamul Indian Village of California; La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian Reservation, California; Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation, California; Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Mesa Grande Reservation, California; San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California; and the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, SDSU must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. SDSU is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Sonoma State University has completed an inventory of associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice to Kirsten Twork, Sonoma State University, 1801 East Cotati Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA 94928, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Sonoma State University, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is
Based on the information available 125 lots of associated funerary objects were removed from CA-COL-197/H located near the census designated place Arbuckle, in Colusa county California. The associated funerary objects were removed from the site during a PGT-PGE Pipeline Project. The items include unmodified faunal bone, unmodified shell, and botanical items. The items have been at Sonoma State University since 1992.
Based on the information available 57 lots of associated funerary objects were removed from CA-COL-198/H located near the census designated place Maxwell, in Colusa county California. The associated funerary objects were removed from the site during a PGT-PGE Pipeline Project. The items include unmodified faunal bone. The items have been at Sonoma State University since 1992.
Based on records concerning the associated funerary objects and the institution in which they are housed, there is no evidence of the objects being treated with hazardous substances.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The Sonoma State University has determined that:
• The 182 lots of associated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a reasonable connection between the associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Cachil DeHe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community of the Cortina Rancheria, California; Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation of the Cortina Rancheria (
Written requests for repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Sonoma State University must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Sonoma State University is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University (PMAE) intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Jane Pickering, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the PMAE, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of 14 cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The 14 objects of cultural patrimony are described as follows:
The one object of cultural patrimony collected from Upper Lake, Lake County, CA, is one lot of a basket. The object of cultural patrimony formerly belonged to Nutah, the father of Captain Chicken, was acquired by Grace A. Nicholson in 1906, and was donated to the PMAE by Lewis Hobart Farlow the same year.
The two objects of cultural patrimony collected from “Big Valley” in California are one lot of a basket and one lot of a basket beater. The objects of cultural patrimony were collected by Grace A. Nicholson and Carroll S. Hartman in 1910 and donated to the PMAE by Lewis Hobart Farlow the same year.
The three objects of cultural patrimony collected from unknown locations in California are one lot of a bear disguise or model, one lot of ear ornaments, and one lot of an elkhorn dagger, all made by William Benson, a known member of the Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Big Valley Rancheria, California. The objects of cultural patrimony were collected by Grace A. Nicholson in 1907 and donated to the PMAE by Lewis Hobart Farlow the same year.
The one object of cultural patrimony collected from an unknown location in California is one lot of a spear. The object of cultural patrimony was purchased from Captain Cahidano by Grace A. Nicholson in 1906 and donated to the PMAE by Lewis Hobart Farlow the same year.
The seven objects of cultural patrimony collected from unknown locations in California are one lot of a hair pin, one lot of a whistle, one lot of a pair of ear ornaments, one lot of regalia, and one lot of a men's dance
The PMAE has determined that:
• The 14 objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Big Valley Rancheria, California.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the PMAE must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The PMAE is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Anthropology has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Elizabeth Leith, University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Anthropology, 1180 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI 53706, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Anthropology, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The individual was removed from Hughes County, South Dakota, in 1940 by an unknown individual. Traditional knowledge and archaeologists have both acknowledged a long occupation by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (Three Affiliated Tribes) in this geographic location. There is no known presence of any potentially hazardous substances.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains described in this notice.
The University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Anthropology has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Anthropology must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Anthropology is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Sonoma State University has completed an inventory of associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice to Kirsten Twork, Sonoma State University, 1801 East Cotati Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA 94928, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Sonoma State University, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Based on the information available, 74 lots of associated funerary objects have been identified.
A total of 13 lots of associated funerary objects were removed from CA-PLA-38 located near Roseville in Placer county California. There was no information found explaining why the cultural items were removed from the site. The cultural items are obsidian and have been housed at Sonoma State University since their submission.
A total of 61 lots of associated funerary objects were removed from CA-PLA-728/H located near Applegate in Placer county California. There was no information found explaining why the cultural items were removed from the site. The cultural items are obsidian and have been housed at Sonoma State University since their submission.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The Sonoma State University has determined that:
• The 74 lots of objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a reasonable connection between the associated funerary objects described in this notice and the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California.
Written requests for repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Sonoma State University must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Sonoma State University is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Western Michigan University (WMU) has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after January 20, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Britt Hartenberger, Institute for Intercultural and Anthropological Studies, Western Michigan University, 1005 Moore Hall, Kalamazoo, MI 49008, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of WMU, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, 17 individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. In 1968, human remains were removed from the Brainerd Ossuary (20AE61) in Valley Township, Allegan County as part of an archaeological field school. In May 2011, WMU consulted with the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, the Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, and the Saginaw
In December 2023, WMU discovered additional human remains from Brainerd, deriving from the archaeological excavations and a set donated by one of the amateurs. No new associated funerary objects were found. The newly discovered skeletal collection consists of over 770 bone fragments, representing a minimum of 17 individuals ranging in age from infants to older adults. The fragmentary nature of the collection makes detailed age and sex assessments by individual difficult. No known individuals were identified from the excavated or otherwise obtained remains.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains described in this notice.
WMU has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 17 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; and the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after January 20, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, WMU must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. WMU is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
December 15, 2025.
Camille Bryan ((202) 205-2811), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Effective August 20, 2025, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the subject proceeding (90 FR 41595, August 26, 2025). Due to the lapse in appropriations and ensuing cessation of Commission operations, the Commission issued a revised schedule (90 FR 54369, November 26, 2025). Due to the Department of Commerce's tolling of case deadline by an additional 21 calendar days, the Commission is revising its schedule as follows: requests to appear at the hearing must be filed with the Secretary to the Commission on January 14, 2026; a prehearing conference will be held on January 16, 2026, if deemed necessary; parties shall file and serve written testimony and presentation slides in connection with their presentation at the hearing by no later than noon on January 20, 2026; the hearing will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on January 21, 2026; the deadline for filing posthearing briefs and for written statements from any person who has not entered an appearance as a party is January 28, 2026; the Commission will make its final release of information on February 9, 2026; and final party comments are due on February 11, 2026.
For further information concerning this proceeding, see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these reviews on May 1, 2025 (90 FR 18697)
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on December 16, 2025. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5691 (December 2025), entitled
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
December 12, 2025.
Laurel Schwartz (202-205-2398), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
On October 2, 2025, the Commission published a notice of institution of these investigations, and on November 19, 2025, published a revised scheduling notice. The Commission is revising the current schedule as follows: the Commission views will be transmitted to Commerce on January 7, 2026.
For further information concerning this proceeding, see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has determined to review in part an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 18) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting a motion for summary determination of violation. The Commission requests written submissions from the parties on the issue under review and from the parties, interested government agencies, and other interested persons on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding, under the schedule set forth below.
Edward S. Jou, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3316. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
The Commission instituted this investigation on February 3, 2025, based upon a complaint, as supplemented (the “Complaint”), filed on behalf of CAB Enterprises, Inc. of Houston, Texas; Sueros y Bebidas Rehidratantes, S.A. de C.V. of Guadalajara, Mexico; Brazos River Ventures LLC of Albany, New York; and Electrolit Manufacturing USA Inc. of Albany, New York (collectively, “Complainants”). 90 FR 8811-12 (Feb. 3, 2025). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“section 337”) based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electrolyte containing beverages and labeling and packaging thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,222,726; U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,833,885; U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,717,350; and U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,717,232.
The Commission's notice of investigation named eight respondents: Empacadora Torres Mora, S. de R.L. de C.V. of Monterrey, Mexico; Version Expotaciones, S.R.L. de C.V. of Tijuana, Mexico; Mabed Distribuciones, S.A. de C.V. of Matamoros, Mexico; Salfe International Trade, S. de R.L. de C.V. (“Salfe”) of Garza Garcia, Mexico; Exportadora de Abarrotes del Pacifico, S.A. de C.V. (“Pacifico”) of Torreon, Mexico; Centro de Distribucion de Carbon Allende, S.A. de C.V. of Allende, Mexico; Wenceslao Colunga Ruiz (“Ruiz”) of Camargo, Mexico; and Distribuidora de Productos Heres, S.A. de C.V. (“Heres”) of Allende, Mexico.
The investigation was terminated with respect to respondents Ruiz and Heres based on withdrawal of the complaint. Order No. 7 (Mar. 11, 2025),
On April 18, 2025, the ALJ issued an order requiring the remaining respondents in the investigation to show cause why they should not be found in default. Order No. 9 (Apr. 18, 2025). Respondent Pacifico filed an answer to the Complaint on May 1, 2025, and the investigation was subsequently terminated with respect to Pacifico based on a consent order. Order No. 10 (May 23, 2025),
On July 21, 2025, Complainants filed a motion for summary determination of violation, and on July 22, 2025, Complainants filed a motion for leave for acceptance of a corrected motion for summary determination, which was granted pursuant to Order No. 15 (July 22, 2025). On August 4, 2025, OUII filed a response in support of Complainants' motion.
On September 10, 2025, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting the motion for summary determination, which included a recommended determination on remedy and bonding. No petitions for review of the ID were filed.
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including the ID, the pleadings, and the parties' briefing on summary determination, the Commission has determined to review the ID in part. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the ID's findings with respect to the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. The Commission has determined not to review the other findings in the ID.
In connection with its review, the Commission requests responses to the following question:
The parties are requested to brief their positions with reference to the applicable law and the existing evidentiary record.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the statute authorizes issuance of,
In connection with its remedy determination, the Commission requests responses to the following question:
The parties are requested to brief their positions with reference to the applicable law and the existing evidentiary record.
The statute requires the Commission to consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The public interest factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and cease and desist orders would have on: (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve, disapprove, or take no action on the Commission's determination.
In their initial submission, Complainants are also requested to identify the remedy sought and Complainants and OUII are requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainants are further requested to provide the HTSUS subheadings under which the accused products are imported, and to supply the identification information for all known importers of the products at issue in this investigation. All initial written submissions, from the parties and/or third parties/interested government agencies, and proposed remedial orders from the parties must be filed no later than close of business on January 5, 2026. All reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on January 12, 2026. Opening submissions from the parties are limited to 20 pages. Reply submissions shall be limited to 10 pages. No further submissions on any of these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
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-1435) 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
The Commission vote for this determination took place on December 15, 2025.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that a proposed Final Judgment, Stipulation, and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in
• Jack A. Fusco Energy Center, located southwest of the city of Houston, Texas; and
• Calpine's minority ownership interest in the Gregory Energy Center, located northeast of the city of Corpus Christi, Texas.
• Bethlehem Energy Center, located in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania;
• Edge Moor Energy Center, located in Wilmington, Delaware;
• Hay Road Energy Center, located in Wilmington, Delaware; and
• York Energy Center (York 1 and York 2), located southeast of the city of York, Pennsylvania.
A Competitive Impact Statement filed by the United States on December 12, 2025, describes the Complaint, the proposed Final Judgment, the industry, and the remedies available to private litigants who may have been injured by the alleged violation.
Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, and Competitive Impact Statement are available for inspection on the Antitrust Division's website at
Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this notice. Such comments, including the name of the submitter, and responses thereto, will be posted on the Antitrust Division's website, filed with the Court, and, under certain circumstances, published in the
Constellation Energy Corporation (“Constellation”) seeks to buy one of its largest rivals, Calpine Corporation (“Calpine”), in a proposed acquisition that would create the largest wholesale power generator in the United States with a formidable array of assets. The combination of those assets would risk affording Constellation the opportunity to profitably raise the price of electricity for millions of citizens and businesses in Texas and parts of the mid-Atlantic, likely resulting in increased energy costs of more than $100 million per year. The United States and the State of Texas bring this suit to preserve competition.
1. Electricity is an essential resource to people and companies across the country.
Whether storing food in refrigerators, keeping the lights on in workplaces, watching a football game, or powering lifesaving support systems in hospitals, Americans depend on electricity for almost every facet of their daily lives. Demand for electricity is increasing rapidly, as the population grows and innovative technologies like cloud computing and artificial intelligence rely ever more on energy-intensive data centers. In Texas, the highest level of electricity consumption (so-called “peak load”) handled by its largest electrical grid is expected to increase by 72% from 2024 to 2030. In the multistate power grid that includes the mid-Atlantic, summer peak load is expected to increase by 3.1% per year over the next decade. Despite this rapidly increasing demand, it is challenging to
2. Consumers and businesses demand instantaneous access to electricity to avoid disruption to their lives and work. Demand for electricity changes depending on weather and patterns of social and business activity that vary with the time of day, day of week, and season of year. For example, peak demand may be reached during the hottest summer days or coldest winter nights, when air conditioning or electric heating are most needed. Lower demand may occur on some weekends or major holidays when many businesses are closed. Electricity must be produced and delivered in line with this fluctuating demand, and electrical grid operators call upon power generators like Constellation and Calpine to turn power generation plants on or shut them off to balance the supply of electricity with demand.
3. To determine which plants should be turned on or shut off, and how much electricity each plant should produce, the grid operator conducts daily and intra-day auctions. These electricity auctions set the prices paid to every generation unit. Constellation and Calpine compete against each other and against other generators in these auctions by submitting offers from each of their individual generation units to produce certain amounts of electricity at certain times and prices to meet demand. The offers of individual generation units are accepted from lowest to highest price until the total amount of electricity from the generation units combined satisfies the demand for a particular period. The price for the last unit's offer necessary to meet real-time demand, referred to as the market-clearing price, sets the price paid at that auction for every other individual unit that has received an accepted offer.
4. In other words, the price of electricity is set by the highest price offered by the individual power generating unit whose offer is accepted. All other generating units with lower offers that had offers accepted receive the same market-clearing price for the electricity they produce within a given period, despite having offered lower prices. Because the same price is paid by all wholesale electricity customers, even small price increases driven by one generator's offer strategy, executed during specific times throughout the year, can lead to market-wide price increases, adding tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars annually in increased electricity bills for consumers and businesses.
5. On January 10, 2025, Constellation announced plans to acquire Calpine for a net purchase price of $26.6 billion (the “Acquisition”). If allowed to proceed, the Acquisition would create the largest wholesale electricity generating company in the United States.
6. Constellation and Calpine each sell wholesale electricity to two of the nation's major electricity grids, among others. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (“ERCOT”) encompasses most of Texas, and PJM Interconnection LLC (“PJM”) includes all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
7. The Acquisition would eliminate substantial competition between Constellation and Calpine within both of these grids by increasing the opportunity for the combined firm to engage profitably in a strategy that withholds output from one of its plants, forcing the grid operator to call on a higher-cost plant to set the market price. Increasing the market-clearing price would benefit the combined firm's plants that have had offers accepted, as well as all other active plants in the market. The aggregation of Constellation and Calpine's portfolios of generation capacity within each of these two grids confers more opportunities for the combined firm to engage profitably in anticompetitive withholding that would raise wholesale electricity prices within those grids.
8. In short, the Acquisition would eliminate competition between Constellation and Calpine, thereby increasing Constellation's ability and incentive to anticompetitively withhold electricity to raise wholesale electricity prices beyond what either company could do today as independent competitors. A successful withholding strategy could result in increased retail electricity prices paid by tens of millions of residential, commercial, and industrial customers across Texas and the area that includes southeastern Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the eastern shores of Maryland and Virginia.
9. Constellation is a Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland. Constellation is one of the largest competitive electric generation companies in the nation, as measured by owned and contracted megawatts.
10. In ERCOT, Constellation owns or exercises control over two combined-cycle natural gas plants and one steam turbine plant. In addition, it has a 44% interest in the South Texas Project nuclear plant and two wind farms. Constellation's combination of nuclear, wind, and natural gas electricity power plants collectively have the capacity to generate approximately 5,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity in Texas. (For context, one megawatt serves between 800 to 1,000 homes.)
11. In PJM, Constellation owns or exercises control over 25 total plants and has a partial ownership interest in three. This includes combined-cycle natural gas plants, nuclear plants, coal plants, oil plants, and solar and wind renewals. These plants collectively provide more than 20,000 MW of electric capacity across PJM.
12. Calpine is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas. Calpine is the largest generator of electricity from natural gas and geothermal resources in the United States.
13. In ERCOT, Calpine owns or exercises control over 13 combined-cycle plants and one combustion turbine natural gas plant. In addition, Calpine is constructing another combustion turbine natural gas plant expected to come online in 2026 and holds a 28% interest in one additional operating combined-cycle natural gas plant. Calpine's power plants collectively have the capacity to generate approximately 9,000 MW of electricity, making it the third-largest electricity generation supplier in the state.
14. In PJM, Calpine owns or exercises control over 14 total plants, including natural gas plants, oil plants, and solar facilities. These plants collectively provide more than 5,000 MW of electric capacity.
15. CPN CS Holdco Corp. (“Holdco”) is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Calpine. Calpine created Holdco as a vehicle for its sale to Constellation.
16. Electricity supplied to retail customers is produced at power plants. Wholesale electricity is electricity that is generated for “sale for resale” to utilities or retail electric providers that in turn resell it to end consumers, such as households and businesses. Power plants often contain several individual generating units that transform energy from fuel or a renewable resource into electricity. Important generating technologies in these units include steam turbines, combustion turbines,
17. Generating units vary considerably in their operating costs, which are determined primarily by the cost of fuel and how efficiently that fuel can be converted into electricity.
•
•
•
•
18. Electricity generated at a plant is transported via an extensive set of interconnected high voltage lines and equipment, known as the transmission grid, to lower voltage distribution lines that relay electricity to homes and businesses. Transmission grid operators closely monitor the grid to prevent too little or too much electricity from flowing over the grid, either of which can risk widespread blackouts through damage to the lines, equipment, or generating units connected to the grid. To avoid damage and service interruptions, grid operators manage a grid to prevent additional electricity from flowing over a transmission line as that line approaches its operating limit (a “transmission constraint”).
19. ERCOT is an independent system operator that serves as the electricity grid and market operator for most of Texas. This means it manages the purchase of wholesale electricity from Constellation, Calpine, and their competitors, as well as the resale and transmission of that electricity to utilities and retail electric providers that directly serve end customers.
20. ERCOT is a membership-based nonprofit corporation subject to oversight by the Public Utility Commission of Texas. Its members include consumers, cooperatives, generators, power marketers, retail electricity providers, investor-owned electric utilities, transmission and distribution providers, and municipally owned electric utilities.
21. PJM is a regional transmission organization that manages the wholesale electricity market and transmission grid that supplies electricity to all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
22. PJM is a private, nonprofit organization whose members include transmission line owners, generation owners, distribution companies, retail customers, and retail electricity suppliers.
23. PJM manages the largest transmission grid in the United States, which provides electricity to more than 67 million people. Each year, PJM is responsible for overseeing more than $25 billion in wholesale electricity sales.
24. ERCOT and PJM each oversee two auctions to set the price of wholesale electricity and ensure there is enough supply to meet demand in their respective parts of the country. The first is a “day-ahead” auction that sets hourly prices for the next day, and the second is a “real-time” auction that sets prices for each five-minute interval throughout the operating day to reflect changing demand for electricity at specific times. In both auctions, competing generators, including Constellation and Calpine, submit offers for each of their generation units to sell electricity to electricity retailers at a specific price. These offers are the primary means by which electricity generators compete to supply electricity in ERCOT and PJM and drive the price consumers ultimately pay for it.
25. In the day-ahead auctions, each buyer typically submits a bid to ERCOT or PJM that identifies the amount of electricity that the buyer expects to need for each hour of the next day. ERCOT or PJM then adds up the bids to determine how much total electricity is expected to be demanded by buyers each hour. Each generator offering electricity in the day-ahead market (such as Constellation and Calpine) submits an offer to sell electricity to ERCOT or PJM that indicates, for each generating unit, the amount of electricity it is willing to sell the next day and the price at which it is willing to sell.
26. Subject to the physical limitations of their transmission grids, ERCOT and PJM seek to “dispatch” generating units, that is, to call on them to generate electricity in “merit” order, meaning from lowest offer price to highest. In the day-ahead auction, subject to expected transmission constraints, ERCOT and PJM take the least expensive offer first and then accept offers at progressively higher prices until the needs for each hour of the next day are covered. This minimizes the total cost of generating the electricity required for the next day. The clearing price for any given hour is determined by the generating unit with the highest offer price that is needed for that hour. All other sellers for that hour receive that identical price regardless of the individual unit's own offer price or costs. So, a generating unit that offers a lower price to ERCOT or PJM is paid the higher clearing price if electricity from additional, higher-priced generating units is needed to meet demand.
27. The real-time auctions reconcile the outcome of the day-ahead auctions with actual supply and demand. ERCOT and PJM follow the same auction mechanism as in the day-ahead auctions, by accepting sellers' offers in merit order, subject to the physical and/engineering limitations of the transmission grid, until there is enough electricity to meet actual demand. In the real-time auctions, however, ERCOT and PJM set prices for each five-minute interval of the day.
28. Transmission constraints sometimes affect PJM's merit order. When the lowest- cost generation cannot be dispatched because it would overload a transmission constraint, it is called “congestion.” To avoid congestion while still satisfying demand, PJM must call on higher-priced units that, given their location on the grid, do not overload transmission constraints. When this happens, prices are lower on one side of the constraint and higher on the other side. In other words, when the capacity of the transmission lines connecting two regions within PJM is reached so that electricity cannot flow from one region to another, the demand within each region has to be met by electricity that
29. Wholesale electricity is a relevant product market for evaluating the potential competitive impact of the Acquisition. And each hourly increment in which wholesale electricity is sold in ERCOT's or PJM's “day-ahead” auction, as well as each five-minute increment in the ERCOT or PJM “real-time” auctions, constitutes a separate relevant product market. This is because electricity available in one time period is not a substitute for electricity available in another time period (notwithstanding the ability to use batteries to some extent to transfer electricity from one time period to another). While supply and demand for wholesale electricity can vary in different periods, both auctions share a common feature: in the event of a small but significant non-transitory increase in the price of wholesale electricity at relevant times, not enough purchasers are likely to switch away from wholesale electricity to make that increase unprofitable. Additionally, in the event of a small but significant non-transitory increase in the price of wholesale electricity within an hourly or five-minute interval, not enough purchasers would switch to consuming wholesale electricity in a different time period to make that price increase unprofitable. This means that each of these specific auction time intervals markets is a relevant product market and a “line of commerce” within the meaning of Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
30. While each of these specific time intervals is a relevant product market, they can be aggregated into a “cluster market” for analytical convenience for considering whether the Acquisition violates the antitrust laws. For example, all 24 hours in a single day in either PJM or ERCOT's “day-ahead” auction could be aggregated into one market, as could all five-minute intervals in a single hour in PJM or ERCOT's “real-time” auction. Separate cluster markets could also be created for periods of time that exhibit similar market contexts and competitive dynamics—for example, summer afternoons or winter nights.
31. The region covered by ERCOT is a relevant geographic market for evaluating the potential competitive impact of Constellation's purchase of Calpine and a “section of the country” within the meaning of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. ERCOT serves more than 27 million Texans, who collectively account for about 90% of the state's electricity demand. In 2024, ERCOT was responsible for overseeing the sale of more than $14.4 billion in wholesale electricity.
32. In the event of a small but significant non-transitory increase in the price of wholesale electricity within ERCOT, not enough purchasers in the ERCOT region are likely to switch to purchasing from regions outside ERCOT to make that increase unprofitable. At its annual peak, electricity demand in ERCOT exceeds 85,000 MW. ERCOT's connections to Mexico's grid and to the Southwest Power Pool grid, which collectively can allow about 1,200 MW of electricity to flow into ERCOT, are insufficient to prevent generators from imposing a small but significant non-transitory price increase within ERCOT.
33. The PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic geographic area is a relevant geographic market for evaluating the potential competitive impact of Constellation's purchase of Calpine and a “section of the country” within the meaning of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic geographic area is a distinct area within the PJM region that includes southeastern Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the eastern shores of Maryland and Virginia. In 2024, approximately $4 billion of wholesale electricity was generated and supplied to more than 10 million people and businesses in PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic.
34. PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic is affected by a major transmission constraint located near the Maryland-Pennsylvania border, called Nottingham, that divides PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic from the rest of the PJM region. Generators within PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic frequently sell electricity into other areas to the west and south. But when transmission lines are constrained, the amount of electricity that generators within PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic can sell outside of the area is limited. As a result, electricity prices in PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic often differ from prices in other areas within the PJM region.
35. When Nottingham is constrained, purchasers of wholesale electricity for use in PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic have limited ability to turn to generation originating outside of PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic. During these times, the amount of electricity that purchasers could obtain from generators outside PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic is insufficient to deter generators located in PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic from imposing a small but significant non-transitory price increase.
36. The combination of Constellation and Calpine's electricity generating units serving ERCOT and PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic would eliminate competition between them and enhance Constellation's post-Acquisition ability and incentive to withhold electricity to raise wholesale electricity price anticompetitively in those markets.
37. The Acquisition would increase opportunities for Constellation to profitably engage in a withholding strategy that would increase wholesale electricity prices in Texas. The Acquisition would almost triple Constellation's generation capacity to nearly 14,000 MW in ERCOT and add to its Texas portfolio a fleet of gas plants that have relatively higher operating costs than Constellation's current fleet. Constellation has three gas plants—one steam turbine plant and two combined-cycle plants—that total approximately 3,500 MW. It also has a 44% share in a nuclear plant with a capacity of approximately 2,600 MW and owns two small wind generating assets that collectively have about 170 MW of capacity. Calpine owns or controls 13 combined-cycle gas plants in ERCOT and has a minority share in a fourteenth plant that together have 9,000 MW of capacity.
38. The Acquisition would make Constellation the second-largest electric generation company in Texas, controlling more than 12% of ERCOT's generating capacity and over 20% of the natural gas generation capacity in ERCOT that often sets the clearing price. This portfolio of gas generation plants represents the “marginal fuel”: natural gas sets the price for all customers in ERCOT the majority of the time, and is particularly valuable in ERCOT, where the electricity grid relies on gas to complement and support its increasing use of intermittent renewable resources such as sun and wind to generate electricity.
39. The Acquisition would give Constellation a broader portfolio of assets that can be turned on and shut off more readily and quickly would enable it to more frequently and more
40. Because every other generation unit needed to meet demand in ERCOT would also receive the anticompetitively higher market-wide prices, the market-wide harm is much greater than simply Constellation's increased profits and the harm would be felt across the entire region. A small price increase that results in only millions in profit to Constellation could result in more than $100 million in harm to Texas consumers.
41. The Acquisition would enhance Constellation's ability to withhold output and raise the wholesale electricity price in PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic by increasing its ownership of mid-merit and peaking units, which can be turned on or shut off more quickly than other types of generation assets. The Acquisition would enable Constellation to more frequently and more strategically withhold generation capacity at lower opportunity costs.
42. Constellation can withhold capacity in several ways, such as by submitting high offers in the PJM auctions for some of the capacity from its higher-cost units so that they are not called on to produce electricity. By withholding capacity from a unit—or combination of units—from PJM's “day-ahead” or “real-time” auction, Constellation could force PJM to accept an offer from a higher-priced unit in order to meet demand. This would raise the price in PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic to the benefit of Constellation's other units supplying power to this area.
43. The additional revenues received by Constellation's lower-cost generation units, including its nuclear plants, because of anticompetitively higher prices in PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic would more than compensate for the lost profits from the generating unit(s) withheld. In other words, after the Acquisition, Constellation would be in a better position than either it or Calpine is today as an independent competitor to profit from reducing output and raising the wholesale electricity price in PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic.
44. Increasing Constellation's incentive and ability to profitably withhold capacity for PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic increases the likelihood that Constellation will exercise market power after its acquisition of Calpine.
45. Entry into wholesale electricity markets by building new generation capacity in either ERCOT or PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic requires significant capital investment in generating equipment, infrastructure, and technology, and generally takes many years, considering the necessary environmental, safety, zoning, and regulatory approvals.
46. In both ERCOT and PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic, recent supply chain dynamics and rising inflation have made it more difficult and expensive for companies to procure transformers and turbines to build gas-fired generation plants. Furthermore, the anticipated increase in electricity demand (
47. In PJM, interconnection queue wait times, or the duration from initial connection request to commercial operations, have increased substantially since the early 2000s. Building new high-voltage transmission that would relieve the constraints that limit the flow of electricity out of PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic would also generally take many years, and require significant capital investment and multiple environmental, safety, zoning, and regulatory approvals.
48. Entry into wholesale electricity markets in ERCOT and PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic would not be timely, likely, or sufficient in magnitude, character, or scope to defeat an anticompetitive price increase resulting from the Acquisition.
49. To the extent that there is new entry, including entry from renewable generation units, it will likely lag behind the substantial increases in demand projected in ERCOT and PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic.
50. Defendants also cannot demonstrate verifiable, merger-specific efficiencies sufficient to offset the Acquisition's anticompetitive effects.
51. The United States brings this action pursuant to Section 15 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 25, to prevent and restrain Defendants from violating Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.
52. The State of Texas brings this action under Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 26, as
53. Defendants are engaged in interstate commerce and in activities substantially affecting interstate commerce. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 25, and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1337(a), and 1345.
54. Defendants have consented to venue and personal jurisdiction in this judicial district. Venue is therefore proper in this District under Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 22, and 28 U.S.C. 1391(c).
55. The Acquisition, if it were consummated, likely would lessen competition substantially for wholesale electricity in ERCOT and PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.
56. Unless restrained, the Acquisition likely would have the following anticompetitive effects, among others:
(a) Competition in wholesale electricity markets in ERCOT and PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic would be substantially lessened;
(b) Constellation would wield increased market power in wholesale electricity markets in ERCOT and PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic; and
(c) Prices for wholesale electricity in ERCOT and PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic would increase.
57. Plaintiffs request that this Court:
(a) Adjudge Constellation's proposed acquisition of Calpine to violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18;
(b) Permanently enjoin and restrain Defendants from consummating the proposed acquisition of Calpine by
(c) Award the Plaintiffs their costs for this action; and
(d) Award the Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
TEXAS
The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and each of the parties to this action. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted against Defendants under Section 7 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18).
As used in this Final Judgment:
A. “Acquirer” or “Acquirers” means the entity or entities approved by the United States, in its sole discretion, to which Defendants divest any of the Divestiture Assets or with which Defendants, after approval by the United States in its sole discretion, have entered into definitive contracts to sell any of the Divestiture Assets. The word “Acquirer” in this Final Judgment may have both singular and plural meaning.
B. “Calpine” means Defendant Calpine Corporation, a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Houston, Texas, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
C. “Constellation” means Defendant Constellation Energy Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation with its headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
D. “CPN” means Defendant CPN CS Holdco Corp., a Delaware corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas and a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of Calpine. Calpine created CPN as a vehicle for its sale to Constellation.
E. “Divestiture Assets” means the ERCOT Divestiture Assets and the PJM Divestiture Assets.
F. “Divestiture Date” means each date on which the ERCOT Divestiture Assets or the PJM Divestiture Assets are divested to an Acquirer or Acquirers under this Final Judgment. There may be different Divestiture Dates for each of the ERCOT Divestiture Assets and each of the PJM Divestiture Assets.
G. “ERCOT” means the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc., 8000 Metropolis Drive, Building E, Suite 100, Austin, Texas 78744.
H. “ERCOT Divestiture Assets” means all of Defendants' rights, titles, and interests in and to all property and assets, tangible and intangible, wherever located, relating to or used in connection with the generation, dispatch, and offer of electricity from the ERCOT Divestiture Facilities, including:
1. the ERCOT Divestiture Facilities;
2. all other real property, including fee simple interests, real property leasehold interests and renewal rights thereto, improvements to real property, and options to purchase any adjoining or other property, together with all buildings, facilities, and other structures;
3. all tangible personal property, including fixed assets, machinery and manufacturing equipment, tools, vehicles, inventory, materials, office equipment and furniture, computer hardware, and supplies;
4. all contracts, contractual rights, and customer relationships, and all other agreements, commitments, and understandings, including supply agreements, teaming agreements, and leases, and all outstanding offers or solicitations to enter into a similar arrangement;
5. all contracts, contractual rights, or other agreements, commitments, and understandings relating to employment of Relevant Personnel who elect employment with an Acquirer pursuant to Paragraph IV.J within 180 calendar days of the Divestiture Date;
6. all licenses, permits, certifications, approvals, consents, registrations, waivers, and authorizations, including those issued or granted by any governmental organization, and all pending applications or renewals;
7. all equipment associated with connecting to ERCOT (including automatic generation control equipment);
8. all remote start capability or equipment;
9. all other interests, assets, or improvements;
10. all records and data, including (a) customer lists, accounts, sales, and credit records, (b) production, repair, maintenance, and performance records, (c) manuals and technical information Defendants provide to their own employees, customers, suppliers, agents, or licensees, (d) records and research data relating to historic and current research and development activities, including designs of experiments and the results of successful and unsuccessful designs and experiments, and (e) drawings, blueprints, and designs;
11. all intellectual property owned, licensed, or sublicensed, either as licensor or licensee, including (a) patents, patent applications, and inventions and discoveries that may be patentable, (b) registered and unregistered copyrights and copyright applications, and (c) registered and unregistered trademarks, trade dress, service marks, trade names, and trademark applications; and
12. all other intangible property, including (a) commercial names and d/b/a names, (b) technical information, (c) computer software and related documentation, know-how, trade secrets, design protocols, specifications for materials, specifications for parts, specifications for devices, safety procedures (
I. The “ERCOT Divestiture Facilities” means:
1. Jack A. Fusco Energy Center, a natural gas combined cycle plant, located at 3440 Lockwood Rd, Richmond, TX 77469, and its contents; and
2. Calpine's interest in the Gregory Power Plant, a natural gas combined cycle plant, located at 4633A TX-361, Gregory, TX 78359.
J. “Excluded Assets” means master parts and services agreements, master consulting or professional services agreements, master subscription and software licenses and any other assets, rights, or properties of Defendants that Defendants use on a corporate-wide basis, ERCOT-wide basis, or PJM-wide basis. Any asset, right, or property necessary for the Acquirer to operate a Divestiture Asset that is transferable within the Defendants' control and not otherwise reasonably available to the Acquirer is not an Excluded Asset. The United States, in its sole discretion, after consultation with Texas, will resolve any disagreement relating to which assets, rights, or properties are Excluded Assets.
K. “Good Utility Practice” means any of the applicable practices, methods and acts (a) required by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, North American Electric Reliability Council, Mid-Atlantic Area Council, PJM, ERCOT, or the successor of any of them, whether or not the party whose conduct is at issue is a member thereof, (b) required by applicable law or regulation, or (c) any of the practices, methods and acts which, in the exercise of reasonable judgment in the light of the facts known at the time the decision was made, could have been expected to accomplish the desired result at a reasonable cost consistent with good business practice, reliability, safety and expedition. “Good Utility Practice” is not intended to be limited to the optimum practice, method, or act to the exclusion of all others, but rather is intended to include acceptable practices, methods, or acts generally accepted in the region.
L. “Including” means including, but not limited to.
M. “Offer” or “Offers” means either (1) an offer to sell energy submitted into the PJM Market pursuant to the version of PJM “Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of PJM Interconnection, LLC,” available at
N. “PJM” means PJM Interconnection, LLC, 2750 Monroe Blvd., Audubon, Pennsylvania 19403.
O. “PJM Divestiture Assets” means all of Defendants' rights, titles, and interests in and to all property and assets, tangible and intangible, wherever located, relating to or used in connection with the generation, dispatch, and offer of electricity from the PJM Divestiture Facilities, including:
1. the PJM Divestiture Facilities;
2. all other real property, including fee simple interests, real property leasehold interests and renewal rights thereto, improvements to real property, and options to purchase any adjoining or other property, together with all buildings, facilities, and other structures;
3. all tangible personal property, including fixed assets, machinery and manufacturing equipment, tools, vehicles, inventory, materials, office equipment and furniture, computer hardware, and supplies;
4. all contracts, contractual rights, and customer relationships, and all other agreements, commitments, and understandings, including supply agreements, teaming agreements, and leases, and all outstanding offers or solicitations to enter into a similar arrangement;
5. all contracts, contractual rights, or other agreements, commitments, and understandings relating to employment of Relevant Personnel who elect employment with an Acquirer pursuant to Paragraph IV.J within 180 calendar days of the Divestiture Date;
6. all licenses, permits, certifications, approvals, consents, registrations, waivers, and authorizations, including those issued or granted by any governmental organization, and all pending applications or renewals;
7. all equipment associated with connecting to PJM (including automatic generation control equipment);
8. all remote start capability or equipment;
9. all other interests, assets, or improvements;
10. all records and data, including (a) customer lists, accounts, sales, and credit records, (b) production, repair, maintenance, and performance records, (c) manuals and technical information Defendants provide to their own employees, customers, suppliers, agents, or licensees, (d) records and research
11. all intellectual property owned, licensed, or sublicensed, either as licensor or licensee, including (a) patents, patent applications, and inventions and discoveries that may be patentable, (b) registered and unregistered copyrights and copyright applications, and (c) registered and unregistered trademarks, trade dress, service marks, trade names, and trademark applications; and
12. all other intangible property, including (a) commercial names and d/b/a names, (b) technical information, (c) computer software and related documentation, know-how, trade secrets, design protocols, specifications for materials, specifications for parts, specifications for devices, safety procedures (
Provided, however, that the PJM Divestiture Assets do not include any Excluded Assets.
P. “PJM Divestiture Facilities” means the following facilities and their contents:
1. Bethlehem Energy Center, a natural gas combined cycle plant, located at 2254 Applebutter Road, Bethlehem, PA 18015;
2. York 1 Energy Center, a dual-fuel combined cycle natural gas plant, located at 1055 Pikes Peak Road, Delta, PA 17314;
3. York 2 Energy Center, a dual-fuel combined cycle natural gas plant, located at 1597 Atom Road, Delta, PA 17314;
4. Hay Road Energy Center, a dual-fuel combined cycle natural gas plant, located at 198 Hay Road, Wilmington, DE 19809; and
5. Edge Moor Energy Center, a simple cycle natural gas plant, located at 200 Hay Road, Wilmington, DE 19809.
Q. “Regulatory Approvals” means (1) any approvals or clearances from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or any local, state, or other federal regulatory body that are required for the Transaction to proceed; and (2) any approvals or clearances from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or any local, state, or other federal regulatory body that are required for an Acquirer's acquisition of any Divestiture Asset to proceed.
R. “Relevant Personnel” means all full-time, part-time, or contract employees of Defendants, wherever located, who as of the date of filing this document with the Court are or have been stationed at or assigned to a specific Divestiture Asset and are involved in the operation of a Divestiture Asset, for the period between the date of the filing of this document and the Divestiture Date. The United States, in its sole discretion, will resolve any disagreement relating to which employees are Relevant Personnel.
S. “Transaction” means Constellation's acquisition of Calpine that is the subject of the “Agreement and Plan of Merger” between Constellation and Calpine dated January 10, 2025.
A. This Final Judgment applies to Constellation, Calpine, and CPN, as defined above, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any Defendant who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment.
B. If, prior to complying with Section IV and Section V of this Final Judgment, Defendants sell or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of their assets or of business units that include Divestiture Assets, Defendants must require any purchaser to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment. Defendants need not obtain such an agreement from Acquirers.
A. Defendants are ordered and directed to divest the Divestiture Assets in a manner consistent with this Final Judgment to an Acquirer or Acquirers acceptable to the United States, in its sole discretion, after consultation with Texas. Defendants must enter into a definitive contract or contracts for sale of the Divestiture Assets within 240 calendar days after consummation of the Transaction. The United States, in its sole discretion, may grant up to two thirty (30) day extensions of this time period, not to exceed sixty (60) calendar days in total, and will notify the Court in such circumstances. Defendants must seek Regulatory Approvals within five calendar days after the United States provides written notice pursuant to Paragraph VI.C. that it does not object to the proposed Acquirer or Acquirers. Defendants must divest the relevant Divestiture Assets no later than thirty (30) calendar days after receiving, for all of any Acquirer's Divestiture Assets, the last necessary Regulatory Approvals required for that Acquirer's Divestiture Assets. The United States, in its sole discretion, may grant up to one fifteen (15) day extension of this time period, and will notify the Court in such circumstances. For the avoidance of doubt, the deadlines set forth in this Paragraph apply independently to each set of Divestiture Assets (ERCOT Divestiture Assets and PJM Divestiture Assets), such that the timing of receipt of Regulatory Approvals required for divestiture of one set of Divestiture Assets does not provide a basis to delay the divestiture of the other set of Divestiture Assets. For the avoidance of doubt, the divestiture of assets to a particular Acquirer need only be completed once all relevant Regulatory Approvals have been received for all assets to be divested to that Acquirer.
B. For all contracts, agreements, and customer relationships (or portions of such contracts, agreements, and customer relationships) included in the Divestiture Assets, Defendants must assign or otherwise transfer all contracts, agreements, and customer relationships to Acquirer or Acquirers within the deadlines for divestiture set forth in Paragraph IV.A;
C. Defendants must use best efforts to divest the Divestiture Assets as expeditiously as possible. Defendants must take no action that would jeopardize the completion of the divestitures ordered by the Court, including any action to impede the permitting, operation, or divestiture of the Divestiture Assets.
D. Unless the United States otherwise consents in writing, the divestitures pursuant to this Final Judgment must include the entire Divestiture Assets and must be accomplished in such a way as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, after consultation with Texas, that the Divestiture Assets can and will be used by Acquirer or Acquirers as part of a viable, ongoing business of electric generation services and that divestiture to Acquirer or Acquirers will remedy the competitive harm alleged in the Complaint.
E. The divestitures must be made to one or more Acquirers that, in the United States' sole judgment, after consultation with Texas, have the intent and capability, including the necessary managerial, operational, technical, and financial capability, to compete
F. The divestitures must be accomplished in a manner that satisfies the United States, in its sole discretion, after consultation with Texas, that none of the terms of any agreement between an Acquirer and Defendants give Defendants the ability unreasonably to raise an Acquirer's costs, to lower an Acquirer's efficiency, or otherwise interfere in the ability of an Acquirer to compete effectively in the provision of electric generation services.
G. Divestiture of the Divestiture Assets may be made to one or more Acquirers, provided that it is demonstrated to the sole satisfaction of the United States, after consultation with Texas, that the criteria required by Paragraphs IV.D., IV.E., and IV.F. will still be met.
H. In accomplishing the divestitures ordered by this Final Judgment, Defendants promptly must make known, by usual and customary means, the availability of the Divestiture Assets, except that, for Calpine's interest in the Gregory Power Plant, such notice of availability will be subject to any third-party rights under the existing partnership agreements relating to the Gregory Power Plant. Defendants must inform any person making an inquiry relating to a possible purchase of the Divestiture Assets that the Divestiture Assets are being divested in accordance with this Final Judgment and must provide that person with a copy of this Final Judgment. Defendants must offer to furnish to all prospective Acquirers, subject to customary confidentiality assurances, all information and documents relating to the Divestiture Assets that are customarily provided in a due diligence process;
I. Defendants must provide prospective Acquirers with (1) access to make inspections of the Divestiture Assets; (2) access to all environmental, zoning, and other permitting documents and information relating to the Divestiture Assets; and (3) access to all financial, operational, or other documents and information relating to the Divestiture Assets that would customarily be provided as part of a due diligence process. Defendants also must disclose all encumbrances on any part of the Divestiture Assets, including on intangible property.
J. Defendants must cooperate with and assist any Acquirer in identifying and, at the option of Acquirer, hiring all Relevant Personnel, including:
1. Within 10 business days following receipt of a request by an Acquirer or a Plaintiff, Defendants must identify all Relevant Personnel to the requesting Acquirer and the Plaintiffs, including by providing organization charts covering all Relevant Personnel.
2. Within 10 business days following receipt of a request by an Acquirer or a Plaintiff, Defendants must provide to the requesting Acquirer and Plaintiffs additional information relating to Relevant Personnel, including name, job title, reporting relationships, past experience, responsibilities, training and educational histories, relevant certifications, and job performance evaluations. Defendants must also provide to a requesting Acquirer and Plaintiffs information relating to current and accrued compensation and benefits of Relevant Personnel, including most recent bonuses paid, aggregate annual compensation, current target or guaranteed bonus, if any, any retention agreement or incentives, and any other payments due, compensation or benefits accrued, or promises made to the Relevant Personnel. If Defendants are barred by any applicable law from providing any of this information, Defendants must provide, within 10 business days following receipt of the request, the requested information to the full extent permitted by law and also must provide a written explanation of Defendants' inability to provide the remaining information, including specifically identifying the provisions of the applicable laws.
3. At the request of an Acquirer, Defendants must promptly make Relevant Personnel available for private interviews with the requesting Acquirer during normal business hours at a mutually agreeable location.
4. Defendants must not interfere with any effort by an Acquirer to employ any Relevant Personnel. Interference includes offering to increase the compensation or improve the benefits of Relevant Personnel at any time after the date of the filing of this document, unless (a) the offer is part of an annual compensation increase or improvement in benefits pursuant to the Defendants' compensation and benefit programs existing as of December 1, 2025, (b) the offer is part of a tenure-based, automatic increase in compensation or improvement in benefits, (c) the offer is otherwise required pursuant to the terms of collective bargaining agreements relating to the Divested Assets, (d) the offer is consistent with the terms of the Asset Preservation and Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, or (e) the offer is approved by the United States in its sole discretion. Defendants' obligations under this Paragraph IV.J.4. will expire 150 calendar days after the Divestiture Date for the relevant Divestiture Assets.
5. For Relevant Personnel who elect employment with an Acquirer within 150 calendar days of the Divestiture Date for the relevant Divestiture Assets, Defendants must waive all non-compete and non-disclosure agreements; vest and pay to the Relevant Personnel (or to Acquirer for payment to the employee) on a prorated basis any bonuses, incentives, other salary, benefits, or other compensation fully or partially accrued at the time of the transfer of the employee to Acquirer; vest any unvested pension and other equity rights; and provide all other benefits that those Relevant Personnel otherwise would have been provided had the Relevant Personnel continued employment with Defendants, including any retention bonuses or payments. Defendants may maintain reasonable restrictions on disclosure by Relevant Personnel of Defendants' proprietary non-public information that is unrelated to the Divestiture Assets and not otherwise required to be disclosed by this Final Judgment.
K. Defendants must warrant to any Acquirer that (1) the Divestiture Assets to be divested to that Acquirer will be operational and without material defect on the date of their transfer to the Acquirer; (2) the Divestiture Assets to be divested to that Acquirer will be consistent with Good Utility Practice, subject to legal or regulatory restrictions on any of the Divestiture Assets in existence on the date of sale; (3) there are no material defects in the environmental, zoning, or other permits relating to the operation of the Divestiture Assets to be divested to that Acquirer; and (4) Defendants have disclosed all material encumbrances on any part of the Divestiture Assets to be divested to that Acquirer, including on intangible property. Following the sale of any Divestiture Assets, Defendants must not undertake, directly or indirectly, challenges to the environmental, zoning, or other permits relating to the operation of those Divestiture Assets.
L. Defendants must use best efforts to assist the Acquirer or Acquirers to obtain all necessary licenses,
M. If any term of an agreement between Defendants and an Acquirer, including an agreement to effectuate any of the divestitures required by this Final Judgment, varies from a term of this Final Judgment, to the extent that Defendants cannot fully comply with both, this Final Judgment determines Defendants' obligations.
A. If Defendants have not divested all of the Divestiture Assets within the period specified in Paragraph IV.A., Defendants must immediately notify Plaintiffs of that fact in writing. Upon application of the United States, which Defendants may not oppose, the Court will appoint a divestiture trustee selected by the United States and approved by the Court to effect the divestiture of any of the Divestiture Assets that have not been sold during the time periods specified in Paragraph IV.A.
B. After the appointment of a divestiture trustee by the Court, only the divestiture trustee will have the right to sell those Divestiture Assets that the divestiture trustee has been appointed to sell. The divestiture trustee will have the power and authority to accomplish the divestitures to an Acquirer or Acquirers acceptable to the United States, in its sole discretion, after consultation with Texas, at a price and on terms obtainable through reasonable effort by the divestiture trustee, subject to the provisions of Sections IV, V, and VI of this Final Judgment, and will have other powers as the Court deems appropriate. The divestiture trustee must sell the Divestiture Assets as quickly as possible.
C. Defendants may not object to a sale by the divestiture trustee on any ground other than malfeasance by the divestiture trustee. Objections by Defendants must be conveyed in writing to the United States and the divestiture trustee within 10 calendar days after the divestiture trustee has provided the notice of proposed divestiture required by Section VI.
D. The divestiture trustee will serve at the cost and expense of Defendants pursuant to a written agreement, on terms and conditions, including confidentiality requirements and conflict of interest certifications, approved by the United States in its sole discretion.
E. The divestiture trustee may hire at the cost and expense of Defendants any agents or consultants, including investment bankers, attorneys, and accountants, that are reasonably necessary in the divestiture trustee's judgment to assist with the divestiture trustee's duties. These agents or consultants will be accountable solely to the divestiture trustee and will serve on terms and conditions, including confidentiality requirements and conflict-of-interest certifications, approved by the United States in its sole discretion.
F. The compensation of the divestiture trustee and agents or consultants hired by the divestiture trustee must be reasonable in light of the value of the Divestiture Assets and based on a fee arrangement that provides the divestiture trustee with incentives based on the price and terms of the divestiture and the speed with which it is accomplished. If the divestiture trustee and Defendants are unable to reach agreement on the divestiture trustee's compensation or other terms and conditions of engagement within 14 calendar days of the appointment of the divestiture trustee by the Court, the United States, in its sole discretion, may take appropriate action, including by making a recommendation to the Court. Within three business days of hiring an agent or consultant, the divestiture trustee must provide written notice of the hiring and rate of compensation to Defendants and the United States.
G. The divestiture trustee must account for all monies derived from the sale of the Divestiture Assets by the divestiture trustee and all costs and expenses incurred. Within 30 calendar days of the Divestiture Date, the divestiture trustee must submit that accounting to the Court for approval. After approval by the Court of the divestiture trustee's accounting, including fees for unpaid services and those of agents or consultants hired by the divestiture trustee, all remaining money must be paid to Defendants, and the trust will then be terminated.
H. Defendants must use best efforts to assist the divestiture trustee to accomplish the required divestitures, including best efforts to obtain all necessary Regulatory Approvals. Subject to reasonable protection for trade secrets, other confidential research, development, or commercial information, or any applicable privileges, Defendants must provide the divestiture trustee and agents or consultants retained by the divestiture trustee with full and complete access to all personnel, books, records, and facilities of the Divestiture Assets. Defendants also must provide or develop financial and other information relevant to the Divestiture Assets that the divestiture trustee may reasonably request. Defendants must not take any action to interfere with or to impede the divestiture trustee's accomplishment of the divestitures.
I. The divestiture trustee must maintain complete records of all efforts made to sell the Divestiture Assets, including by providing monthly reports to the Plaintiffs setting forth the divestiture trustee's efforts to accomplish the divestitures ordered by this Final Judgment. The reports must include the name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding month, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring any interest in the Divestiture Assets and must describe in detail each contact.
J. If the divestiture trustee has not accomplished the divestitures ordered by this Final Judgment within 180 calendar days of appointment, the divestiture trustee must promptly provide Plaintiffs with a report setting forth: (1) the divestiture trustee's efforts to accomplish the required divestitures; (2) the reasons, in the divestiture trustee's judgment, why the required divestitures have not been accomplished; and (3) the divestiture trustee's recommendations for completing the divestitures. Following receipt of that report, the United States may make additional recommendations to the Court. The Court thereafter may enter such orders as it deems appropriate to carry out the purpose of this Final Judgment, which may include extending the trust and the term of the divestiture trustee's appointment by a period requested by the United States.
K. The divestiture trustee will serve until divestiture of all Divestiture Assets is completed or for a term otherwise ordered by the Court.
L. If the United States determines that the divestiture trustee is not acting diligently or in a reasonably cost-effective manner, the United States may recommend that the Court appoint a substitute divestiture trustee.
A. Within two business days following execution of a definitive agreement to divest the Divestiture Assets, Defendants or the divestiture trustee, whichever is then responsible for effecting the divestitures, must
B. After receipt of the notice required by Paragraph VI.A., the United States, after consultation with Texas, may make one or more requests to Defendants or the divestiture trustee for additional information concerning the proposed divestiture, the proposed Acquirers, and other prospective Acquirers. Defendants and the divestiture trustee must furnish any additional information requested within 15 calendar days of the receipt of each request unless the United States provides written agreement to a different period.
C. Within 45 calendar days after receipt of the notice required by Paragraph VI.A or within 20 calendar days after the United States has been provided the additional information requested pursuant to Paragraph VI.B, whichever is later, the United States will provide written notice to Defendants and any divestiture trustee that states whether the United States, in its sole discretion, after consultation with Texas, objects to the proposed Acquirers or any other aspect of the proposed divestitures. Without written notice that the United States does not object, a divestiture may not be consummated. If the United States provides written notice that it does not object, the divestiture may be consummated, subject only to Defendants' limited right to object to the sale under Paragraph V.C. of this Final Judgment. Upon objection by Defendants pursuant to Paragraph V.C., a divestiture by the divestiture trustee may not be consummated unless approved by the Court.
Defendants may not finance all or any part of any Acquirer's purchase of all or part of the Divestiture Assets.
Defendants must take all steps necessary to comply with the Asset Preservation and Hold Separate Stipulation and Order entered by the Court.
A. Within 20 calendar days of entry of the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order in this matter, and every 30 calendar days thereafter until all divestitures required by this Final Judgment have been completed, each Defendant must deliver to Plaintiffs an affidavit, signed by each Defendant's Chief Financial Officer and General Counsel, describing in reasonable detail the fact and manner of that Defendant's compliance with this Final Judgment. The United States, in its sole discretion, may approve different signatories for the affidavits.
B. Each affidavit required by Paragraph IX.A. must include: (1) the name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding 30 calendar days, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring, an interest in the Divestiture Assets and describe in detail each contact with such persons during that period; (2) a description of the efforts Defendants have taken to solicit buyers for and complete the sale of the Divestiture Assets and to provide required information to prospective Acquirers; and (3) a description of any limitations placed by Defendants on information provided to prospective Acquirers. Objection by the United States to information provided by Defendants to prospective Acquirers must be made within 14 calendar days of receipt of the affidavit, except that the United States may object at any time if the information set forth in the affidavit is not true or complete.
C. Defendants must keep all records of any efforts made to divest the Divestiture Assets until one year after the Divestiture Date.
D. Within 20 calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, each Defendant must deliver to Plaintiffs an affidavit signed by each Defendant's Chief Financial Officer and General Counsel that describes in reasonable detail all actions that Defendant has taken and all steps that Defendant has implemented on an ongoing basis to comply with Section VIII of this Final Judgment. The United States, in its sole discretion, may approve different signatories for the affidavits.
E. If a Defendant makes any changes to actions and steps described in affidavits provided pursuant to Paragraph IX.A, the Defendant must, within 15 calendar days after any change is implemented, deliver to Plaintiffs an affidavit describing those changes.
F. Defendants must keep all records of any efforts made to comply with Section IX until one year after the Divestiture Date.
A. For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Final Judgment or of related orders such as the Asset Preservation and Hold Separate Stipulation and Order or of determining whether this Final Judgment should be modified or vacated, upon written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division and reasonable notice to Defendants, Defendants must permit, from time to time and subject to legally recognized privileges, authorized representatives, including agents retained by the United States:
1. to have access during Defendants' office hours to inspect and copy, or at the option of the United States, to require Defendants to provide electronic copies of all books, ledgers, accounts, records, data, and documents, wherever located, in the possession, custody, or control of Defendants relating to any matters contained in this Final Judgment; and
2. to interview, either informally or on the record, Defendants' officers, employees, or agents, wherever located, who may have their individual counsel present, relating to any matters contained in this Final Judgment. The interviews must be subject to the reasonable convenience of the interviewee and without restraint or interference by Defendants.
B. Upon the written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, Defendants must submit written reports or respond to written interrogatories, under oath if requested, relating to any matters contained in this Final Judgment.
Defendants may not reacquire any part of or any interest in the Divestiture Assets during the term of this Final Judgment without prior written authorization of the United States.
A. No information or documents obtained pursuant to any provision in this Final Judgment may be divulged by Plaintiffs to any person other than an authorized representative of the executive branch of the United States or an authorized representative of Texas, except in the course of legal proceedings
B. In the event of a request by a third party, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, or similar state disclosure laws, for disclosure of information obtained pursuant to any provision of this Final Judgment, the United States will act in accordance with that statute and the Department of Justice regulations at 28 CFR part 16, including the provision on confidential commercial information at 28 CFR 16.7, and Texas will act in accordance with its applicable disclosure laws. Defendants submitting information to the Antitrust Division or Texas should designate the confidential commercial information portions of all applicable documents and information under 28 CFR 16.7 or the relevant state statute. Designations of confidentiality under 28 CFR part 16 expire 10 years after submission, “unless the submitter requests and provides justification for a longer designation period.”
C. If at the time that Defendants furnish information or documents to the United States or Texas pursuant to any provision of this Final Judgment, Defendants represent and identify in writing information or documents for which a claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Defendants mark each pertinent page of such material, “Subject to claim of protection under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” the United States and Texas must give Defendants 10 calendar days' notice before divulging the material in any legal proceeding (other than a grand jury proceeding).
The Court retains jurisdiction to enable any party to this Final Judgment to apply to the Court at any time for further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe this Final Judgment, to modify any of its provisions, to enforce compliance, and to punish violations of its provisions.
A. The United States and Texas retain and reserve all rights to enforce the provisions of this Final Judgment, including the right to seek an order of contempt from the Court. In a civil contempt action, a motion to show cause, or a similar action brought by the United States or Texas relating to an alleged violation of this Final Judgment, the United States or Texas may establish a violation of this Final Judgment and the appropriateness of a remedy therefor by a preponderance of the evidence, and Defendants waive any argument that a different standard of proof should apply.
B. This Final Judgment should be interpreted to give full effect to the procompetitive purposes of the antitrust laws and to restore the competition the Plaintiffs allege was harmed by the challenged conduct. Defendants may be held in contempt of, and the Court may enforce, any provision of this Final Judgment that, as interpreted by the Court in light of these procompetitive principles and applying ordinary tools of interpretation, is stated specifically and in reasonable detail, whether or not it is clear and unambiguous on its face. In any such interpretation, the terms of this Final Judgment should not be construed against either party as the drafter.
C. In an enforcement proceeding in which the Court finds that Defendants have violated this Final Judgment, the United States may apply to the Court for an extension of this Final Judgment, together with other relief that may be appropriate. In connection with a successful effort by the United States or Texas to enforce this Final Judgment against a Defendant, whether litigated or resolved before litigation, Defendant must reimburse the United States and Texas for the fees and expenses of their attorneys, as well as all other costs including experts' fees, incurred in connection with that effort to enforce this Final Judgment, including in the investigation of the potential violation.
D. For a period of four years following the expiration of this Final Judgment, if the United States has evidence that a Defendant violated this Final Judgment before it expired, the United States, may file an action against that Defendant in this Court requesting that the Court order: (1) Defendant to comply with the terms of this Final Judgment for an additional term of at least four years following the filing of the enforcement action; (2) all appropriate contempt remedies; (3) additional relief needed to ensure the Defendant complies with the terms of this Final Judgment; and (4) fees or expenses as called for by this Section XIV.
Unless the Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment will expire 10 years from the date of its entry, except that after five years from the date of its entry, this Final Judgment may be terminated upon notice by the United States to the Court, Defendants, and Texas that the divestitures have been completed and continuation of this Final Judgment is no longer necessary or in the public interest.
Entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest. The parties have complied with the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16, including by making available to the public copies of this Final Judgment and the Competitive Impact Statement, public comments thereon, and any response to comments by the United States. Based upon the record before the Court, which includes the Competitive Impact Statement and, if applicable, any comments and response to comments filed with the Court, entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest.
In accordance with the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h) (the “APPA” or “Tunney Act”), the United States of America files this Competitive Impact Statement related to the proposed Final Judgment filed in this civil antitrust proceeding.
On January 10, 2025, Constellation Energy Corporation (“Constellation”) announced its agreement to acquire Calpine Corporation (“Calpine”) for a net purchase price of $26.6 billion (the “Acquisition”), a transaction that would create the largest wholesale electricity generating company in the United States. The United States and the State of Texas (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), filed a civil antitrust Complaint on December 5, 2025, seeking to enjoin the Acquisition.
The Complaint alleges that the likely effect of this Acquisition would be to substantially lessen competition for wholesale electricity in two relevant geographic markets in violation of
Concurrent with filing the Complaint, the United States filed a proposed Final Judgment
Under the proposed Final Judgment, which is explained more fully below, Constellation, Calpine, and CPN CS Holdco Corp. (collectively the “Defendants”) are required to divest the Calpine electric generating facilities listed below.
• Jack A. Fusco Energy Center, located southwest of the city of Houston, Texas (“Jack A. Fusco”); and
• Calpine's minority ownership interest in the Gregory Energy Center, located northeast of the city of Corpus Christi, Texas (“Gregory”).
• Bethlehem Energy Center, located in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (“Bethlehem”);
• Edge Moor Energy Center, located in Wilmington, Delaware (“Edge Moor”);
• Hay Road Energy Center, located in Wilmington, Delaware (“Hay Road”); and
• York Energy Center (York 1 and York 2), located southeast of the city of York, Pennsylvania (“York”).
The Stipulation and Order requires the Defendants to take certain steps to operate, preserve, and maintain the full economic viability, marketability, and competitiveness of the assets that must be divested pending entry of the proposed Final Judgment by this Court. Plant management and operations of the assets to be divested must be held entirely separate, distinct, and apart from Defendants' other operations.
For the four PJM electric generating facilities the Defendants must divest, the Stipulation and Order requires the Defendants to submit offers into the PJM day-ahead auction market, described in detail at Section II.B.2 below, at a price not greater than its costs. For each of these facilities, the Defendants must submit offers to this market at cost or lower, unless unable to do so due to an outage, as defined in the Stipulation and Order. In the event of an outage, the Defendants must submit offers for all output that is unaffected by the outage. Similarly, for Jack A. Fusco, the Defendants must submit offers into ERCOT's day-ahead auction, described in detail at Section II.B.2 below, at a price not greater than its costs in accordance with the physical characteristics of the applicable units unless unable to do so due to an outage or because ERCOT has issued an Advanced Action Notice or Weather Watch as specified in the Stipulation and Order. In the event of an outage, ERCOT Advanced Action Notice, or ERCOT Weather Watch, the Defendants must submit offers for all output that is unaffected by the outage, ERCOT Advanced Action Notice, or ERCOT Weather Watch. The Stipulation and Order prohibits the Defendants from participating in the formulation, determination, or direction of the strategy for Gregory's offers into the ERCOT auction markets.
The purpose of these terms in the Stipulation and Order is to ensure that competition is maintained during the pendency of the required divestiture of the six Calpine electric generating facilities listed above.
The Plaintiffs and Defendants have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with the APPA. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment will terminate this action, except that the Court will retain jurisdiction to construe, modify, or enforce the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment and to punish violations thereof.
Constellation is a publicly held Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland. The company is one of the largest competitive electric generation companies in the nation, as measured by owned and contracted megawatts, generating $23.6 billion in revenue in 2024. Constellation controls approximately 5,000 megawatts (MW) of electric generation capacity in ERCOT and over 20,000 MW in PJM. For context, one MW serves between 800 to 1,000 homes.
Calpine is a privately held Delaware corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas. Calpine is the largest generator of electricity from natural gas and geothermal resources in the United States. Calpine's power plants collectively have the capacity to generate approximately 9,000 MW of electricity in ERCOT, making it the third-largest electricity generation supplier in the state. In PJM, Calpine owns or exercises control over 14 total plants. These plants collectively provide more than 5,000 MW of capacity.
Defendant CPN CS Holdco Corp. (“Holdco”) is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas. It is a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Calpine that was created to serve as a vehicle for Calpine's sale to Constellation.
Pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated January 10, 2025, Defendant Constellation proposes to acquire Defendant Calpine for a net purchase price of $26.6 billion.
The Complaint alleges that the Acquisition would result in likely anticompetitive effects in the markets for wholesale electricity in ERCOT and PJM's Coastal Mid-Atlantic area.
Generating companies such as Constellation and Calpine own power plants that produce electricity. Electric utilities and retail providers purchase that electricity from the generating companies and resell it to their end customers, such as households and businesses.
Power plants, which often contain several individual generating units, transform fuel or renewable resources
The cost to operate generating units varies considerably, based primarily on the cost of fuel and the efficiency of converting that fuel into electricity:
•
•
•
•
Electricity generated at a plant is transported via an extensive set of interconnected high voltage lines and equipment, known as the transmission grid, to lower voltage distribution lines that relay electricity to businesses and consumers in their homes. Operators, such as ERCOT and PJM, monitor the transmission grid closely to prevent too little or too much electricity from flowing over the grid, either of which can risk widespread blackouts through damage to the lines, equipment, or generating units connected to the grid. To avoid damage and service interruptions, grid operators manage the grid to prevent additional electricity from flowing over a transmission line as it approaches its operating limit (a “transmission constraint”).
ERCOT and PJM each oversees two auctions that set the wholesale electricity price in their respective areas. These auctions are the primary means by which electricity generators compete to supply electricity in ERCOT and PJM and drive the price consumers ultimately pay for it.
The first auction is called the “day-ahead auction.” Each generator offering electricity in the day-ahead market submits an individual offer for each of its participating generating units indicating the amount of electricity the unit is willing to sell each hour of the following day and the price at which it is willing to sell. Similarly, each buyer typically submits a bid identifying the amount of electricity that the buyer expects to need for each hour of the following day. ERCOT and PJM will take each of the bids and offers, add them up, and determine how much electricity will be demanded each hour.
ERCOT and PJM will then “dispatch” generating units to meet each hour's demand. Subject to the physical limitations of their transmission grids, ERCOT and PJM will call on individual units to operate in “merit” order, meaning that each will begin by accepting the least-expensive offer and thereafter, accept offers from units at progressively higher prices until the needs for each hour of the next day are met. The price offered by the last unit to be accepted to meet demand for an individual hour sets the clearing price for that hour. All other units whose offers also have been accepted for that individual hour receive the price of that highest cost unit, regardless of their individual offer price (or their units' costs). Thus, a generator may be paid a higher clearing price than its own offer price if electricity from additional, higher-priced generating units is needed to meet demand.
The second auction is a “real-time” auction that operates functionally in the same way. However, it clears the same day the electricity is required and reconciles the results of the day-ahead auctions with actual supply and demand. In the real-time auctions, ERCOT and PJM set prices for each five-minute interval of the day rather than each hour as in the day-ahead auction.
As alleged in the complaint, wholesale electricity is a relevant product for evaluating the competitive impact of the Acquisition. Each hourly increment in which wholesale electricity is sold in ERCOT's or PJM's “day-ahead” auction and each five-minute increment in the ERCOT or PJM “real-time” auctions is a separate relevant product market. This is because electricity in one time period is not a substitute for electricity in another time period. While supply and demand for wholesale electricity varies in different periods, both auctions share a common feature: in the event of a small but significant non-transitory increase in the price of wholesale electricity at relevant times, not enough purchasers are likely to switch away from wholesale electricity to make that increase unprofitable. Additionally, in the event of a small but significant non-transitory increase in the price of wholesale electricity within an hourly or five-minute time period, not enough purchasers would switch to consuming wholesale electricity in a different time period to make that price increase unprofitable. This means that each of these specific auction time periods is a relevant product market and a “line of commerce” within the meaning of Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
Although each of these specific time periods is a relevant product market, they can be aggregated into a “cluster market” for analytical convenience for considering whether the Acquisition violates the antitrust laws. For example, all 24 hours in a single day in either PJM or ERCOT's “day-ahead” auction could be aggregated into one market, as could all five-minute intervals in a single hour in PJM or ERCOT's “real-time” auction.
At times, transmission constraints within power grids limit the free flow of electricity across a geographic region. Energy produced on one side of a constraint cannot easily flow to the other side of the constraint once the transfer limit has been reached. Transmission constraints can affect electricity flow within ERCOT and PJM to varying degrees with PJM, in particular, impacted. When constraints arise, PJM cannot dispatch generating units in merit order if doing so would overload a transmission constraint, a concept called “congestion.” To avoid congestion while still satisfying demand, PJM must call on higher-priced units that, given their grid location, do not overload the transmission constraint. When this happens, prices are lower on one side of the constraint and higher on the other side.
The Complaint alleges that the PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic geographic area is a relevant geographic market for evaluating the potential competitive
PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic is affected by Nottingham, a major transmission constraint located near the Maryland-Pennsylvania border that divides PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic from the rest of the PJM region. Generators within PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic frequently sell electricity into other areas to the west and south. However, when transmission lines are constrained, the amount of electricity that generators within PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic can sell outside of the area is limited. As a result, electricity prices in PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic often differ from other areas within the PJM region.
When Nottingham is constrained, purchasers of wholesale electricity for use in PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic have limited capability to turn to generation outside of PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic. At such times, the amount of electricity that purchasers could obtain from generators outside PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic is insufficient to deter generators located in PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic from imposing a small but significant non-transitory price increase. Thus, PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic is a relevant geographic market and a “section of the country” within the meaning of Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
The Complaint also alleges that the entire ERCOT region is a relevant geographic market for evaluating the potential competitive impact of the Acquisition. The ERCOT grid experiences very little congestion. In the event of a small but significant non-transitory increase in the price of wholesale electricity within ERCOT, not enough purchasers in the ERCOT region are likely to switch to purchasing from regions outside ERCOT to make that increase unprofitable. At its annual peak, the electricity in demand in ERCOT exceeds 85,000 MW. ERCOT's connections to Mexico's grid and to the Southwest Power Pool grid, which collectively can for approximately 1,200 MW of electricity to flow into ERCOT. The volume of these power flows is insufficient to prevent generators from imposing a small but significant non-transitory price increase within ERCOT. Thus, the region covered by ERCOT is a relevant geographic market and a “section of the country” within the meaning of Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
As alleged in the Complaint, the Acquisition risks substantially lessening competition in the ERCOT and PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic wholesale electricity markets. The combination of Constellation and Calpine's electricity generating units serving ERCOT and PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic would eliminate competition between them and enhance Constellation's post-Acquisition ability and incentive to withhold electricity to raise wholesale electricity price anticompetitively in those markets.
Under certain circumstances, a wholesale electricity generator, such as Constellation or Calpine, may profitably withhold electricity, leading to increased wholesale electricity prices. An operator of a generating unit may withhold capacity in several ways, including by submitting high offers for some of its higher-cost units into the day-ahead or real-time auctions so that its units are not dispatched. If a unit is withheld from an auction, then a higher-priced unit may need to take the place of the withheld capacity because the units are dispatched in merit order, that is from the lowest-priced unit to the highest until demand matches supply. Thus, withholding a unit (or units) can lead to a higher market-clearing price because the withheld units force ERCOT or PJM to accept higher-priced offers from units that end up setting the market clearing price. All accepted units are paid the identical price regardless of the unit's offer price or its operating cost. Withholding can be profitable for generating companies that offer multiple units into an auction. For example, a generator might have four units accepted and a fifth higher-cost unit that, if accepted, would be one of the last units needed to meet demand and thus affect the market clearing price. If that fifth unit were withheld, then ERCOT or PJM would be required to accept an even higher-priced unit, thereby increasing the market-clearing price that would benefit the generator's four other units which had been accepted. In this example, withholding the fifth unit would be profitable for the generator if it increases the market-clearing price such that increased profits from the four dispatched units attributable to that price increase exceed the lost profits that would have been earned by the fifth unit if it were offered into the market at the lower market-clearing price. This type of electricity withholding is well established in a large body of theoretical and empirical literature in economics, public policy, and electricity markets analysis.
The risk that an electricity generator such as Constellation or Calpine may profitably withhold depends in part on the generator's asset mix. A profitable withholding strategy typically requires a combination of units that confer the ability to withhold and relatively low-cost units that provide an incentive to withhold. Units that provide an incentive to withhold typically are relatively low cost and operate consistently throughout the day and across all seasons of the year. As the Complaint describes, baseload units, such as nuclear plants and some coal-fired steam turbine units, are low cost and consistently operating. Because these types of units run frequently and at operating costs lower than the market-clearing price, they benefit from the higher prices and provide a significant incentive for their owner to withhold another, higher-cost generating asset.
These higher-cost units provide the ability to raise the market-clearing price. As the Complaint describes, peaking units, such as oil- and gas-fired combustion turbine or internal combustion units, are among the highest-cost electricity generators. Peaking units are also relatively easy to turn on and shut off and typically operate during high-demand periods, often setting the market-clearing price. Mid-merit units, including combined-cycle natural gas units and some coal steam turbines, often possess similar characteristics. As the Complaint describes, such units can typically be turned on and off or adjust their output more rapidly than baseload units. Although they are typically lower cost than peaking units, mid-merit units set the market-clearing price during periods of lower demand. This means that an owner of a peaking or mid-merit unit can raise the market-clearing price by withholding the unit. Withholding a unit is profitable to the extent that the company also owns enough low-cost units that confer incentive to at least recoup the profit foregone by withholding the unit that confers the withholding ability.
The Acquisition would likely enhance Constellation's ability and incentive to withhold electricity to raise prices in ERCOT and PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic by giving Constellation a broader portfolio of units and a richer mix of assets. This combination of assets would enable Constellation to profitably
As the Complaint alleges, through the Acquisition, Constellation is increasing its share of mid-merit and peaking units serving PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic. The acquisition of mid-merit and peaking units would give Constellation an enhanced ability to profitably withhold in that market. The additional revenues received by Constellation's lower-cost generation units, including its nuclear plants, because of anticompetitively higher prices in PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic would more than compensate for the lost profits from the generating unit(s) withheld.
Similarly, in ERCOT, the Complaint alleges that after the Acquisition, Constellation would control more than 12% of ERCOT's generating capacity, and over 20% of the natural gas generation units in ERCOT that often set the clearing price. As the Complaint alleges, natural gas units set the market-clearing price in ERCOT the majority of the time, making them particularly valuable in Texas, where the electricity grid relies on gas to complement and support its increasing use of intermittent renewable resources such as sun and wind to generate electricity. Thus, the Acquisition would confer on Constellation an enhanced ability to profitably withhold. The additional revenues received by Constellation's lower-cost generating units because of anticompetitively higher market-wide prices would frequently more than compensate for the lost profits from the generating unit(s) withheld.
Entry of additional generation into either the PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic market or ERCOT market is unlikely to be timely or sufficient in deterring or counteracting the competitive harm that may result from the Acquisition. Expansion by existing generators in those markets is similarly unlikely to occur in a sufficient and timely fashion to prevent such harm. Wholesale electricity markets feature high barriers to entry and expansion. Among those barriers, building new generation capacity in either the ERCOT and PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic regions requires significant capital investment in generating equipment, infrastructure, and technology, and generally takes many years, considering the necessary environmental, safety, zoning, and regulatory approvals. Furthermore, the anticipated increase in electricity demand (
The relief required by the proposed Final Judgment will remedy the loss of competition alleged in the Complaint by establishing one or more independent and economically viable competitors in the ERCOT and PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic wholesale electricity markets.
Paragraph IV.A of the proposed Final Judgment requires Defendants, within 240 calendar days after consummation of the Acquisition, to enter into a definitive contract or contracts to divest two sets of assets to an acquirer or acquirers acceptable to the United States. Allowing Defendants a 240-day period will help ensure that the transition of generation assets to an acquirer or acquirors will not occur during peak summer months.
Defendants must divest the “ERCOT Divestiture Assets” as that term is defined in Paragraph II.H of the proposed Final Judgment. The ERCOT Divestiture Assets include Calpine's Jack A. Fusco plant and Calpine's ownership interest in the Gregory plant, including all of Defendants' rights, titles, and interests in and to all property and assets, tangible and intangible, relating to or used in connection with the plants' generation, dispatch, and offer of electricity from these plants.
Defendants must also divest the “PJM Divestiture Assets” as that term is defined in Paragraph II.O of the proposed Final Judgment. The PJM Divestiture Assets include Calpine's Bethlehem, York, Hay Road, and Edge Moor plants, including all of Defendants' rights, titles, and interests in and to all property and assets, tangible and intangible, relating to or used in connection with the plants' generation, dispatch, and offer of electricity in PJM.
Defendants are responsible for divesting to an acquirer or acquirers acceptable to the United States in its sole discretion. The assets must be divested in such a way as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, that the assets can and will be operated by an acquirer or acquirers as a viable, ongoing business that can compete effectively in the ERCOT and PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic markets. Defendants must take all reasonable steps necessary to accomplish the divestitures quickly and must cooperate with any acquirer.
Calpine's two ERCOT plants to be divested as part of the ERCOT Divestiture Assets are Jack A. Fusco and Gregory. Jack A. Fusco is a 557 MW combined-cycle natural gas facility located in Richmond, Texas. Gregory is a 365 MW combined-cycle natural gas facility located in Gregory, Texas. Calpine owns approximately 28.5% of Gregory.
Calpine's four PJM Coastal Mid-Atlantic plants to be divested as part of the PJM Divestiture Assets are Bethlehem, York, Hay Road, and Edge Moor. Bethlehem is a 1,134 MW natural gas-fired combined cycle plant located in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. It began commercial operations in 2003. York comprises two generating units, known as York 1 and York 2. York 1 is a 569 MW natural gas-fired combined-cycle unit. It began operations in 2011. York 2 is an 828 MW natural gas-fired combined-cycle unit. It is newer than York 1, having begun operations in 2019, eight years later. York 1 and 2 are in Peach Bottom Township, Pennsylvania. Hay Road is a 1,136 MW dual-fuel combined cycle plant. It began commercial operations in 1989. Edge Moor is a 707 MW simple cycle natural gas-fired plant that began commercial operations in 1965. Both Hay Road and Edge Moor are in Wilmington, Delaware.
For each plant, the Defendants must divest the entirety of their rights, titles, and interests in and to all property and assets, tangible and intangible, relating to or used in connection with the generation, dispatch, and offer of electricity. This includes all real property, tangible personal property, intangible property, and intellectual property relating to each plant. This also includes all customer contracts and relationships, as well as all supply agreements. The proposed Final Judgment defines the entirety of the assets that the Defendants must divest as the “Divestiture Assets.”
The divestiture requirements of the proposed Final Judgment will maintain competition for wholesale electricity in the ERCOT and PJM Coastal Mid-
The proposed Final Judgment contains provisions intended to facilitate an acquirer's efforts to hire certain employees. Specifically, Paragraph IV.J of the proposed Final Judgment requires Defendants to provide an acquirer, the United States, and the State of Texas with organization charts and information relating to these employees and to make them available for interviews. It also provides that Defendants must not interfere with any negotiations by an acquirer to hire these employees. In addition, for employees who elect employment with an acquirer, Defendants must waive all non-compete and non-disclosure agreements, vest all unvested pension and other equity rights, provide any pay pro rata, provide all compensation and benefits that those employees have fully or partially accrued, and provide all other benefits that the employees would generally be provided had those employees continued employment with Defendants, including but not limited to any retention bonuses or payments.
If Defendants do not accomplish the divestitures within the period prescribed in Paragraph IV.A of the proposed Final Judgment, Section V of the proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court will appoint a divestiture trustee selected by the United States to effect the divestiture. If a divestiture trustee is appointed, the proposed Final Judgment provides that Defendants must pay all costs and expenses of the trustee. The divestiture trustee's commission must be structured to provide an incentive for the trustee based on the price obtained and the speed with which the divestiture is accomplished. After the divestiture trustee's appointment becomes effective, the trustee must provide monthly reports to the United States and State of Texas setting forth his or her efforts to accomplish the divestiture. If the divestiture has not been accomplished within 180 calendar days of the divestiture trustee's appointment, the United States may make recommendations to the Court, which will enter such orders as appropriate, to carry out the purpose of the Final Judgment, including by extending the term of the divestiture trustee's appointment by a period requested by the United States.
The proposed Final Judgment also contains provisions designed to promote compliance with and make enforcement of the Final Judgment as effective as possible. Paragraph XIV.A provides that the United States and the State of Texas retain and reserve all rights to enforce the Final Judgment, including the right to seek an order of contempt from the Court. Under the terms of this paragraph, Defendants have agreed that in any civil contempt action, any motion to show cause, or any similar action brought by the United States or the State of Texas regarding an alleged violation of the Final Judgment, the United States or the State of Texas may establish the violation and the appropriateness of any remedy by a preponderance of the evidence and that Defendants have waived any argument that a different standard of proof should apply. This provision aligns the standard for compliance with the Final Judgment with the standard of proof that applies to the underlying offense that the Final Judgment addresses.
Paragraph XIV.B provides additional clarification regarding the interpretation of the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment. The proposed Final Judgment is intended to remedy the loss of competition the United States and the State of Texas allege would otherwise result from the Acquisition. Defendants agree that they will abide by the proposed Final Judgment and that they may be held in contempt of the Court for failing to comply with any provision of the proposed Final Judgment that is stated specifically and in reasonable detail, as interpreted in light of this procompetitive purpose.
Paragraph XIV.C provides that, if the Court finds in an enforcement proceeding that a Defendant has violated the Final Judgment, the United States may apply to the Court for an extension of the Final Judgment, together with such other relief as may be appropriate. In addition, to compensate American taxpayers for any costs associated with investigating and enforcing violations of the Final Judgment, Paragraph XIV.C provides that, in any successful effort by the United States or the State of Texas to enforce the Final Judgment against a Defendant, whether litigated or resolved before litigation, the Defendant must reimburse the United States and the State of Texas for attorneys' fees, experts' fees, and other costs incurred in connection with that effort to enforce the Final Judgment, including the investigation of the potential violation.
Paragraph XIV.D states that the United States may file an action against a Defendant for violating the Final Judgment for up to four years after the Final Judgment has expired or been terminated. This provision is meant to address circumstances such as when evidence that a violation of the Final Judgment occurred during the term of the Final Judgment is not discovered until after the Final Judgment has expired or been terminated or when there is not sufficient time for the United States to complete an investigation of an alleged violation until after the Final Judgment has expired or been terminated. This provision, therefore, makes clear that, for four years after the Final Judgment has expired or been terminated, the United States may still challenge a violation that occurred during the term of the Final Judgment.
Finally, Section XV of the proposed Final Judgment provides that the Final Judgment will expire ten years from the date of its entry, except that after five years from the date of its entry, the Final Judgment may be terminated upon notice by the United States to the Court, Defendants and the State of Texas that the divestitures have been completed and continuation of the Final Judgment is no longer necessary or in the public interest.
Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15, provides that any person who has been injured as a result of conduct prohibited by the antitrust laws may bring suit in federal court to recover three times the damages the person has suffered, as well as costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment neither impairs nor assists the bringing of any private antitrust damage action. Under the provisions of Section 5(a) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(a), the proposed Final Judgment has no prima facie effect in any subsequent private lawsuit that may be brought against Defendants.
The United States and Defendants have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered by the Court after compliance with the provisions of the APPA, provided that the United States has not withdrawn its consent. The APPA conditions entry upon the Court's determination that the proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest.
The APPA provides a period of at least 60 days preceding the effective date of the proposed Final Judgment within which any person may submit to the United States written comments regarding the proposed Final Judgment. Any person who wishes to comment should do so within 60 days of the date of publication of this Competitive Impact Statement in the
Written comments should be submitted in English to: Patricia C. Corcoran, Acting Chief, Transportation, Energy & Agriculture Section, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice, 450 Fifth St. NW, Suite 8000, Washington, DC 20530,
The proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court retains jurisdiction over this action, and the parties may apply to the Court for any order necessary or appropriate for the modification, interpretation, or enforcement of the Final Judgment.
As an alternative to the proposed Final Judgment, the United States considered a full trial on the merits against Defendants. The United States could have pursued litigation and sought preliminary and permanent injunctions against the Acquisition. The United States is satisfied, however, that the relief required by the proposed Final Judgment will remedy the anticompetitive effects alleged in the Complaint, preserving competition in the markets for wholesale electricity in ERCOT and PJM's Coastal Mid-Atlantic area. Thus, the proposed Final Judgment achieves all or substantially all of the relief the United States would have obtained through litigation but avoids the time, expense, and uncertainty of a full trial on the merits.
Under the Clayton Act and APPA, proposed Final Judgments, or “consent decrees,” in antitrust cases brought by the United States are subject to a 60-day comment period, after which the Court shall determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment “is in the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1). In making that determination, the Court, in accordance with the statute as amended in 2004, is required to consider:
(A) the competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification, duration of relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually considered, whether its terms are ambiguous, and any other competitive considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment that the court deems necessary to a determination of whether the consent judgment is in the public interest; and
(B) the impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial.
As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held, under the APPA, a court considers, among other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations in the government's complaint, whether the proposed Final Judgment is sufficiently clear, whether its enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, and whether it may positively harm third parties.
The United States' predictions about the efficacy of the remedy are to be afforded deference by the Court.
Moreover, the Court's role under the APPA is limited to reviewing the remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has alleged in its Complaint and does not authorize the Court to “construct [its] own hypothetical case and then evaluate the decree against that case.”
In its 2004 amendments to the APPA, Congress made clear its intent to preserve the practical benefits of using judgments proposed by the United States in antitrust enforcement, Public Law 108-237 § 221, and added the unambiguous instruction that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to require the court to permit anyone to intervene.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2);
There are no determinative materials or documents within the meaning of the APPA that were considered by the United States in formulating the proposed Final Judgment.
Dated: December 12, 2025
2:00 p.m., Thursday, December 18, 2025.
via ZOOM.
Parts of this meeting will be open to the public. The rest of the meeting will be closed to the public.
Regular Board of Directors meeting.
The General Counsel of the Corporation has certified that in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) permit closure of the following portion(s) of this meeting:
Everything except the Executive (Closed) Session.
Executive (Closed) Session.
Jenna Sylvester, Paralegal, (202) 568-2560;
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued Subsequent Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25 to Constellation Energy Generation, LLC (CEG, or the licensee), for Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3 (Dresden). In addition, the NRC has prepared a record of decision (ROD) that supports the NRC's decision to issue Subsequent Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25.
The Subsequent Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25 were issued on December 16, 2025.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0080 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mark Yoo, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-8583; email:
Notice is hereby given that the NRC has issued Subsequent Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25 to CEG for Dresden. CEG is the operator of the facilities. Subsequent Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25 authorize operation of Dresden, Units 2 and 3, by CEG at reactor core power levels not in excess of 2,957 megawatts thermal, in accordance with the provisions of the Dresden subsequent renewed licenses and technical specifications. Notice is also given that the ROD that supports the NRC's decision to issue Subsequent Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25 is available in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document.
As discussed in the ROD and the final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), published as NUREG-1437, Supplement 17, Second Renewal, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Final Report,” dated September 2025, the final SEIS documents the NRC staff's environmental review, including the determination that the adverse environmental impacts of subsequent license renewal (SLR) for Dresden are not so great that preserving the option of SLR for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. The final SEIS conclusion is based on (1) information provided in the environmental report submitted by CEG, as supplemented, (2) the NRC staff's consultations with Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies, (3) the NRC staff's independent environmental review, and (4) the NRC staff's consideration of public comments received during the scoping process and on the 2025 draft SEIS.
Dresden is a boiling water reactor site located near Morris, Illinois. CEG submitted its application for the subsequent renewed license, “Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3—Subsequent License Renewal Application,” on April 17, 2024, as supplemented by letters through May 8, 2025 (see “Availability of Documents” section of this document). The NRC staff has determined that CEG's application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and NRC's regulations. As required by the Act and NRC regulations in Chapter 1 of title 10 of the
A public notice of the NRC's acceptance for docketing of the subsequent renewed license application and an opportunity for a hearing was published in the
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) CEG's SLRA for Dresden, dated April 17, 2024, as supplemented by letters dated through May 8, 2025; (2) the NRC's SE, dated September 9, 2025; (3) the NRC's final SEIS (NUREG-1437, Supplement 17, Second Renewal) for Dresden, SLR dated September 3, 2025; and (4) the NRC's ROD, dated December 16, 2025.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through ADAMS, as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
On August 29, 2025, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change SR-FICC-2025-019 pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
On September 26, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
On September 29, 2025, FICC filed Partial Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change
The Commission has received no comments regarding the substance of the Proposed Rule Change. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving the Proposed Rule Change.
FICC, through GSD, serves as a central counterparty (“CCP”) and provides real-time trade matching, clearing, risk management and netting for cash purchases and sales and repurchase and reverse repurchase transactions (“repos”) involving U.S. Treasury securities. Market participants that are not direct members of FICC may access FICC's clearing services indirectly through a FICC direct member (
A Sponsored Member is the legal counterparty to FICC for any submitted transactions.
General collateral
FICC states that certain market participants have identified a number of constraints on the ability of RICs and other cash providers to access FICC's clearance and settlement services.
FICC proposes two sets of changes to address these issues. First, FICC proposes to expand its Sponsored Service to add a new Collateral-in-Lieu offering to its Sponsored GC Service, in which FICC will take a lien on the collateral in lieu of charging margin. The lien on collateral generally will obviate FICC's need to collect margin or the Funds Only Settlement Amount payments and to obtain the Sponsoring Member Guaranty on these trades.
Under the proposed CIL Service, a Sponsoring Member would be eligible to submit to FICC for clearance and settlement a GC triparty repo (“Sponsored GC CIL Trade”) entered into by its Sponsored Member as cash provider (“CIL Funds Lender”).
FICC proposes to require each CIL Funds Lender to collect a haircut and to grant FICC a lien on the Purchased GC Repo Securities subject to the Sponsored GC CIL Trade. FICC states that the purpose of the lien would be to allow FICC to acquire the Purchased GC Repo Securities and use them to settle with the GC Funds Borrower in the event FICC ceases to act for the CIL Funds Lender or its Sponsoring Member.
Once FICC ceases to act for a CIL Funds Lender, FICC would only be permitted, under the GSD Rules, to instruct the Sponsored GC Clearing Agent Bank to remove the Purchased GC Repo Securities from the account of the CIL Funds Lender in two scenarios. First, FICC would be able to remove such securities if such removal is against cash in an amount equal to the amount payable to the CIL Funds Lender (
To ensure that the Sponsored GC Clearing Agent Bank acts on such instructions and to perfect FICC's security interest in the Purchased GC Repo Securities, the CIL Custodial Agreement Supplement would contain an agreement by the Sponsored GC Clearing Agent Bank to comply with FICC's instructions except following delivery by the CIL Funds Lender to the Sponsored GC Clearing Agent Bank of a notice of a Corporation Default (a “GC CIL Notice of Default”).
FICC states that the lien on the Purchased GC Repo Securities generally will obviate FICC's need to collect margin or the Funds Only Settlement Amount payments and to obtain the Sponsoring Member Guaranty on these trades.
FICC states that, nonetheless, certain limited circumstances could prevent FICC from effectuating such settlement, namely, if the GC Funds Borrower on the Sponsored GC CIL Trade is the defaulting Sponsoring Member or an Indirect Participant of that Sponsoring Member or its Affiliate.
To address these possibilities, FICC proposes to provide that, if FICC ceases to act for the Sponsoring Member, and the GC Funds Borrower is the defaulting Sponsoring Member or one of its Indirect Participants, FICC may, as an alternative to effectuating settlement or exercising rights under its lien, terminate the Sponsored GC CIL Trade (or portion thereof). In that situation, the CIL Funds Lender would be permitted to take such market action in relation to the relevant Purchased GC Repo Securities as it determines in its discretion.
FICC proposes to address such need for additional resources in two ways. First, FICC proposes to require that a Sponsored GC CIL Trade have an Initial Haircut no less than 2 percent of the Contract Value of the Start Leg or such other amount determined by FICC (“CIL Required Haircut”). FICC states that this requirement would be broadly consistent with the market practice of how uncleared triparty repos of RICs are overcollateralized today.
Second, FICC proposes to subject the CIL Funds Lender's Sponsoring Member to a Clearing Fund requirement for a Sponsored GC CIL Omnibus Account (“Sponsored GC CIL Omnibus Account Required Fund Deposit”) when necessary to ensure that FICC would have resources, in the form of Clearing Fund deposits or Purchased GC Repo Securities, no less than the Clearing Fund FICC would otherwise collect in relation to the transaction.
The Sponsored GC CIL Omnibus Account Required Fund Deposit would be the greater of a $1 million minimum and the sum of all applicable charges, with margin calculated in the same manner as when calculated with respect to a Sponsoring Member Omnibus Account. The VaR Charge would be calculated for each CIL Funds Lender as the positive difference between (1) the amount of VaR Charge that FICC would have collected if the Sponsored GC CIL Trades of that CIL Funds Lender had been subject to the calculation of a Sponsoring Member Omnibus Account Required Fund Deposit, and (2) the aggregate of all CIL Required Haircuts on that CIL Funds Lender's Sponsored GC CIL Trades.
FICC states that its security interest in Purchased GC Repo Securities subject to Sponsored GC CIL Trades would also generally remove the need for the Sponsoring Member to guarantee to FICC the performance by the CIL Funds Lender of its obligations under the Sponsored GC CIL Trades, since FICC's lien generally would allow it to obtain the Purchased GC Repo Securities and perform to the GC Funds Borrower.
Because FICC would generally anticipate addressing a CIL Funds Lender default by utilizing the lien to settle with the GC Funds Borrower, FICC proposes to amend Section 16 of Rule 3A, which generally allows a Sponsoring Member to liquidate a done-with Sponsored Member Trade,
FICC states that the CIL Service would not present additional or new liquidity risks to FICC.
Under the existing Sponsored GC Service, the only Funds-Only
According to FICC, in the context of the CIL Service, FICC's lien on the Purchased GC Repo Securities and ability to instruct the Sponsored GC Clearing Agent Bank to transfer such securities would effectively ensure that FICC never needs to enter into a replacement transaction to address the default of a CIL Funds Lender (or its Sponsoring Member). Rather, FICC would rely upon its lien and instruction right to settle with the GC Funds Borrower or, if the GC Funds Borrower is the Sponsoring Member or its Indirect Participant, possibly terminate both the transaction with the CIL Funds Lender and GC Funds Borrower such that no replacement transaction is required.
FICC states that RICs and other cash providers that have engaged a common investment adviser may seek to enter into triparty repo transactions using joint trading accounts.
FICC states that one of the obligations of an investment adviser that acts on behalf of a joint trading account is to “allocate” transactions entered into through the joint trading account to the individual participants.
To facilitate the ability of CIL Funds Lenders to access FICC's clearance and settlement systems in relation to transactions executed through a joint trading account, FICC proposes to permit two or more CIL Funds Lenders to be represented by an agent (a “CIL Joint Account Agent”) that has been approved by FICC. Each such CIL Funds Lender and CIL Joint Account Agent would need to sign and deliver to FICC a “CIL Joint Account Agent Agreement” in such form as may be prescribed by FICC. FICC further proposes to amend its Rules to permit a Sponsoring Member to submit to FICC for Novation a Sponsored GC CIL Trade entered into by a CIL Joint Account Agent on behalf of multiple CIL Funds Lenders (each such Sponsored GC CIL Trade, a “CIL Joint Account Block”).
Each such CIL Funds Lender on whose behalf a CIL Joint Account Block has been submitted would only be entitled to, and liable for, its respective portion of the rights and obligations arising under or in connection with the CIL Joint Account Block. The GSD Rules would provide that, if the CIL Joint Account Agent has performed such allocation, the entitlement of each CIL Funds Lender to, and liability of each such CIL Funds Lender for, the rights and obligations arising under or in connection with such CIL Joint Account Block shall be limited to the amount of such CIL Joint Account Block allocated to each such CIL Funds Lender. If the CIL Joint Account Agent has not performed such allocation, the CIL Funds Lender would be liable for its pro rata portion of the transaction.
FICC proposes to provide in the GSD Rules that, in a default of a CIL Funds Lender on whose behalf a CIL Joint Account Block has been submitted, FICC would, to the extent it determines doing so is feasible and consistent with applicable law, exercise remedies in a way that would have no significant adverse impact on the interest of any non-defaulting CIL Funds Lender in such CIL Joint Account Block or the Purchased GC Repo Securities related thereto.
In order to ensure that FICC knows the respective interests of the defaulting and non-defaulting CIL Funds Lenders in a CIL Joint Account Block, FICC proposes to require that a CIL Joint Account Agent provide FICC with certain information in the event FICC ceases to act for a CIL Funds Lender on whose behalf a CIL Joint Account Agent acts. In particular, the Rules would
Currently, a Sponsoring Member may submit only done-with transactions to FICC under the Sponsored GC Service.
FICC states that its risk management and liquidity requirements in respect of done-away Sponsored GC Trades would not be different from those in respect of other done-away sponsored trades.
In connection with this proposed change, FICC is also proposing to extend the deadline set forth in the Schedule of Sponsored GC Trade Timeframes for (i) full settlement of the Start Leg of Sponsored GC Trades, (ii) substitutions of Purchased GC Repo Securities, and (iii) satisfaction of GC Collateral Return Obligations and cash payment obligations associated with GC Collateral Return Entitlements by GC Funds Lenders and GC Funds Borrowers. The current deadline for these actions is 5:30 p.m. and the proposal would move this deadline to 7:00 p.m. (New York City times), which would align with the close of the Fedwire Funds Service at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Currently, Sponsored GC Trades for which funds are delivered between 5:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. do not settle until the next Business Day. FICC states that aligning these two deadlines would facilitate additional settlement of Sponsored GC Trades.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act
As described above in Section I.B., the Proposed Rule Change changes to the GSD Rules that are designed to encourage and facilitate a greater number of market participants to utilize GSD's clearance and settlement systems for transactions in U.S. securities, including for done-with and done-away transactions. As described above in Section I.A, and as market participants have indicated to the Commission, RICs and other cash providers may face certain issues when seeking to access FICC's clearance and settlement services.
The Proposed Rule Change would encourage and facilitate greater participation in central clearing, while still providing sound risk management which would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and would protect investors and the public interest. On December 13, 2023, the Commission adopted amendments to the standards applicable to covered clearing agencies, such as FICC,
Furthermore, CCP rules that are clear and comprehensible, increase operational efficiency, and more effectively manage risks, like the Proposed Rule Change, should encourage a broader scope of market participants to utilize the CCP's services, thereby promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and protecting investors and the public interest, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act. The Proposed Rule Change is consistent with those objectives because it encourages and supports greater participation in GSD's central clearing services for RICs and other cash lenders and for done-away transactions. Accordingly, the Proposed Rule Change would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and protect investors and the public interest, because by encouraging greater participation in central clearing, the proposals would extend the benefits of operational efficiency and risk management to a greater segment of the U.S. Treasury securities market.
In addition, although the proposed amendments would not provide FICC with custody of any additional securities, as described above in Section I.B.1, the proposed CIL Custodial Agreement Supplement would provide FICC with “control” of Purchased GC Repo Securities subject to a Sponsored GC CIL Trade.
More broadly, the proposed changes are designed to ensure that FICC calculates and has sufficient resources to cover potential losses from a default on a done-away Sponsored GC Trade or on a Sponsored GC CIL Trade.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, safeguard securities and funds that are in the custody or control of FICC, and protect investors and the public interest, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.
Rule 17ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Act requires that FICC establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and those arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes by maintaining sufficient financial resources to cover its credit exposure to each participant fully with a high degree of confidence.
First, as described above in Section I.B.1, the proposed changes relating to the risk and default management mechanism for the CIL Service,
Second, as described in Section I.B.2, the done-away Sponsored GC Trades (other than Sponsored GC CIL Trades), which present the same credit and market risk profile as done-with Sponsored GC Trades, would be margined in the same manner as done-with Sponsored GC Trades using methodologies that have been approved by the Commission.
Therefore, collectively, these changes should enhance the ability of FICC to cover its credit exposure to its participants with a high degree of confidence. Accordingly, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Act.
Rule 17ad-22(e)(6) under the Act requires, in part, that FICC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin system.
Accordingly, the Proposed Rule Change would ensure FICC covers its credit exposures to its participants consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(6) under the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) under the Act requires a covered clearing agency, such as FICC, to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively measure, monitor, and manage the liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by the covered clearing agency.
As discussed above in Section I.B.1, FICC would incorporate Sponsored GC CIL Trades into its liquidity risk management calculations and into the calculation of Sponsoring Members' obligations with respect to CCLF, using the same methodology, logic and parameters that FICC uses with respect to Sponsored GC Trades.
Accordingly, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(7) under the Act.
Rule 17ad-22(e)(18)(iv)(C) under the Exchange Act requires that a covered clearing agency, such as FICC, when providing CCP services for transactions in U.S Treasury securities, establish objective, risk-based, and publicly disclosed criteria for participation, which ensure that it has appropriate means to facilitate access to clearance and settlement services of all eligible secondary market transactions in U.S. Treasury securities, including those of indirect participants.
As described above in Section I.B.1, the Proposed Rule Change is designed to facilitate increased access to FICC's clearing and settlement services for triparty repo transactions by eliminating or ameliorating certain existing impediments to access that RICs and other cash providers face.
First, FICC's security interest in the Purchased GC Repo Securities would address what market participants have referred to as “double margining” that increases the costs (and thereby decreases the ability of) a Sponsoring
Second, the CIL Service would allow a Sponsoring Member to submit to FICC for clearance and settlement transactions that have been entered into by multiple RICs or other CIL Funds Lenders using a joint trading account. Such transactions may be ineligible for submission to FICC today because investment advisers are unable to complete final allocations to individual cash providers by the FICC submission deadline. As a result, the proposed changes should facilitate the ability of RICs and other cash providers to access FICC's clearance and settlement services in relation to transactions that they are currently only able to clear bilaterally.
Third, the CIL Service would not include the exchange of Funds-Only Settlement Amounts between FICC and a CIL Funds Lender (or its Sponsoring Member). This proposed change should facilitate access to central clearing by eliminating the possibility of such Funds-Only Settlement Amount obligations and entitlements giving rise to operational or regulatory impediments for RICs, other cash providers, and their Sponsoring Members. As such, the CIL Service would facilitate access to clearance and settlement services of all eligible secondary market transactions in U.S. Treasury securities, including those of indirect participants.
Moreover, as described in Section 1.B.2, the proposed changes to provide for clearing of done-away Sponsored GC Trades and to extend its settlement deadline for Sponsored GC Trades would promote access to FICC's clearance and settlement systems in respect of eligible secondary market transactions in U.S. Treasury securities. Currently, a Sponsoring Member may submit only done-with transactions to FICC under the Sponsored GC Service. Allowing for the submission of done-away transactions should facilitate greater access by allowing a Sponsored Member to submit more of their eligible secondary market transactions and to do so without entering into clearing agreements with each of their execution counterparties. The proposed change to align FICC's settlement and substitution deadlines for Sponsored GC Trades with the close of the Fedwire Funds Service at 7:00 p.m. (New York City time) would support the settlement of additional tri-party activity and, therefore, also promote access to FICC's clearance and settlement systems in respect of eligible secondary market transactions. As such, these proposed changes should facilitate access to clearance and settlement services of all eligible secondary market transactions in U.S. Treasury securities.
Accordingly, for the reasons above, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(18)(iv)(C).
Rule 17ad-22(e)(19) under the Act requires that FICC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify, monitor, and manage the material risks to the covered clearing agency arising from arrangements in which firms that are indirect participants in the covered clearing agency rely on the services provided by direct participants to access the covered clearing agency's payment, clearing, or settlement facilities.
Because of these features, the proposed changes would promote FICC's ability to identify, monitor, and manage the material risks arising from indirect participants' (
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(21) under the Act requires a covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to be efficient and effective in meeting the requirements of its participants and the markets it serves, including the clearing agency's clearing and settlement arrangements and the scope of products cleared or settled.
As described above in Sections I.A. and I.B.1, market participants have stated that FICC's current Sponsored GC Service does not accommodate certain aspects of how RICs and other cash providers currently conduct repo transactions in U.S. Treasury securities, including current industry practices in which RICs and other cash providers collect a haircut from cash borrowers. The proposed changes relating to the CIL Service contain features to address these issues, including a lien on the Purchased GC Repo Securities subject to the Sponsored GC CIL Trades that generally would obviate FICC's need to collect margin or Fund-Only Settlement Amounts from CIL Funds Lenders or their Sponsors as well as the need to obtain a Sponsoring Member Guaranty on Sponsored GC CIL Trades. Moreover, by providing FICC a lien on the Purchased GC Repo Securities in lieu of FICC margin charges generally, the proposed changes would accommodate current industry practices in which RICs and other cash providers collect a haircut from cash borrowers. Additionally, as described above in Section I.B.2, FICC's proposed CIL Service would accommodate both done-with and done-away Sponsored GC CIL Trades.
By expanding the Sponsored GC Service in these ways, the Proposed Rule Change is designed to address the feedback FICC has received from market participants regarding their needs to facilitate access to FICC's clearance and settlement services through a Sponsoring Member. For these reasons, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(21)
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the Proposed
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 (the “Act”),
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to permit strike price intervals for options on the Cboe Mini Bitcoin U.S. ETF Index (“MBTX options”) and the Cboe Magnificent 10 Index (“MGTN options”) to be no less than $1. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Rules to modify the permissible strike price intervals for options on the Cboe Mini Bitcoin U.S. ETF Index (“MBTX options”) and the Cboe Magnificent 10 Index (“MGTN options”). Pursuant to Rule 4.13, Interpretation and Policy .01(a), the interval between strike prices for index options can be no less than $5.00 (with certain specified exceptions). Additionally, Rule 4.13, Interpretation .01(d) provides that when new series of index options with a new expiration date are opened for trading, or when additional series of index options in an existing expiration date are opened for trading as the current value of the underlying index to which such series relate moves substantially from the strike prices of series already opened, the strike prices of such new or additional series shall be reasonably related to the current value of the underlying index at the time such series are first opened for trading. In the case of all classes of index options, the term “reasonably related to the current value of the underlying index” shall have the meaning set forth in Interpretation and Policy .04 under Rule 4.13.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4.13, Interpretation and Policy .01(i) to provide that notwithstanding Interpretation and Policies .01(a), .01(d), and .04, the strike price intervals for new and additional series of each of MBTX options and MGTN options shall be listed subject to the following:
(1) if the current value of the index is less than or equal to 20, the Exchange shall not list series with an exercise price (
(2) if the current value of the index is greater than 20, the Exchange shall not list series with an exercise price (
(3) the lowest strike price interval that may be listed for standard index options, including LEAPS, is $1, and the lowest strike price interval that may be listed for series of index options listed under the Nonstandard Expirations Program in Rule 4.13(e) and for QIX index options
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will protect investors and the public interest, because it will provide investors with greater flexibility by allowing them to establish positions better tailored to meet their investment objectives. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will also remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, because it aligns the permissible strike intervals for MBTX and MGTN options with permissible strike intervals of other index options with similar index values, such as options on the Mini-Russell 200 Index (“MRUT options”) and the Mini S&P 500 Index (“XSP options”). For example, current Rule 4.13, Interpretation and Policy .01(i) provides that MRUT options
A wider base of MBTX and MGTN options will afford market participants additional hedging and trading opportunities, including the ability to roll positions more aligned with movements in the value of the underlying index, similar to those available for other index options that overlie indexes with comparable values. For example, if the value of the Cboe Mini Bitcoin U.S. ETF Index is 270, MBTX options are currently permitted to be listed with strikes of 275, 280, and 285, as opposed to 271, 272 and 273, as proposed. Therefore, new strikes are added in percentage intervals of approximately 1.9% and not investment strategies more aligned with moves in the index value (such as from 270 to 272, representing a 0.7% change, and thus over 1% away from the next highest strike). Additionally, the Cboe Mini Bitcoin U.S. ETF Index is 1/10th the value of the Cboe Bitcoin U.S. ETF Index, options on which (“CBTX options”) may be listed in the same $5 strike intervals. Given MBTX options have 1/10th the value of CBTX options, the Exchange believes MBTX options should be permitted in smaller strike price intervals than CBTX options. MBTX options are intended, among other things, to allow smaller-scale investors to gain broad exposure to the Cboe Bitcoin U.S. ETF Index market and hedge CBTX-related positions with a manageably sized contract, and the proposed finer strike prices for MBTX options will permit strike prices accordingly aligned with CBTX options. The proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to better respond to customer demand for additional strike prices for MBTX and MGTN options (the Exchange expects this demand for MGTN options when listing begins), as the more granular strike prices allowed by the proposed rule change will permit investors to use these options in a manner more closely tailored to their investment needs, as they are currently able to do with other index options. For example, if the Cboe Bitcoin U.S. ETF Index value is 2700, the Cboe Mini Bitcoin U.S. ETF Index value is 270. CBTX options would be permitted to be listed with strikes of 2710, 2720, and 2730. Corresponding MBTX options strikes, as proposed, would be 271, 272, and 273, as opposed to strikes of only 270 and 275, as permitted under the current rule. The proposed $1 strike price intervals for MBTX options will permit the listing of series with strikes that correspond more closely to CBTX option strikes.
Similarly, while MGTN options do not correspond to larger-sized options, the proposed $1 strike price intervals for MGTN options will permit investors to engage in investment strategies more closely aligned with movements in the value of the underlying index. For example, if the value of the Cboe Magnificent 10 Index is 400, MBTX options are currently permitted to be listed with strikes of 405, 410, and 415, as opposed to 401, 402, and 403, as proposed. Therefore, new strikes are added in percentage intervals of approximately 1.25% and not investment strategies more aligned with moves in the index value (such as from 400 to 402, representing a 0.5% change, and thus nearly 1% away from the next highest strike).
The Exchange recognizes the proposed $1 strike price intervals for MBTX options and MGTN options alone do not achieve full alignment with the applicable underlying index (or with CBTX options with respect to MBTX options). For example, if the value of the underlying index was 271.5 (and if there was a 2715 strike in CBTX options), the $1 strike interval would not permit the Exchange to list a corresponding 271.5 strike in MBTX options. However, the Exchange believes $1 strike price intervals will increase the alignment in a manner to provide investors with additional flexibility to tailor their investment strategies more closely with changes in the underlying index value. Therefore, the Exchange also proposes $0.50 strike price intervals for MBTX and MGTN options with Nonstandard Expirations
Additionally, the proposed strike price range limitations (100% and 50% away from the current index value, rather than 30% as used in the definition of “reasonably related”) are closely aligned with the strike price range limitations for equity and ETF options pursuant to the Rule 4.7(b) and the Options Listing Procedure Plan
The Exchange acknowledges the proposed rule change may augment the potential number of options series available on the Exchange. However, the Exchange believes any such increase will be moderate and that the number of strikes that may be listed will be contained by the percentages proposed, specifically that strike prices may not be listed more than 100% above or below the current index value if less than or equal to 20, and not more than 50% above or below the current index value if greater than 20. Rather, the Exchange may determine to list strikes in $1 intervals or higher based on the level of the applicable underlying index and customer demand. Also, the Exchange believes that there is no reason to have a more limited range of strikes for MBTX or MGTN options than is currently permitted for other index options that overlie indexes with comparable values. Additionally, the Exchange believes it and the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange also believes that TPHs will not have a capacity issue due to the proposed rule change. The Exchange does not believe that this expansion will cause fragmentation of liquidity, but rather, believes that finer strike intervals will serve to increase liquidity available as well as price efficiency by providing more trading opportunities for all market participants.
Ultimately, the proposed strike price intervals will provide the Exchange with flexibility to respond to customer demand for MBTX and MGTN option strike prices that relate to and more closely reflect the current value of the applicable underlying index, which will allow investors to roll open positions from a lower strike to a higher strike in conjunction with the price movement of the underlying index. The Exchange believes the proposed strike price intervals will afford investors important hedging and trading opportunities by allowing investors (particularly retail investors) to fine-tune their use of both MBTX and MGTN options to gain exposure to the applicable index, hedge index-related positions, and manage their portfolios. The proposed rule change will add consistency to the options market for these index options and the options overlying the equities and ETFs that comprise each index.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because all strikes will be available to all market participants. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because the proposed strike regime for MBTX and MGTN options is available for other index options, as discussed above. Additionally, the proposed percentage bounds for the strike prices of MBTX and MGTN options align with that of equity and ETF options, including the equities that comprise the Cboe Magnificent 10 Index and the ETFs that comprise the Cboe Mini Bitcoin U.S. ETF Index, as provided in Rule 4.7 and the OLPP. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change may promote competition by affording investors for these index options additional investment opportunities that are similarly available for other index options, which opportunities may be more aligned with their investment needs and changes in the underlying index values.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of 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 will institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the MIAX Options Exchange Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”).
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 Exchange proposes to amend the exchange grouping of options exchanges within the routing fee table in Section 1)c) of the Fee Schedule, Fees for Customer Orders Routed to Another Options Exchange, to adjust the groupings of options exchanges.
Currently, the Exchange assesses routing fees based upon (i) the origin type of the order; (ii) whether or not it is an order for standard option classes in the Penny Interval Program
As a result of conducting a periodic review of the current transaction fees charged by away markets the Exchange has determined to amend the exchange groupings of options exchanges within the routing fee table to better reflect the associated costs and fees of routing customer orders to certain away markets for execution.
The Exchange proposes to amend the table in Section 1)c) of the Exchange's Fee Schedule, Fees for Customer Orders Routed to Another Options Exchange, to update the exchange groupings of options exchanges within the routing fee table. Under this proposed change, the Exchange will not amend the fees associated with the exchange groupings. This proposal merely seeks to amend the exchange groupings, which change is reflected in the routing fee table below and described in detail herein.
The Exchange proposes to remove “MEMX” from the “Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non-Penny Program” $1.25 fee tier and amend the “Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non-Penny Program” $1.40 fee tier to add “MEMX”. This change is being made as MEMX LLC (“MEMX”) recently amended its fee schedule and now assesses a transaction fee of $1.21 per contract for orders in Non-Penny classes in Professional capacities which remove liquidity from the MEMX Options Book.
The purpose of the proposal is to adjust the routing fee groups for orders routed to other exchanges to better reflect the associated costs for that routed execution in Penny and Non-Penny classes as determined by the fees and rebates at the executing exchange. In determining to amend its groupings, the Exchange took into account transaction fees assessed by the away market to which the Exchange routes orders, as well as the Exchange's clearing costs, administrative, regulatory, and technical costs associated with routing orders to an away market. The Exchange uses unaffiliated routing brokers to route orders to the away markets; the costs associated with the use of these services are included in the routing fees specified in the Fee Schedule. This
The Exchange notes that in determining whether to adjust certain groupings of options exchanges in the routing fee table, the Exchange considered the transaction fees assessed by away markets, and determined to amend the grouping of exchanges that assess transaction fees for routed orders within a similar range. This same logic and structure apply to all of the groupings in the routing fee table. By utilizing the same structure that is utilized by the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX Pearl, MIAX Emerald, and MIAX Sapphire, the Exchange's Members
The proposed rule changes will become effective on December 1, 2025.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the exchange groupings of options exchanges within the routing fee table furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act and is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed change will continue to apply in the same manner to all Members that are subject to routing fees. The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the routing fee table exchange groupings furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and is not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed changes seek to recoup costs that are incurred by the Exchange when routing orders for Public Customers that are not Priority Customers to away markets on behalf of Members and does so in the same manner for all Members that are subject to routing fees. The costs to the Exchange to route orders to away markets for execution primarily includes transaction fees assessed by the away markets to which the Exchange routes orders, in addition to the Exchange's clearing costs, administrative, regulatory and technical costs. The Exchange believes that the proposed re-categorization of certain exchange groupings would enable the Exchange to better reflect the costs and fees associated with routing orders to other exchanges for execution.
The Exchange places away markets in the fee tier grouping that best approximates the Exchange's costs and fees to route the orders in that segment to that away market. The per-contract transaction fee amount associated with each grouping approximates the Exchange's all-in cost (plus an additional, non-material amount)
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's proposed re-categorization of certain exchange groupings is intended to enable the Exchange to recover the costs it incurs to route orders to away markets. The costs to the Exchange to route orders to away markets for execution primarily includes the transaction fees assessed by the away markets to which the Exchange routes orders, in addition to the Exchange's clearing costs, administrative, regulatory and technical costs. The Exchange does not believe that this proposal imposes any unnecessary burden on competition because it seeks to better reflect the costs and fees incurred by the Exchange when routing orders to away markets on behalf of Members and notes that at least one other options exchange has a similar routing fee structure.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the fee schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) applicable to the Exchange's options trading platform MIAX Pearl Options.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the exchange grouping of options exchanges within the routing fee table in Section 1)b) of the Fee Schedule, Fees for Customer Orders Routed to Another Options Exchange, to adjust the groupings of options exchanges.
Currently, the Exchange assesses routing fees based upon (i) the origin type of the order; (ii) whether or not it is an order for standard option classes in the Penny Interval Program
As a result of conducting a periodic review of the current transaction fees charged by away markets the Exchange has determined to amend the exchange groupings of options exchanges within the routing fee table to better reflect the associated costs and fees of routing customer orders to certain away markets for execution.
The Exchange proposes to amend the table in Section 1)b) of the Exchange's Fee Schedule, Fees for Customer Orders Routed to Another Options Exchange, to update the exchange groupings of options exchanges within the routing fee table. Under this proposed change, the Exchange will not amend the fees associated with the exchange groupings. This proposal merely seeks to amend
The Exchange proposes to remove “MEMX” from the “Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non-Penny Program” $1.25 fee tier and amend the “Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non-Penny Program” $1.40 fee tier to add “MEMX”. This change is being made as MEMX LLC (“MEMX”) recently amended its fee schedule and now assesses a transaction fee of $1.21 per contract for orders in Non-Penny classes in Professional capacities which remove liquidity from the MEMX Options Book.
The purpose of the proposal is to adjust the routing fee groups for orders routed to other exchanges to better reflect the associated costs for that routed execution in Penny and Non-Penny classes as determined by the fees and rebates at the executing exchange. In determining to amend its groupings, the Exchange took into account transaction fees assessed by the away market to which the Exchange routes orders, as well as the Exchange's clearing costs, administrative, regulatory, and technical costs associated with routing orders to an away market. The Exchange uses unaffiliated routing brokers to route orders to the away markets; the costs associated with the use of these services are included in the routing fees specified in the Fee Schedule. This routing fee structure is not only similar to the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX, MIAX Emerald, and MIAX Sapphire, but is also comparable to the structure in place on at least one other competing options exchange, Cboe BZX Options.
The Exchange notes that in determining whether to adjust certain groupings of options exchanges in the routing fee table, the Exchange considered the transaction fees assessed by away markets, and determined to amend the grouping of exchanges that assess transaction fees for routed orders within a similar range. This same logic and structure apply to all of the groupings in the routing fee table. By utilizing the same structure that is utilized by the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX, MIAX Emerald, and MIAX Sapphire, the Exchange's Members
The proposed rule changes will become effective on December 1, 2025.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the exchange groupings of options exchanges within the routing fee table furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act and is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed change will continue to apply in the same manner to all Members that are subject to routing fees. The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the routing fee table exchange groupings furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and is not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed changes seek to recoup costs that are incurred by the Exchange when routing orders for Public Customers that are not Priority Customers to away markets on behalf of Members and does so in the same manner for all Members that are subject to routing fees. The costs to the Exchange to route orders to away markets for execution primarily includes transaction fees assessed by the away markets to which the Exchange routes orders, in addition to the Exchange's clearing costs, administrative, regulatory and technical costs. The Exchange believes that the proposed re-categorization of certain exchange groupings would enable the Exchange to better reflect the costs and fees associated with routing orders to other exchanges for execution.
The Exchange places away markets in the fee tier grouping that best approximates the Exchange's costs and fees to route the orders in that segment to that away market. The per-contract transaction fee amount associated with each grouping approximates the Exchange's all-in cost (plus an additional, non-material amount)
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's proposed re-categorization of certain exchange groupings is intended to enable the Exchange to recover the costs it incurs to route orders to away markets. The costs to the Exchange to route orders to away markets for execution primarily includes the transaction fees assessed by the away markets to which the Exchange routes orders, in addition to the Exchange's clearing costs, administrative, regulatory and technical costs. The Exchange does not believe that this proposal imposes any unnecessary burden on competition because it seeks to better reflect the costs and fees incurred by the Exchange when routing orders to away markets on behalf of Members and notes that at least one other options exchange has a similar routing fee structure.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule relating to the Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”) to adopt a new methodology for assessment and collection of ORF for transactions that occur on the Exchange (“On-Exchange ORF”), effective as of July 1, 2026. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its current methodology for assessment and collection of a regulatory fee to assess On-Exchange ORF only for options transactions that occur on the Exchange that would clear in the customer
Today, ORF is assessed by C2 Options to each Clearing Trading Permit Holder (“CTPH”) for options transactions that are cleared by the CTPH at OCC in the Customer range, regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs. In other words, the Exchange imposes the ORF on all Customer-range transactions cleared by a CTPH, even if the transactions do not take place on the Exchange. The ORF is collected by OCC on behalf of the Exchange from the CTPH or non-Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”) OCC Clearing Member that ultimately clears the transaction as further described below. With respect to linkage transactions, C2 Options reimburses its routing broker providing Routing Services pursuant to C2 Options Rule 5.36 for options regulatory fees it incurs in connection with the Routing Services it provides. The current C2 Options ORF is $0.0002 per contract side.
The following scenarios reflect how the ORF is currently assessed and collected (these apply regardless of whether the transaction is executed on the Exchange or on an away exchange):
1. If a TPH is the executing clearing firm on a transaction (“Executing Clearing Firm”), the ORF is assessed to and collected from that TPH by OCC on behalf of the Exchange.
2. If a TPH is the Executing Clearing Firm and the transaction is “given up” to a different TPH that clears the transaction (“Clearing Give-Up”), the ORF is assessed to the Executing Clearing Firm (the ORF is the obligation of the Executing Clearing Firm). The ORF is collected from the Clearing Give-Up.
3. If the Executing Clearing Firm is a non-TPH and the Clearing Give-up is a TPH, the ORF is assessed to and collected from the Clearing Give-up.
4. If a TPH is the Executing Clearing Firm and a non-TPH is the Clearing Give-up, the ORF is assessed to the Executing Clearing Firm. The ORF is the obligation of the Executing Clearing Firm but is collected from the non-TPH Clearing Give-up (for the reasons described below).
5. No ORF is assessed if a TPH is neither the Executing Clearing Firm nor the Clearing Give-up.
The Exchange uses an OCC cleared trades file to determine the Executing Clearing Firm and the Clearing Give-up.
In each of scenarios 1 through 4 above, if the transaction is transferred pursuant to a Clearing Member Trade Assignment (“CMTA”) agreement to another clearing firm who ultimately clears the transaction, the ORF is collected from the clearing firm that ultimately clears the transaction (which firm may be a non-TPH) by OCC on behalf of the Exchange. Using CMTA transfer information provided by the OCC, the Exchange subtracts the ORF charge from the monthly ORF bill of the clearing firm that transfers the position and adds the charge to the monthly ORF bill of the clearing firm that receives the CMTA transfer (
ORF is collected by OCC on behalf of the Exchange from the CTPH or non-TPH OCC Clearing Member that ultimately clears the transaction. While
Today, revenue generated from ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a material portion of the regulatory costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of TPH customer options business including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. Regulatory costs include direct regulatory expenses and certain indirect expenses for work allocated in support of the regulatory function. The direct expenses include in-house and third-party service provider costs to support the day-to-day regulatory work such as surveillances, investigations and examinations. The indirect expenses include support to the regulatory function from such areas as human resources, legal, compliance, information technology, facilities and accounting. Today, these indirect expenses are estimated to be approximately 23% of the Exchange's total regulatory costs for 2026. Thus, direct expenses are estimated to be approximately 77% of total regulatory costs for 2026.
C2 Options appreciates the evolving changes in the market and regulatory environment and has been evaluating its current methodologies and practices for the assessment and collection of ORF while considering industry and Commission feedback. As a result of this review, the Exchange is proposing the On-Exchange ORF, which assesses a regulatory fee to only Exchange transactions that would clear in the Customer range at OCC (as is the case today).
1. If a TPH is the Executing Clearing Firm on a transaction that occurred on the Exchange, the fee would be assessed to and collected from that CTPH by OCC on behalf of the Exchange.
2. If a TPH is the Executing Clearing Firm and the transaction is “given up” to a Clearing Give-Up, the On-Exchange ORF is assessed to the Executing Clearing Firm (the On-Exchange ORF remains the obligation of the Executing Clearing Firm under the proposal), but the On-Exchange ORF will be collected from the Clearing Give-Up.
The Exchange expects to provide CTPHs sufficient information in connection with their invoice in order to reconcile charges associated with ORF. In addition, the proposed method for collecting On-Exchange ORF will only consider CMTAs reported to the Exchange and not those reported directly to OCC. As described above, today's ORF is the responsibility of the Executing Clearing Firm and collected from the CMTA (which may be a non-TPH) as an administrative convenience. The Exchange understands that a CMTA may be added at order entry, via post-trade edit on the Exchange, or post-trade at OCC. CMTA transfers that occur at OCC do not necessarily contain reliable information regarding the Exchange on which the original transaction occurred.
With this proposal, the Exchange intends to collect ORF under its current methodology for assessment and collection of ORF until at least June 30, 2026. The Exchange is prepared to implement On-Exchange ORF effective July 1, 2026 if by April 1, 2026 all U.S. options exchanges charging an ORF have filed to modify their current methodologies of assessment of the fee to limit the fee to transactions occurring on their respective exchange.
To demonstrate the impact of the proposed change, the Exchange estimates that, if the On-Exchange ORF went into effect today, the current ORF of $0.0002 per contract side would increase to $0.01521 per contract side using 2026 estimates for regulatory revenue, regulatory costs and customer volume.
The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue collected from On-Exchange ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. Further, C2 Options expects to continue its current practice that revenue generated from On-Exchange ORF not exceed more than [sic] 75% of total annual regulatory costs. And as is the Exchange's practice today, revenue generated by On-Exchange ORF will not be used for non-regulatory purposes.
The Exchange will continue to monitor its regulatory costs and revenues at a minimum on a semi-annual basis. If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues exceed or are insufficient to cover a material portion of its regulatory costs in a given year, the Exchange will adjust the On-Exchange ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The Exchange will notify TPHs of adjustments to the On-Exchange ORF via an Exchange Notice in advance of any change.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed change to assess and collect an On-Exchange ORF is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for various reasons. First, On-Exchange ORF is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in that it is charged to all Exchange transactions that clear in the Customer range at the OCC. Similar to ORF today, the Exchange believes On-Exchange ORF ensures fairness by assessing a specific fee to those TPHs that require more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of customer options business they conduct. Over recent years, options trading volume has increased with a growing percentage of the volume applicable to customer transactions. Customers trading on the Exchange (through a TPH) benefit from the protections of a robust regulatory program including the maintenance of fair and orderly markets and protections against fraud and other manipulation. The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess a regulatory fee to transactions that clear in the Customer range to cover regulatory costs, but not to transactions clearing in the Firm or Market Maker range because CTPHs and Market Maker TPHs (who clear in the Firm and Market Maker range), as those market participants are generally subject to other Exchange fees, fines and obligations. For example, CTPHs and Market Maker TPHs are required to pay Exchange application fees, permit fees, and connectivity fees, amongst others. In addition, all fines issued by the Exchange for regulatory infractions are assessed only to TPHs and would be applied to regulatory revenues. As with today's ORF, the Exchange expects that CTPHs from whom On-Exchange ORF is collected will pass through the fee to their customers (as the Exchange understands occurs today). In addition, Market Makers in particular are subject to various quoting and other obligations to ensure that they provide stable and liquid markets, which benefit all market participants including customers. Excluding Market Maker transactions from On-Exchange ORF will allow Market Makers to better manage their costs more effectively thus enabling them to better allocate resources toward technology, risk management, and capacity to ensure continued liquidity provision.
In addition to the overall increase in Customer-range volume generally, regulating customer trading activity is more labor intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating non-customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and less labor-intensive. For example, there are costs associated with main office and branch office examinations (
The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unduly discriminatory to modify the method of collecting the fee such that On-Exchange ORF will not consider CMTAs reported directly to OCC as is done in today's method of ORF. CMTA transfers are considered today under the current collection methodology for ORF as a convenience to industry members in administering a pass through of the fee to their customers. Limiting the On-Exchange ORF to transactions on the Exchange poses a limitation in the use of CMTA for this purpose. The Exchange understands that a CMTA may be added at order entry, via post-trade edit on the Exchange, or post-trade at OCC. CMTA transfers that occur at OCC do not necessarily contain reliable information regarding the Exchange on which the original transaction occurred.
The Exchange also believes that the fact that a Consolidated Audit Trail (“CAT”) fee is in place should not preclude the Exchange from assessing On-Exchange ORF. The CAT is a repository of order, trade and customer information that is used as the basis for an audit trail of such activities. Like industry members, the exchanges, including C2 Options, also pays a CAT fee to support the operation and maintenance of CAT (in other words, it does not support regulatory work undertaken by exchanges). C2 Options does not include fees it pays for CAT in the regulatory expenses it looks to offset under ORF. Yes, the Exchange uses CAT data as part of its regulatory work, but only from an audit trail perspective. On-Exchange ORF, on the other hand, offsets the regulatory work the Exchange performs (using CAT data among other sources) such as surveillance, investigations, examinations, etc. The Exchange believes its fair and reasonable to assess an On-Exchange ORF in addition to fees associated with CAT.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed change to the method for assessment and collection of the fee is reasonable because it would help ensure that revenue collected from the On-Exchange ORF, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, would help offset, but not exceed, the Exchange's total regulatory costs. As discussed, On-Exchange ORF is similarly designed to the current ORF, in that revenues generated from the fee would be less than or equal to 75% of the Exchange's regulatory costs, which is consistent with the practice across the options industry today and the view of the Commission that regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes and not to support the Exchange's business side.
As noted above, the Exchange will also continue to monitor on at least a semi-annual basis the amount of revenue collected from the On-Exchange ORF, even as amended, to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues would exceed its regulatory costs in a given year, the Exchange will reduce the On-Exchange ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission.
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. This proposal does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate intra-market burden on competition because On-Exchange ORF applies to all customer activity on the Exchange, thereby raising regulatory revenue to offset regulatory expenses. It also supplements the regulatory revenue derived from non-customer activity. The Exchange notes, however, the proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issues. Indeed, this proposal does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate inter-market burden on competition because it is a regulatory fee that supports regulation in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the amount of regulatory revenue collected from the On-Exchange ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. In addition, the Exchange will not implement the On-Exchange ORF until all other options exchanges are prepared to adopt a similar model to avoid overlapping ORFs.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule relating to the Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”) to adopt a new methodology for assessment and collection of ORF for transactions that occur on the Exchange (“On-Exchange ORF”), effective as of July 1, 2026. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its current methodology for assessment and collection of a regulatory fee to assess On-Exchange ORF only for options transactions that occur on the Exchange that would clear in the customer
Today, ORF is assessed by BZX Options to each Member for options transactions that are cleared by the Member (“Clearing Member”) at OCC in the Customer range, regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs. In other words, the Exchange imposes the ORF on all Customer-range transactions cleared by a Member, even if the transactions do not take place on the Exchange. The ORF is collected by OCC on behalf of the Exchange from the Clearing Member or non-Member that ultimately clears the transaction as further described below. With respect to linkage transactions, BZX Options reimburses its routing broker providing Routing Services pursuant to BZX Options Rule 21.9 for options regulatory fees it incurs in connection with the Routing Services it provides. The current BZX Options ORF is $0.0001 per contract side.
The following scenarios reflect how the ORF is currently assessed and collected (these apply regardless of whether the transaction is executed on the Exchange or on an away exchange):
1. If a Member is the executing clearing firm on a transaction (“Executing Clearing Firm”), the ORF is assessed to and collected from that Member by OCC on behalf of the Exchange.
2. If a Member is the Executing Clearing Firm and the transaction is “given up” to a different Member that clears the transaction (“Clearing Give-Up”), the ORF is assessed to the Executing Clearing Firm (the ORF is the obligation of the Executing Clearing Firm). The ORF is collected from the Clearing Give-Up.
3. If the Executing Clearing Firm is a non-Member and the Clearing Give-up is a Member, the ORF is assessed to and collected from the Clearing Give-up.
4. If a Member is the Executing Clearing Firm and a non-Member is the Clearing Give-up, the ORF is assessed to the Executing Clearing Firm. The ORF is the obligation of the Executing Clearing Firm but is collected from the non-Member Clearing Give-up (for the reasons described below).
5. No ORF is assessed if neither the Executing Clearing Firm nor the Clearing Give-up are Members.
The Exchange uses an OCC cleared trades file to determine the Executing Clearing Firm and the Clearing Give-up.
In each of scenarios 1 through 4 above, if the transaction is transferred pursuant to a Clearing Member Trade Assignment (“CMTA”) agreement to another clearing firm who ultimately clears the transaction, the ORF is collected from the clearing firm that ultimately clears the transaction (which firm may be a non-Member) by OCC on behalf of the Exchange. Using CMTA transfer information provided by the OCC, the Exchange subtracts the ORF charge from the monthly ORF bill of the clearing firm that transfers the position and adds the charge to the monthly ORF bill of the clearing firm that receives the CMTA transfer (
ORF is collected by OCC on behalf of the Exchange from the Member or non-Member OCC Clearing Member that ultimately clears the transaction. While the ORF is an obligation of the Executing Clearing Firm, the ORF is collected from the clearing firm that ultimately clears the eligible trade, even if such firm is not a Member. The Exchange and OCC adopted this collection method in response to industry feedback that it would allow Members and non-Members to more easily pass-through the ORF to their customers. In the original ORF filing by Cboe Exchange. Inc. (“Cboe Options”), an affiliate of BZX Options,
Today, revenue generated from ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a material portion of the regulatory costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of Member customer options business including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. Regulatory costs include direct regulatory expenses and certain indirect expenses for work allocated in support of the regulatory function. The direct expenses include in-house and third-party service provider costs to support the day-to-day regulatory work such as surveillances, investigations and examinations. The indirect expenses include support to the regulatory function from such areas as human resources, legal, compliance, information technology, facilities and accounting. Today, these indirect expenses are estimated to be approximately 28% of the Exchange's total regulatory costs for 2026. Thus, direct expenses are estimated to be approximately 72% of total regulatory costs for 2026.
BZX Options appreciates the evolving changes in the market and regulatory environment and has been evaluating its current methodologies and practices for the assessment and collection of ORF while considering industry and Commission feedback. As a result of this review, the Exchange is proposing the On-Exchange ORF, which assesses a regulatory fee to only Exchange transactions that would clear in the Customer range at OCC (as is the case today).
1. If a Member is the Executing Clearing Firm on a transaction that occurred on the Exchange, the fee would be assessed to and collected from that Member by OCC on behalf of the Exchange.
2. If a Member is the Executing Clearing Firm and the transaction is “given up” to a Clearing Give-Up, the On-Exchange ORF is assessed to the Executing Clearing Firm (the On-Exchange ORF remains the obligation of the Executing Clearing Firm under the proposal), but the On-Exchange ORF will be collected from the Clearing Give-Up.
The Exchange expects to provide Members sufficient information in connection with their invoice in order to reconcile charges associated with ORF. In addition, the proposed method for collecting On-Exchange ORF will only consider CMTAs reported to the Exchange and not those reported directly to OCC. As described above, today's ORF is the responsibility of the Executing Clearing Firm and collected from the CMTA (which may be a non-Member) as an administrative convenience. The Exchange understands that a CMTA may be added at order entry, via post-trade edit on the Exchange, or post-trade at OCC. CMTA transfers that occur at OCC do not necessarily contain reliable information regarding the Exchange on which the original transaction occurred.
With this proposal, the Exchange intends to collect ORF under its current methodology for assessment and collection of ORF until at least June 30, 2026. The Exchange is prepared to implement On-Exchange ORF effective July 1, 2026 if by April 1, 2026 all U.S. options exchanges charging an ORF have filed to modify their current methodologies of assessment of the fee to limit the fee to transactions occurring on their respective exchange.
To demonstrate the impact of the proposed change, the Exchange estimates that, if the On-Exchange ORF went into effect today, the current ORF of $0.0001 per contract side would increase to $0.00467 per contract side using 2026 estimates for regulatory revenue, regulatory costs and customer volume.
The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue collected from On-Exchange ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. Further, BZX Options expects to continue its current practice that revenue generated from On-Exchange ORF not exceed more than [sic] 75% of total annual regulatory costs. And as is the Exchange's practice today, revenue generated by On-Exchange ORF will not be used for non-regulatory purposes.
The Exchange will continue to monitor its regulatory costs and revenues at a minimum on a semi-annual basis. If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues exceed or are insufficient to cover a material portion of its regulatory costs in a given year, the Exchange will adjust the On-Exchange ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The Exchange will notify Members of adjustments to the On-Exchange ORF via an Exchange Notice in advance of any change.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed change to assess and collect an On-Exchange ORF is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for various reasons. First, On-Exchange ORF is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in that it is charged to all Exchange transactions that clear in the Customer range at the OCC. Similar to ORF today, the Exchange believes On-Exchange ORF ensures fairness by assessing a specific fee to those Members that require more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of customer options business they conduct. Over recent years, options trading volume has increased with a growing percentage of the volume applicable to customer transactions. Customers trading on the Exchange (through a Member) benefit from the protections of a robust regulatory program including the maintenance of fair and orderly markets and protections against fraud and other manipulation. The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess a regulatory fee to transactions that clear in the Customer range to cover regulatory costs, but not to transactions clearing in the Firm or Market Maker range because Clearing Members and Market Makers (who clear in the Firm and Market Maker range), as those market participants are generally subject to other Exchange fees, fines and obligations. For example, Clearing Members and Market Makers are required to pay Exchange application fees, permit fees, and connectivity fees, amongst others. In addition, all fines issued by the Exchange for regulatory infractions are assessed only to Members and would be applied to regulatory revenues. As with today's ORF, the Exchange expects that Members from whom On-Exchange ORF is collected will pass through the fee to their customers (as the Exchange understands occurs today). In addition, Market Makers in particular are subject to various quoting and other obligations to ensure that they provide stable and
In addition to the overall increase in Customer-range volume generally, regulating customer trading activity is more labor intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating non-customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and less labor-intensive. For example, there are costs associated with main office and branch office examinations (
The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unduly discriminatory to modify the method of collecting the fee such that On-Exchange ORF will not consider CMTAs reported directly to OCC as is done in today's method of ORF. CMTA transfers are considered today under the current collection methodology for ORF as a convenience to industry members in administering a pass through of the fee to their customers. Limiting the On-Exchange ORF to transactions on the Exchange poses a limitation in the use of CMTA for this purpose. The Exchange understands that a CMTA may be added at order entry, via post-trade edit on the Exchange, or post-trade at OCC. CMTA transfers that occur at OCC do not necessarily contain reliable information regarding the Exchange on which the original transaction occurred.
The Exchange also believes that the fact that a Consolidated Audit Trail (“CAT”) fee is in place should not preclude the Exchange from assessing On-Exchange ORF. The CAT is a repository of order, trade and customer information that is used as the basis for an audit trail of such activities. Like industry members, the exchanges, including BZX Options, also pays a CAT fee to support the operation and maintenance of CAT (in other words, it does not support regulatory work undertaken by exchanges). BZX Options does not include fees it pays for CAT in the regulatory expenses it looks to offset under ORF. Yes, the Exchange uses CAT data as part of its regulatory work, but only from an audit trail perspective. On-Exchange ORF, on the other hand, offsets the regulatory work the Exchange performs (using CAT data among other sources) such as surveillance, investigations, examinations, etc. The Exchange believes its fair and reasonable to assess an On-Exchange ORF in addition to fees associated with CAT.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed change to the method for assessment and collection of the fee is reasonable because it would help ensure that revenue collected from the On-Exchange ORF, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, would help offset, but not exceed, the Exchange's total regulatory costs. As discussed, On-Exchange ORF is similarly designed to the current ORF, in that revenues generated from the fee would be less than or equal to 75% of the Exchange's regulatory costs, which is consistent with the practice across the options industry today and the view of the Commission that regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes and not to support the Exchange's business side.
As noted above, the Exchange will also continue to monitor on at least a semi-annual basis the amount of revenue collected from the On-Exchange ORF, even as amended, to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues would exceed its regulatory costs in a given year, the Exchange will reduce the On-Exchange ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission.
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. This proposal does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate intra-market burden on competition because On-Exchange ORF applies to all customer activity on the Exchange, thereby raising regulatory revenue to offset regulatory expenses. It also supplements the regulatory revenue derived from non-customer activity. The Exchange notes, however, the proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issues. Indeed, this proposal does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate inter-market burden on competition because it is a regulatory fee that supports regulation in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the amount of regulatory revenue collected from the On-Exchange ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. In addition, the Exchange will not implement the On-Exchange ORF until all other options exchanges are prepared to adopt a similar model to avoid overlapping ORFs.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise the ICC Risk Management Framework (“RMF”), ICC Risk Management Model Description (“RMMD”), and ICC End-of-Day Price Discovery Policies and Procedures (“Pricing Policy”). These revisions do not require any changes to the ICC Clearing Rules (the “Rules”).
In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
ICC proposes to enhance its liquidity charge methodology for credit default swap (“CDS”) index instruments by amending the RMF and RMMD. ICC also proposes additional updates to reflect current governance practices and make minor clean-up changes in the RMF, RMMD, and Pricing Policy. ICC believes that such revisions will facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions for which it is responsible. ICC proposes to make such changes effective following Commission approval of the proposed rule change. The proposed revisions are described in detail as follows.
ICC proposes to update its liquidity charge methodology for CDS index instruments. The liquidity charge represents one component of the Initial Margin (“IM”) requirement that ICC calculates for each Clearing Participant (“CP”) portfolio.
The current liquidity charge methodology for CDS index instruments assumes that short protection and long protection positions are liquidated at different BOWs. To estimate CDS index instrument liquidity charges, ICC uses Level II conditions (volatile) for long protection positions and Level III conditions (extreme) for short protection positions.
ICC believes that the proposed changes would enhance the CDS index liquidity charge methodology. Such changes would simplify the methodology by making the methodology consistent for both CDS index and single name instruments by using symmetric BOWs
To implement the changes ICC would update the RMF and RMMD as follows. Section IV.B.2 of the RMF states that ICC's liquidity charge approach assumes, in general, that short protection and long protection positions are liquidated at different BOWs. Amended Section IV.B.2 would state that short protection and long protection positions are liquidated at the same BOWs.
ICC proposes to similarly update the RMMD to reflect this change. ICC proposes to update the Table of Mathematical Symbols and Notations in the RMMD to remove symbols for BOW exposure for bought and sold protection positions. These symbols are no longer necessary as the amended methodology assumes that short protection and long protection positions are liquidated at the same BOWs. In Section II.2, ICC proposes to remove an equation and related language which uses these symbols to distinguish between the liquidation of short protection positions at Level III conditions and long protection positions at Level II conditions. ICC would remove reference to Level II conditions, as short protection and long protection positions would be liquidated at the same BOWs, namely, Level III conditions. Additional changes would also clarify that Levels I, II, and III range from normal to extreme market conditions. ICC also proposes a similar update in an equation that provides the liquidity charge calculation for CDS index instruments whose quoting convention is in price space. Such changes remove an equation and related language which distinguishes between the liquidation of short protection positions at Level III conditions and long protection positions at Level II conditions.
ICC proposes additional edits to reflect current ICC governance practices and make minor clean-up changes in the documentation. Specifically, ICC proposes adding references to the recently established ICC Board Risk Committee and ICC Nominating Committee in the RMF.
The proposed changes further specify items that are subject to Board Risk Committee review. Throughout the RMF, such items include policies and procedures, memoranda regarding CP membership applications, position or concentration limits, margin and guaranty fund levels, performance and composition of collateral, margin methodology changes, and model revisions. More specifically, certain periodic reporting would also be directed to the Board Risk Committee in place of the Board based on the committee's mandate to assist the Board in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities.
ICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The proposed amendments enhance ICC's liquidity charge methodology for CDS index instruments by amending the RMF and RMMD. The proposed changes simplify ICC's liquidity charge methodology by making the methodology consistent for both CDS index and single name instruments by using symmetric BOWs that reflect stress market conditions, which promotes ease of understanding of ICC's methodology. ICC also proposes making additional updates to reflect current governance practices as well as other minor clean-up changes in the documentation. Such changes ensure that the documentation remains up-to-date, clear and transparent to support the effectiveness of ICC's governance arrangements that support ICC's risk management practices. Additionally, the proposed clean-ups to table numbering promote understanding and readability of the documentation, including with respect to ICC's pricing practices. ICC believes that having policies and procedures that clearly and accurately document its risk management practices are an important component to the effectiveness of ICC's risk management system and support ICC's ability to maintain adequate financial resources, which promotes the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, derivatives agreements, contracts, and transactions, the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or control of ICC or for which it is responsible, and the protection of investors and the public interest. Accordingly, in ICC's view, the proposed rule change is designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of the contracts cleared at ICC, to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or control of ICC or for which it is responsible, and to protect investors and the public interest, within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v)
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i)
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii)
ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed changes to the RMF, RMMD and Pricing Policy will apply uniformly across all market participants. ICC does not believe these amendments would affect the costs of clearing or the ability of market participants to access clearing. Therefore, ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICC.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing,
• 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.
Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to file number SR-ICC-2025-012 and should be submitted on or before January 8, 2026.
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 Nasdaq Options Market LLC (“NOM”) Rules at Options 7, Section 2, Nasdaq Options Market—Fees and Rebates.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend NOM's Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 2, Nasdaq Options Market—Fees and Rebates, with respect to a NOM Market Maker rebate.
Pursuant to Options 7, Section 2(1), the Exchange currently assesses NOM Market Makers a $0.35 per contract Fee to Add Liquidity in Non-Penny Symbols. This fee applies unless Participants meet the volume thresholds set forth in note 5. Note 5 currently stipulates that,
The NOM Market Maker Fee for Adding Liquidity in Non-Penny Symbols will apply unless Participants meet the volume thresholds set forth in this note. Participants that add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Non-Penny Symbols of 0.03% to 0.07% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month will be assessed a $0.00 per contract Non-Penny Options Fee for Adding Liquidity in that month. Participants that add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Non-Penny Symbols of above 0.07% to 0.10% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month will receive a Non-Penny Rebate to Add Liquidity of $0.30 per contract for that month instead of paying the Non-Penny Fee for Adding Liquidity. Participants that add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Non-Penny Symbols of above 0.10% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month will receive a Non-Penny Rebate to Add Liquidity of $0.40 per contract for that month instead of paying the Non-Penny Fee for Adding Liquidity.
Accordingly, qualifying Participants are offered an opportunity to reduce the $0.35 Fee to Add Liquidity in Non-Penny Symbols or earn a rebate if they meet the volume-based requirements under note 5.
The Exchange now proposes to amend the thresholds in note 5. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide that Participants that add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Non-Penny Symbols of 0.025% to 0.035% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month will be assessed a $0.00 per contract Non-Penny Options Fee for Adding Liquidity in that month. Further, the Exchange proposes that Participants that add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Non-Penny Symbols of above 0.035% to 0.075% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month will receive a Non-Penny Rebate to Add Liquidity of $0.30 per contract for that month instead of paying the Non-Penny Fee for Adding Liquidity. Finally, the Exchange proposes that Participants that add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Non-Penny Symbols of above 0.075% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month will receive a Non-Penny Rebate to Add Liquidity of $0.40 per contract for that
With this proposal, the Exchange is lowering the qualification requirements such that NOM Market Makers would be eligible for no Fee for Adding Liquidity in Non-Penny Symbols or a Non-Penny Rebate to Add Liquidity of $0.30 or $0.40 per contract in lieu of the Non-Penny Fee for Adding Liquidity. The Exchange believes that the note 5 incentives will encourage NOM Market Makers to add additional Non-Penny Symbol liquidity on NOM which in turn will benefit of all Participants.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
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.”
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .”
The Exchange's proposal to amend the thresholds in note 5 is reasonable because the proposal lowers the qualification requirements such that NOM Market Makers would be eligible for no Fee for Adding Liquidity in Non-Penny Symbols or a Non-Penny Rebate to Add Liquidity of $0.30 or $0.40 per contract in lieu of the Non-Penny Fee for Adding Liquidity. The Exchange believes that the note 5 incentives will encourage NOM Market Makers to add additional Non-Penny Symbol liquidity on NOM which in turn will benefit of all Participants.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the thresholds in note 5 is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will uniformly apply the qualifying thresholds to NOM Market Makers. All NOM Market Makers are eligible to receive the note 5 incentives for Non-Penny Symbols. The Exchange does not believe that it is unfairly discriminatory to offer the note 5 incentives to only NOM Market Makers because these market participants add value through continuous quoting and the commitment of capital.
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 proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition. The Exchange believes its proposal remains competitive with other options markets and will offer market participants with another venue in which to submit orders. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the thresholds in note 5 does not impose an undue burden on competition because the Exchange will uniformly apply the qualifying thresholds to all NOM Market Makers. All NOM Market Makers are eligible to receive the note 5 incentives for Non-Penny Symbols. The Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose an undue burden on competition by offering the note 5 incentives to only NOM Market Makers because these market participants add value through continuous quoting and the commitment of capital.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Monthly Market Maker Cap and Monthly Firm Fee Cap in Options 7, Section 4, Multiply Listed Options Fees (Includes options overlying equities, ETFs, ETNs and indexes which are Multiply Listed) (Excludes SPY and broad-based index options symbols listed within Options 7, Section 5.A).
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.
Phlx proposes to amend its Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 4, Multiply Listed Options Fees (Includes options overlying equities, ETFs, ETNs and indexes which are Multiply Listed) (Excludes SPY and broad-based index options symbols listed within Options 7, Section 5.A) to amend rule text related to the Monthly Market Maker Cap and the Monthly Firm Fee Cap. Each change is described below.
Today, Lead Market Makers
The Exchange proposes to amend the rule text by relocating current text and adding new text. The Exchange propose to state: Lead Market Makers and Market Makers are subject to a “Monthly Market Maker Cap” of $500,000 for:
Ø electronic Option Transaction Charges, excluding: (i) surcharges; (ii) options overlying broad-based index options symbols listed (as defined in Options 7, Section 5.A), (iii) dividend, merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy executions (as defined in this Options 7, Section 4); (iv) Crossing Order Fees (as defined in Options 7, Section 6, F); and (v) FLEX Electronic Transaction Fees (as defined in Options 7, Section 6, B); and
Ø QCC Transaction Fees (as defined in this Options 7, Section 4).
For this section of the Pricing Schedule, the Exchange is relocating rule text concerning dividend, merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy executions without substantive change. The Exchange proposes exclusions for Crossing Order
The Exchange also proposes to update the citations to the pricing that is being referenced in the Monthly Market Maker Cap and also conforming the format of the citations to that pricing.
Today, Firms
At this time, as the Monthly Firm Fee Cap currently applies to Firm Floor Options Transaction Charges, the Exchange proposes to specifically note that “Electronic Options Transaction Charges are excluded from the Monthly Firm Fee Cap.” The Exchange notes that this proposed text does not substantively amend the Monthly Firm Fee Cap, rather it will complete the list of excluded transaction charges. Finally, the Exchange proposes to add a citation for QCC Transaction Charges.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
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.”
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .”
The Exchange's proposal to relocate and amend current rule text is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the revised rule text makes clear what rule text is included and excluded in a transparent manner with citations to the rule text.
The Exchange's proposal to add new rule text to exclude Crossing Order Fees and FLEX Electronic Transaction Fees from the Monthly Market Maker Cap is reasonable. The recently adopted
The Exchange's proposal to add new rule text to exclude Crossing Order Fees and FLEX Electronic Transaction Fees from the Monthly Market Maker Cap is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would exclude Crossing Order Fees and FLEX Electronic Transaction Fees from the Monthly Market Maker Cap in a uniform manner for all Phlx members and member organizations.
The Exchange's proposal to specifically note that electronic Options Transaction Charges are excluded from the Monthly Firm Fee Cap and add a citation for QCC Transaction Charges is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as these amendments are non-substantive technical amendments to further clarify existing rule text.
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 proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition. The Exchange believes its proposal remains competitive with other options markets and will offer market participants with another choice of where to transact options. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
The Exchange's proposal to add new rule text to exclude Crossing Order Fees and FLEX Electronic Transaction Fees from the Monthly Market Maker Cap does not impose an undue burden on competition because the Exchange would exclude Crossing Order Fees and FLEX Electronic Transaction Fees from the Monthly Market Maker Cap in a uniform manner for all Phlx members and member organizations.
The Exchange's proposal to specifically note that electronic Options Transaction Charges are excluded from the Monthly Firm Fee Cap and add a citation for QCC Transaction Charges does not impose an undue burden on competition because these amendments are non-substantive technical amendments to further clarify existing rule text.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5215 to allow the listing of American Depositary Receipts of Canadian companies.
The text of the proposed rule change is detailed below; proposed deletions are in brackets.
(a) Eligibility
American Depositary Receipts can be listed on Nasdaq provided they represent shares in a [non-Canadian] foreign Company.
(b) No change.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Currently, the Exchange allows for the listing of American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”) that represent shares in a foreign Company pursuant to Rule 5215 but excludes the listing of Canadian ADRs on the Exchange. More specifically, ADRs can be listed on Nasdaq provided they represent shares in a non-Canadian foreign Company. Rule 5215 applies to all three tiers of the Exchange's listing markets. Nasdaq believes that the exclusion of Canadian companies is based on historic issuer preferences, because Canadian companies have preferred to utilize the Commission's Multijurisdictional Disclosure System (“MJDS”)
While the MJDS process provides Canadian companies with a straightforward approach for listing, Nasdaq has recently been approached by advisors to Canadian companies, who indicated that certain companies would prefer to list in the format of ADRs. The Exchange does not believe there is any reason to continue to exclude Canadian companies from listing ADRs and is therefore proposing to amend Rule 5215 accordingly. More specifically, the Exchange proposes to remove the term “non-Canadian” from Rule 5215(a). The Exchange notes that this would align Nasdaq rules with those of other exchanges, which currently allow for the listing of Canadian ADRs.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In particular, the Exchange believes that removing the term “non-Canadian”
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. Any foreign private issuer that desires to list ADRs on the Exchange can do so on a non-discriminatory basis as long as the foreign private issuer also maintains compliance with the applicable Exchange listing and governance requirements. There is no inter-market burden on competition because the proposed amendment is aligned with the rule on other exchanges that do not exclude the listing of Canadian ADRs and the proposal does not impose any burden on the ability for other exchanges to compete.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the MIAX Emerald Options Exchange Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”).
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
The Exchange proposes to amend the exchange grouping of options exchanges within the routing fee table in Section 1)b) of the Fee Schedule, Fees for Customer Orders Routed to Another Options Exchange, to adjust the groupings of options exchanges.
Currently, the Exchange assesses routing fees based upon (i) the origin type of the order; (ii) whether or not it is an order for standard option classes in the Penny Interval Program
As a result of conducting a periodic review of the current transaction fees charged by away markets the Exchange has determined to amend the exchange groupings of options exchanges within the routing fee table to better reflect the associated costs and fees of routing customer orders to certain away markets for execution.
The Exchange proposes to amend the table in Section 1)b) of the Exchange's Fee Schedule, Fees for Customer Orders Routed to Another Options Exchange, to update the exchange groupings of options exchanges within the routing fee table. Under this proposed change, the Exchange will not amend the fees associated with the exchange groupings. This proposal merely seeks to amend the exchange groupings, which change is reflected in the routing fee table below and described in detail herein.
The Exchange proposes to remove “MEMX” from the “Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non-Penny Program” $1.25 fee tier and amend the “Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non-Penny Program” $1.40 fee tier to add “MEMX”. This change is being made as MEMX LLC (“MEMX”) recently amended its fee schedule and now assesses a transaction fee of $1.21 per contract for orders in Non-Penny classes in Professional capacities which remove liquidity from the MEMX Options Book.
The purpose of the proposal is to adjust the routing fee groups for orders routed to other exchanges to better reflect the associated costs for that routed execution in Penny and Non-Penny classes as determined by the fees and rebates at the executing exchange. In determining to amend its groupings, the Exchange took into account transaction fees assessed by the away market to which the Exchange routes orders, as well as the Exchange's clearing costs, administrative, regulatory, and technical costs associated with routing orders to an away market. The Exchange uses unaffiliated routing brokers to route orders to the away markets; the costs associated with the use of these services are included in the routing fees specified in the Fee Schedule. This
The Exchange notes that in determining whether to adjust certain groupings of options exchanges in the routing fee table, the Exchange considered the transaction fees assessed by away markets, and determined to amend the grouping of exchanges that assess transaction fees for routed orders within a similar range. This same logic and structure apply to all of the groupings in the routing fee table. By utilizing the same structure that is utilized by the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX, MIAX Pearl, and MIAX Sapphire, the Exchange's Members
The proposed rule changes will become effective on December 1, 2025.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the exchange groupings of options exchanges within the routing fee table furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act and is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed change will continue to apply in the same manner to all Members that are subject to routing fees. The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the routing fee table exchange groupings furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and is not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed changes seek to recoup costs that are incurred by the Exchange when routing orders for Public Customers that are not Priority Customers to away markets on behalf of Members and does so in the same manner for all Members that are subject to routing fees. The costs to the Exchange to route orders to away markets for execution primarily includes transaction fees assessed by the away markets to which the Exchange routes orders, in addition to the Exchange's clearing costs, administrative, regulatory and technical costs. The Exchange believes that the proposed re-categorization of certain exchange groupings would enable the Exchange to better reflect the costs and fees associated with routing orders to other exchanges for execution.
The Exchange places away markets in the fee tier grouping that best approximates the Exchange's costs and fees to route the orders in that segment to that away market. The per-contract transaction fee amount associated with each grouping approximates the Exchange's all-in cost (plus an additional, non-material amount)
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's proposed re-categorization of certain exchange groupings is intended to enable the Exchange to recover the costs it incurs to route orders to away markets. The costs to the Exchange to route orders to away markets for execution primarily includes the transaction fees assessed by the away markets to which the Exchange routes orders, in addition to the Exchange's clearing costs, administrative, regulatory and technical costs. The Exchange does not believe that this proposal imposes any unnecessary burden on competition because it seeks to better reflect the costs and fees incurred by the Exchange when routing orders to away markets on behalf of Members and notes that at least one other options exchange has a similar routing fee structure.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the MIAX Sapphire Options Exchange Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) to amend the MIAX Sapphire Options Exchange Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the exchange grouping of options exchanges within the routing fee table in Section 1)b) of the Fee Schedule, Fees and Rebates for Customer Orders Routed to Another Options Exchange, to adjust the groupings of options exchanges. In addition, the Exchange proposes to make a minor, non-substantive change to the heading of Section 1)b) of the Fee Schedule.
Currently, the Exchange assesses routing fees based upon (i) the origin type of the order; (ii) whether or not it is an order for standard option classes in the Penny Interval Program
As a result of conducting a periodic review of the current transaction fees charged by away markets the Exchange has determined to amend the exchange groupings of options exchanges within the routing fee table to better reflect the associated costs and fees of routing customer orders to certain away markets for execution.
The Exchange proposes to amend the table in Section 1)b) of the Exchange's Fee Schedule, Fees and Rebates for Customer Orders Routed to Another
The Exchange proposes to remove “MEMX” from the “Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non-Penny Program” $1.25 fee tier and amend the “Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non-Penny Program” $1.40 fee tier to add “MEMX”. This change is being made as MEMX LLC (“MEMX”) recently amended its fee schedule and now assesses a transaction fee of $1.21 per contract for orders in Non-Penny classes in Professional capacities which remove liquidity from the MEMX Options Book.
The purpose of the proposal is to adjust the routing fee groups for orders routed to other exchanges to better reflect the associated costs for that routed execution in Penny and Non-Penny classes as determined by the fees and rebates at the executing exchange. In determining to amend its groupings, the Exchange took into account transaction fees assessed by the away market to which the Exchange routes orders, as well as the Exchange's clearing costs, administrative, regulatory, and technical costs associated with routing orders to an away market. The Exchange uses unaffiliated routing brokers to route orders to the away markets; the costs associated with the use of these services are included in the routing fees specified in the Fee Schedule. This routing fee structure is not only similar to the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX, MIAX Pearl, and MIAX Emerald, but is also comparable to the structure in place on at least one other competing options exchange, Cboe BZX Options.
The Exchange notes that in determining whether to adjust certain groupings of options exchanges in the routing fee table, the Exchange considered the transaction fees assessed by away markets, and determined to amend the grouping of exchanges that assess transaction fees for routed orders within a similar range. This same logic and structure apply to all of the groupings in the routing fee table. By utilizing the same structure that is utilized by the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX, MIAX Pearl, and MIAX Emerald, the Exchange's Members
In addition, the Exchange proposes to make a minor, non-substantive change to the heading of Section 1)b) of the Fee Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the heading of Section 1)b) of the Fee Schedule from “Fees and Rebates for Customer Orders Routed to Another Options Exchange” to “Fees for Customer Orders Routed to Another Options Exchange”. The proposed change is intended to align the heading information of the Exchange's Fee Schedule with the heading
The proposed rule changes will become effective on December 1, 2025.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the exchange groupings of options exchanges within the routing fee table furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act and is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed change will continue to apply in the same manner to all Members that are subject to routing fees. The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the routing fee table exchange groupings furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and is not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed changes seek to recoup costs that are incurred by the Exchange when routing orders for Public Customers that are not Priority Customers to away markets on behalf of Members and does so in the same manner for all Members that are subject to routing fees. The costs to the Exchange to route orders to away markets for execution primarily includes transaction fees assessed by the away markets to which the Exchange routes orders, in addition to the Exchange's clearing costs, administrative, regulatory and technical costs. The Exchange believes that the proposed re-categorization of certain exchange groupings would enable the Exchange to better reflect the costs and fees associated with routing orders to other exchanges for execution.
The Exchange places away markets in the fee tier grouping that best approximates the Exchange's costs and fees to route the orders in that segment to that away market. The per-contract transaction fee amount associated with each grouping approximates the Exchange's all-in cost (plus an additional, non-material amount)
The Exchange believes the proposed change to the heading of Section 1)b) of the Fee Schedule furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest because the proposed rule change will provide greater clarity to Members and the public regarding the Exchange's Fee Schedule by aligning the heading information of the Exchange's Fee Schedule with the heading conventions used for the fee schedules of the Exchange's affiliates. It is in the public interest for the Exchange's Fee Schedule to be accurate and consistent.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed re-categorization of certain exchange groupings will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's proposed re-categorization of certain exchange groupings is intended to enable the Exchange to recover the costs it incurs to route orders to away markets. The costs to the Exchange to route orders to away markets for execution primarily includes the transaction fees assessed by the away markets to which the Exchange routes orders, in addition to the Exchange's clearing costs, administrative, regulatory and technical costs. The Exchange does not believe that this proposal imposes any unnecessary burden on competition because it seeks to better reflect the costs and fees incurred by the Exchange when routing orders to away markets on behalf of Members and notes that at least one other options exchange has a similar routing fee structure.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change to the heading of Section 1)b) of the Fee Schedule will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned solely with aligning the heading information of the Exchange's Fee Schedule with the heading conventions used for the fee schedules of the Exchange's affiliates. This is to promote consistency across the Exchange's and its affiliates' fee schedules.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to modify its Fee Schedule, pursuant to IEX Rule 15.110(a) and (c), to modify the required criteria for one of its Displayed Liquidity Adding Rebate Tiers for executions priced at or above $1.00 to introduce an alternative means of qualifying for the rebate tier. IEX is not proposing to change the amounts of any rebates or fees.
As reflected in the Transaction Fees section of the Fee Schedule, IEX currently offers Members the following seven Displayed Liquidity Adding Rebate tiers:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IEX is proposing to modify the required criteria for qualifying for Displayed Liquidity Adding Rebate Tier 7 (“Tier 7”) so that Members will have two ways in which they could qualify for Tier 7: (1) the current method, in which a Member qualifies for the rebate tier by adding at least 30,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity; or (2) the proposed new method, in which a Member would qualify for the rebate tier by adding at least 25,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity and trading at least 30,000,000 non-displayed ADV. This proposed additional means of qualifying for Tier 7 requires a Member to both add a minimum amount of displayed liquidity and trade a minimum amount of non-displayed liquidity. Thus, the proposed change provides more opportunities for Members to qualify for Tier 7.
Accordingly, IEX proposes to update its Fee Schedule to make two revisions to reflect the proposed changes to Tier 7. First, the Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule's Base Rates table to update the description and fees associated with Base Fee Code ML (“Add displayed liquidity”). As amended, the Base Rates table will continue to list seven base rates for Fee Code ML, but the description of the base rate paid for a Member that adds at least 30,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity will state that a Member also can qualify for that base rate by adding at least 25,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity and trading at least 30,000,000 non-displayed ADV. Similarly, IEX proposes to update the description of Tier 7 in Footnote 4 to the Transaction Fees section. As proposed, Footnote 4 will be amended to reflect that a Member can qualify for Tier 7 either by adding at least 30,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity, or by adding at least 25,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity and trading at least 30,000,000 non-displayed ADV.
The proposed change to Tier 7 is designed to encourage Members that provide liquidity on the Exchange to maintain or increase their order flow, thereby contributing to a deeper and more liquid market to the benefit of all market participants and enhancing the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue. IEX notes that this model of offering volume-based rebates is consistent with the rebates offered by competitor exchanges.
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. IEX has concluded that, in the context of current regulatory requirements governing access fees and rebates, it is able to more effectively compete with other exchanges for order flow by offering Members an additional means of qualifying for higher rebate incentives. Based upon informal discussions with market participants, IEX believes that Members and other market participants may be more willing to send displayed orders to IEX if the proposed fee change is adopted. Accordingly, IEX has designed the proposed change to Tier 7 to allow Members an additional way to qualify for that particular incentive rebate tier.
As discussed in the Purpose section, the Exchange believes that the proposed addition of new eligibility criteria for Tier 7 is reasonable and consistent with the Act because it is designed to incentivize Members to send additional displayed order flow to IEX as well as order flow seeking to trade with such displayed orders. Moreover, increases in displayed liquidity would contribute to the public price discovery process which would benefit all market participants and protect investors and the public interest. As noted in the Purpose section, other exchanges offer rebate tiers,
As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. Within that context, the proposed additional criteria for qualifying for Tier 7 are designed to keep IEX's displayed trading prices competitive with those of other exchanges. The proposed additional criteria for qualifying for Tier 7 are comparable to the criteria applied by competing exchanges, and thus IEX does not believe that the proposal raises any new or novel issues not already considered by the Commission in the context of other exchanges' fees.
Finally, to the extent this proposed fee change is successful in incentivizing the entry and execution of displayed orders on IEX, such greater liquidity will benefit all market participants by increasing price discovery and price formation as well as market quality and execution opportunities. And, as discussed above, IEX does not believe that any aspect of this proposal raises new or novel issues not already considered by the Commission.
IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, while different rebates are assessed on Members, these rebate tiers are not based on the type of Member entering the orders that match, but rather on the Member's own trading activity. Further, the proposed fee changes continue to be intended to encourage market participants to bring increased order flow to the Exchange, which benefits all market participants.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change consists of modifications to FICC's Government Securities Division (“GSD”) Rulebook (“GSD Rules”) and Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (“MBSD”) Clearing Rules (“MBSD Rules”) (“MBSD Rules” and together with the GSD Rules, the “Rules”)
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
FICC is proposing to amend the GSD Rules and the MBSD Rules in order to (1) modify the Maintenance Fee of GSD
The Maintenance Fee is designed to (i) diversify FICC's revenue sources and mitigate its dependence on revenues driven by trading volumes, and (ii) add a stable revenue source that would contribute to FICC's operating margin by offsetting increasing costs and expenses. The Maintenance Fee was implemented in 2016
FICC operates a cost-plus pricing model. Accordingly, FICC's fees are cost-based plus a markup. As part of FICC's annual pricing review process and budgeting for 2026, FICC identified opportunities to better align fees and costs for FICC. Specifically, FICC is proposing a reduction in the Maintenance Fee percentage from 0.085% to 0.075% for both GSD and MBSD.
To effectuate the proposed fee change described above at GSD, FICC is proposing to change the Maintenance Fee percentage from “0.085%” to “0.075%” in Section XIII (Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee) of the Fee Structure in the GSD Rules. Similarly, for MBSD, FICC is proposing to change the percentage referenced under the Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee from “0.085%” to “0.075%” in Section I (Fees) of the Schedule of Charges Broker Account Group and Schedule of Charges Dealer Account Group, respectively, in the MBSD Rules.
In addition, FICC is proposing changes to enhance the clarity of the Rules. Specifically, in Section XIII (Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee) of the Fee Structure in the GSD Rules as well as under the Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee in Section I (Fees) of the Schedule of Charges Broker Account Group and Schedule of Charges Dealer Account Group, respectively, in the MBSD Rules, FICC is proposing to remove the extraneous reference to “in the Clearing Fund” and replace “for” with “in” when referencing the number of days in a month.
FICC is proposing to eliminate the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment from the GSD Rules. The Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment is a $250,000 assessment that FICC collects from a Sponsoring Member at the time the Sponsoring Member onboards into the Sponsored GC Service.
The Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment was adopted in 2020, when FICC was developing the Sponsored GC Service, to ensure Sponsoring Members' support of and readiness to participate in the Sponsored GC Service and justify FICC's investment in building the new technology infrastructure that was necessary to implement the Sponsored GC Service.
The proposed change would remove the definition of the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment from Rule 1 and would remove the description of the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment from Section VII of the GSD Fee Structure, which describes the responsibilities of Sponsoring Members to pay fees in connection with the Sponsored Service.
FICC is proposing to include in the GSD Fee Structure new pass-through fees that would be charged by Bank of New York (“BNY”), as a Clearing Agent Bank, and passed to Members by FICC.
The additional pass-through fees would include a new fee to be referred to as a “Core Services Fee” of 0.15 basis points calculated on the settlement amount of the Start Leg of all Sponsored GC Trades (including trades that would be cleared through the proposed CIL Service, to be referred to as Sponsored GC CIL Trades)
The GSD Fee Structure currently identifies fees that are charged by BNY in connection with existing global collateral services and are passed through to Members of FICC. These fees are collected in connection with clearing GCF Repo Transactions and CCLF Transactions. In connection with adding the new BNY pass-through fees to the GSD Fee Structure, the proposed changes would also include these existing pass-through fees with the Core Services Fees and would simplify the description of the calculation and assessment of these fees. The proposed changes are designed to help Members better understand the fees that FICC currently passes from BNY in connection with their use of these global collateral services.
Therefore, the proposed changes would amend Section IV (Other Charges) of the GSD Fee Structure, where “Clearance Charges,” including those that are passed through from Clearing Agent Banks, are described. The proposed changes would create a new subsection B.4.(c) to identify fees
A new subsection B.4.(c)(i) would then specifically identify the fees that are currently, and would be, charged by BNY. These fees would be identified as either “Core Services Fees” or “Enhanced Services Fees,” as described above.
The proposed changes would not change the existing pass-through fees that are charged by BNY on GCF Repo Transactions and CCIT Transactions. The existing description of these fees (currently described in subsection B.4.(c) of the GSD Fee Schedule) would be replaced with clearer, simplified descriptions in the new subsection B.4.(c)(i) and would identify these fees as Bank of New York Core Services Fees.
FICC projects that all Members would see an approximately 12% fee reduction as a result of the proposed change to the Maintenance Fee. The proposed removal of the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment would not have an impact on Sponsoring Members who use the Sponsored GC Service because the current application of this fee results in the return of the full amount to those Members through a credit against its fees for use of the Sponsored GC Service, as described above. FICC is not able to assess the potential impact of the proposed new pass-through fees, which would be assessed by BNY as a Clearing Agent Bank, based on participants' use of the existing and proposed global collateral services.
FICC has conducted ongoing outreach to Members to provide them with notice of the proposed change to the Maintenance Fee and the anticipated impact for the Member. FICC has not conducted outreach regarding the elimination of the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment. FICC has also not conducted outreach regarding the pass-through fees that would be charged by the Clearing Agent Bank, as such outreach would be conducted by BNY. As of the date of this filing, no written comments relating to the proposed changes have been received in response to this outreach. The Commission will be notified of any written comments received.
FICC would implement the proposed changes to modify the Maintenance Fee on January 1, 2026. As proposed, a legend would be added to the Rules stating the change to the Maintenance Fee would become effective upon filing with the Commission but has not yet been implemented. The proposed legend would also include the date on which such change would be implemented and the file number of this proposal, and state that, once that change is implemented, the legend would automatically be removed.
FICC would implement the proposed change to remove the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment upon filing, pursuant to paragraph A of Section 19(b)(3) of the Act
FICC would implement the proposed change to adopt changes to the GSD Fee Schedule to assist Members to better understand the pass-through fees upon filing, pursuant to paragraph A of Section 19(b)(3) of the Act.
FICC believes this proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a registered clearing agency. Specifically, FICC believes the proposed changes are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act requires that the rules of a clearing agency, such as FICC, provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its participants.
FICC believes the Maintenance Fee would continue to be equitably allocated. More specifically, as described above, the Maintenance Fee would be charged to all Members in proportion to the Members' Required Fund Deposits. As such, and as is currently the case, Members that present greater risk to FICC would generally be subject to a larger Maintenance Fee because such Member would typically be required to maintain a higher Required Fund Deposit pursuant to the respective GSD Rules and MBSD Rules.
The proposal to remove the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment would revise the fee structure of the Sponsored GC Service by removing a requirement to pre-pay a certain amount, which is then credited against fees for the use of the service. Following the proposed change, FICC would
Finally, the proposal to pass through the fees charged by the Clearing Agent Bank on the use of FICC's global collateral services would apply the same basis point charge on the settlement amount of the Start Leg of trades cleared through such services to all Members who use such services. FICC would pass through these fees to its Members at the same rate that would be charged to it by BNY, as the Clearing Agent Bank. As such, these pass-through fees would be allocated equitably to Members.
Rule 17ad-22(e)(23)(ii) under the Act requires FICC to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide sufficient information to enable participants to identify and evaluate the risks, fees, and other material costs they incur by participating in the covered clearing agency. The proposed changes, if approved, would be clearly and transparently published in Section XIII (Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee) of the Fee Structure in the GSD Rules and Section I (Fees) of the Schedule of Charges Broker Account Group as well as Schedule of Charges Dealer Account Group in the MBSD Rules, all of which are available on a public website,
FICC believes that, although Members may experience some impact from the proposed rule change to modify the GSD and MBSD Maintenance Fees and adopt new pass-through fees from BNY, the proposed rule change would not impose a burden on competition among its Members that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
FICC does not believe the proposal to remove the Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessment would have any impact on competition as it would revise the cost structure for the use of the Sponsored GC Service for all Sponsoring Members who elect to use the service.
FICC also does not believe the proposed clarifying change to the Rules would have any impact on competition. These proposed changes would enhance the Rules by providing additional clarity. The proposed clarifying changes would not advantage or disadvantage any particular Member at GSD and MBSD or unfairly inhibit access to FICC's services. FICC therefore does not believe the proposed clarifying changes would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition.
FICC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to this proposal. If any written comments are received, they will be publicly filed as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by Form 19b-4 and the General Instructions thereto.
Persons submitting comments are cautioned that, according to Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should submit only information that they wish to make available publicly, including their name, email address, and any other identifying information.
All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's instructions on how to submit comments,
FICC reserves the right not to respond to any comments received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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.
We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to
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
The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise the ICC Stress Testing Framework (“STF”) and ICC Liquidity Risk Management Framework (“LRMF”). These revisions do not require any changes to the ICC Clearing Rules.
In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
ICC proposes revising its STF and LRMF to introduce new stress scenarios that reflect a period of recent market turmoil related to the enactment of new U.S. tariffs (the “U.S. Tariffs Crisis Scenarios”). ICC also proposes additional updates to reflect current governance practices and make minor clean-up changes in the STF and LRMF. ICC believes that such revisions will facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions for which it is responsible. ICC proposes to move forward with implementation of such changes following Commission approval of the proposed rule change. The proposed revisions are described in detail as follows.
ICC proposes to introduce the U.S. Tariffs Crisis Scenarios in the STF. The STF sets out ICC's stress test methodology, including the stress scenarios used in ICC's risk management process. The ICC Risk Department maintains predefined stress scenarios which are divided into the following four categories: (1) Historically Observed Extreme but Plausible Market Scenarios,
ICC proposes to amend Section 5.1 of the STF, which lists the Historically Observed Extreme but Plausible Market Scenarios, to add the proposed U.S. Tariffs Crisis Scenarios. As described in amended Section 5.1, the proposed scenarios consist of widening and tightening scenarios and are based on observed relative spread increases and decreases during the second quarter of 2025. Additional description is proposed to explain how the scenarios are constructed in terms of spread changes and end-of-day spread levels.
ICC proposes changes to Section 5.3 of the STF, which sets out the Hypothetically Constructed (Forward Looking) Extreme but Plausible Market Scenarios to incorporate the proposed U.S. Tariffs Crisis Scenarios. The Hypothetically Constructed (Forward Looking) Extreme but Plausible Market Scenarios are based on Historically Observed Extreme but Plausible Market Scenarios augmented with adverse credit events and an additional loss scenario, as set out in the STF. ICC proposes to include the U.S. Tariffs Crisis Scenarios augmented with adverse credit events and an additional loss scenario in the bulleted list of Hypothetically Constructed (Forward Looking) Extreme but Plausible Market Scenarios.
ICC proposes additional changes to Section 5.4 of the STF, which sets out the Extreme Model Response Test Scenarios. Such scenarios are derived from Historically Observed Extreme but Plausible Market Scenarios by increasing the magnitudes for the widening and tightening spread scenarios. ICC proposes to include the U.S. Tariffs Crisis Scenarios in the bulleted list of Extreme Model Response Test Scenarios.
ICC proposes a conforming change to add the U.S. Tariffs Crisis Scenarios to a list of Historically Observed and Hypothetically Constructed Extreme but Plausible Scenarios in Section 14 of the STF. Such list describes ICC's reporting obligations.
The proposed amendments to the LRMF incorporate the U.S. Tariffs Crisis Scenarios to ensure unification of the LRMF and STF as ICC operates stress testing and liquidity stress testing on a unified set of stress testing scenarios.
Section 3.3.2 of the LRMF sets out the four abovementioned categories of predefined scenarios that are maintained by the ICC Risk Department. ICC proposes to incorporate descriptions of the U.S. Tariffs Crisis Scenarios in Section 3.3.2(a), which contains the Historically Observed Extreme but Plausible Market Scenarios. Like the changes discussed above, the proposed scenarios consist of widening and tightening scenarios and are based on observed relative spread increases
ICC proposes updates to memorialize the proposed scenarios as part of its liquidity stress testing and reporting obligations. Specifically, ICC proposes to include the proposed scenarios in Table 1 of Section 3.3.3 of the LRMF, which sets out ICC's liquidity stress testing scenarios. ICC also proposes to add the U.S. Tariffs Crisis Scenarios to a list of Historically Observed and Hypothetically Constructed Extreme but Plausible Scenarios in Section 3.3.4 of the LRMF. Such list describes ICC's reporting obligations.
ICC proposes changes to the documentation to add reference to the recently established Board Risk Committee to reflect current governance practices and make other minor clean-up changes.
ICC proposes additional changes to update governance practices in the LRMF. Amended Section 1.3 of the LRMF states that the Board Risk Committee is involved in the governance process for the reporting of liquidity adequacy analysis results, along with ICC senior management, the Risk Committee, and the Board. ICC proposes minor clean-up changes to move Figure 1, which contains an overview of the LRMF, to follow a narrative description of the LRMF in Section 1.4 to promote understanding and readability of key LRMF elements, namely, liquidity risk management model, measurement and monitoring, and governance. No changes are proposed to Figure 1. In Sections 3.3.4, 4.2, and 4.3 of the LRMF, the proposed changes note the items that are discussed with the Board Risk Committee (
ICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
As discussed herein, the proposed rule change would revise the STF and LRMF to introduce the U.S. Tariffs Crisis Scenarios. ICC also proposes additional updates to reflect current governance practices and make minor clean-up changes in the documentation. The proposed revisions strengthen the STF and LRMF through the introduction of the U.S. Tariffs Crisis Scenarios, which would complement the current scenarios and add additional insight into potential weaknesses in the ICC risk management methodology. ICC also proposes making additional minor updates to reflect current governance practices in the STF and LRMF. Such changes ensure that the documentation remains up-to-date, clear and transparent to support the effectiveness of ICC's governance arrangements that support ICC's stress testing and liquidity risk management practices. Such changes, as well as the proposed clean-ups moving Figure 1, promote understanding and readability of the LRMF, including with respect to ICC's stress testing and liquidity risk management practices. ICC believes that having policies and procedures that clearly and accurately document its stress testing and liquidity risk management practices are an important component to the effectiveness of ICC's risk management system and support ICC's ability to maintain adequate financial resources, which promotes the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, derivatives agreements, contracts, and transactions, the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or control of ICC or for which it is responsible, and the protection of investors and the public interest. Accordingly, in ICC's view, the proposed rule change is designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of the contracts cleared at ICC, to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or control of ICC or for which it is responsible, and to protect investors and the public interest, within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
The amendments would also satisfy relevant requirements of Rule 17Ad-22.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i)
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii)
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i)
ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed changes to ICC's STF and LRMF will apply uniformly across all market participants. ICC does not believe these amendments would affect the costs of clearing or the ability of market participants to access clearing. Therefore, ICC does not believe the proposed rule change imposes any burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICC.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to file number SR-ICC-2025-013 and should be submitted on or before January 8, 2026.
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 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule relating to the Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”) to adopt a new methodology for assessment and collection of ORF for transactions that occur on the Exchange (“On-Exchange ORF”), effective as of July 1, 2026.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its current methodology for assessment and collection of a regulatory fee to assess On-Exchange ORF only for options transactions that occur on the Exchange that would clear in the customer
Today, ORF is assessed by EDGX Options to each Member for options transactions that are cleared by the Member (“Clearing Member”) at OCC in the Customer range, regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs. In other words, the Exchange imposes the ORF on all Customer-range transactions cleared by a Member, even if the transactions do not take place on the Exchange. The ORF is collected by OCC on behalf of the Exchange from the Clearing Member or non-Member that ultimately clears the transaction as further described below. With respect to linkage transactions, EDGX Options reimburses its routing broker providing Routing Services pursuant to EDGX Options Rule 21.9 for options regulatory fees it incurs in connection with the Routing Services it provides. The current EDGX Options ORF is $0.0001 per contract side.
The following scenarios reflect how the ORF is currently assessed and collected (these apply regardless of whether the transaction is executed on the Exchange or on an away exchange):
1. If a Member is the executing clearing firm on a transaction (“Executing Clearing Firm”), the ORF is assessed to and collected from that Member by OCC on behalf of the Exchange.
2. If a Member is the Executing Clearing Firm and the transaction is “given up” to a different Member that clears the transaction (“Clearing Give-Up”), the ORF is assessed to the Executing Clearing Firm (the ORF is the obligation of the Executing Clearing Firm). The ORF is collected from the Clearing Give-Up.
3. If the Executing Clearing Firm is a non-Member and the Clearing Give-up is a Member, the ORF is assessed to and collected from the Clearing Give-up.
4. If a Member is the Executing Clearing Firm and a non-Member is the Clearing Give-up, the ORF is assessed to the Executing Clearing Firm. The ORF is the obligation of the Executing Clearing Firm but is collected from the non-Member Clearing Give-up (for the reasons described below).
5. No ORF is assessed if neither the Executing Clearing Firm nor the Clearing Give-up are Members.
The Exchange uses an OCC cleared trades file to determine the Executing Clearing Firm and the Clearing Give-up.
In each of scenarios 1 through 4 above, if the transaction is transferred pursuant to a Clearing Member Trade Assignment (“CMTA”) agreement to another clearing firm who ultimately clears the transaction, the ORF is collected from the clearing firm that ultimately clears the transaction (which firm may be a non-Member) by OCC on behalf of the Exchange. Using CMTA transfer information provided by the OCC, the Exchange subtracts the ORF charge from the monthly ORF bill of the clearing firm that transfers the position and adds the charge to the monthly ORF bill of the clearing firm that receives the CMTA transfer (
ORF is collected by OCC on behalf of the Exchange from the Member or non-Member OCC Clearing Member that ultimately clears the transaction. While the ORF is an obligation of the Executing Clearing Firm, the ORF is collected from the clearing firm that ultimately clears the eligible trade, even if such firm is not a Member. The Exchange and OCC adopted this collection method in response to industry feedback that it would allow Members and non-Members to more easily pass-through the ORF to their customers. In the original ORF filing by Cboe Exchange. Inc. (“Cboe Options”), an affiliate of EDGX Options,
Today, revenue generated from ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a material portion of the regulatory costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of Member customer options business including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. Regulatory costs include direct regulatory expenses and certain indirect expenses for work allocated in support of the regulatory function. The direct expenses include in-house and third-party service provider costs to support the day-to-day regulatory work such as surveillances, investigations and examinations. The indirect expenses include support to the regulatory function from such areas as human resources, legal, compliance, information technology, facilities and accounting. Today, these indirect expenses are estimated to be approximately 34% of the Exchange's total regulatory costs for 2026. Thus, direct expenses are estimated to be approximately 66% of total regulatory costs for 2026.
EDGX Options appreciates the evolving changes in the market and regulatory environment and has been evaluating its current methodologies and practices for the assessment and collection of ORF while considering industry and Commission feedback. As a result of this review, the Exchange is proposing the On-Exchange ORF, which assesses a regulatory fee to only Exchange transactions that would clear in the Customer range at OCC (as is the case today).
1. If a Member is the Executing Clearing Firm on a transaction that occurred on the Exchange, the fee would be assessed to and collected from that Member by OCC on behalf of the Exchange.
2. If a Member is the Executing Clearing Firm and the transaction is “given up” to a Clearing Give-Up, the On-Exchange ORF is assessed to the Executing Clearing Firm (the On-Exchange ORF remains the obligation of the Executing Clearing Firm under the proposal), but the On-Exchange ORF will be collected from the Clearing Give-Up.
The Exchange expects to provide Members sufficient information in connection with their invoice in order to reconcile charges associated with ORF. In addition, the proposed method for collecting On-Exchange ORF will only consider CMTAs reported to the Exchange and not those reported directly to OCC. As described above, today's ORF is the responsibility of the Executing Clearing Firm and collected from the CMTA (which may be a non-Member) as an administrative convenience. The Exchange understands that a CMTA may be added at order entry, via post-trade edit on the Exchange, or post-trade at OCC. CMTA transfers that occur at OCC do not necessarily contain reliable information regarding the Exchange on which the original transaction occurred.
With this proposal, the Exchange intends to collect ORF under its current methodology for assessment and collection of ORF until at least June 30, 2026. The Exchange is prepared to implement On-Exchange ORF effective July 1, 2026 if by April 1, 2026 all U.S. options exchanges charging an ORF have filed to modify their current methodologies of assessment of the fee to limit the fee to transactions occurring on their respective exchange.
To demonstrate the impact of the proposed change, the Exchange estimates that, if the On-Exchange ORF went into effect today, the current ORF of $0.0001 per contract side would increase to $0.00274 per contract side using 2026 estimates for regulatory revenue, regulatory costs and customer volume.
The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue collected from On-Exchange ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. Further, EDGX Options expects to continue its current practice that revenue generated from On-Exchange ORF not exceed more than [sic] 75% of total annual regulatory costs. And as is the Exchange's practice today, revenue generated by On-Exchange ORF will not be used for non-regulatory purposes.
The Exchange will continue to monitor its regulatory costs and revenues at a minimum on a semi-annual basis. If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues exceed or are insufficient to cover a material portion of its regulatory costs in a given year, the Exchange will adjust the On-Exchange ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The Exchange will notify Members of adjustments to the On-Exchange ORF via an Exchange Notice in advance of any change.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed change to assess and collect an On-Exchange ORF is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for various reasons. First, On-Exchange ORF is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in that it is charged to all Exchange transactions that clear in the Customer range at the OCC. Similar to ORF today, the Exchange believes On-Exchange ORF ensures fairness by assessing a specific fee to those Members that require more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of customer options business they conduct. Over recent years, options trading volume has increased with a growing percentage of the volume applicable to customer transactions. Customers trading on the Exchange (through a Member) benefit from the protections of a robust regulatory program including the maintenance of fair and orderly markets and protections against fraud and other manipulation. The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess a regulatory fee to transactions that clear in the Customer range to cover regulatory costs, but not to transactions clearing in the Firm or Market Maker range because Clearing Members and Market Makers (who clear in the Firm and Market Maker range), as those market participants are generally subject to other Exchange fees, fines and obligations. For example, Clearing Members and Market Makers are required to pay Exchange application fees, permit fees, and connectivity fees, amongst others. In addition, all fines issued by the Exchange for regulatory infractions are assessed only to Members and would be applied to regulatory revenues. As with today's ORF, the Exchange expects that Members from whom On-Exchange ORF is collected will pass through the fee to their customers (as the Exchange understands occurs today). In addition, Market Makers in particular are subject to various quoting and other obligations to ensure that they provide stable and liquid markets, which benefit all market participants including customers. Excluding Market Maker transactions
In addition to the overall increase in Customer-range volume generally, regulating customer trading activity is more labor intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating non-customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and less labor-intensive. For example, there are costs associated with main office and branch office examinations (
The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unduly discriminatory to modify the method of collecting the fee such that On-Exchange ORF will not consider CMTAs reported directly to OCC as is done in today's method of ORF. CMTA transfers are considered today under the current collection methodology for ORF as a convenience to industry members in administering a pass through of the fee to their customers. Limiting the On-Exchange ORF to transactions on the Exchange poses a limitation in the use of CMTA for this purpose. The Exchange understands that a CMTA may be added at order entry, via post-trade edit on the Exchange, or post-trade at OCC. CMTA transfers that occur at OCC do not necessarily contain reliable information regarding the Exchange on which the original transaction occurred.
The Exchange also believes that the fact that a Consolidated Audit Trail (“CAT”) fee is in place should not preclude the Exchange from assessing On-Exchange ORF. The CAT is a repository of order, trade and customer information that is used as the basis for an audit trail of such activities. Like industry members, the exchanges, including EDGX Options, also pays a CAT fee to support the operation and maintenance of CAT (in other words, it does not support regulatory work undertaken by exchanges). EDGX Options does not include fees it pays for CAT in the regulatory expenses it looks to offset under ORF. Yes, the Exchange uses CAT data as part of its regulatory work, but only from an audit trail perspective. On-Exchange ORF, on the other hand, offsets the regulatory work the Exchange performs (using CAT data among other sources) such as surveillance, investigations, examinations, etc. The Exchange believes its fair and reasonable to assess an On-Exchange ORF in addition to fees associated with CAT.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed change to the method for assessment and collection of the fee is reasonable because it would help ensure that revenue collected from the On-Exchange ORF, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, would help offset, but not exceed, the Exchange's total regulatory costs. As discussed, On-Exchange ORF is similarly designed to the current ORF, in that revenues generated from the fee would be less than or equal to 75% of the Exchange's regulatory costs, which is consistent with the practice across the options industry today and the view of the Commission that regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes and not to support the Exchange's business side.
As noted above, the Exchange will also continue to monitor on at least a semi-annual basis the amount of revenue collected from the On-Exchange ORF, even as amended, to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues would exceed its regulatory costs in a given year, the Exchange will reduce the On-Exchange ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission.
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. This proposal does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate intra-market burden on competition because On-Exchange ORF applies to all customer activity on the Exchange, thereby raising regulatory revenue to offset regulatory expenses. It also supplements the regulatory revenue derived from non-customer activity. The Exchange notes, however, the proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issues. Indeed, this proposal does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate inter-market burden on competition because it is a regulatory fee that supports regulation in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the amount of regulatory revenue collected from the On-Exchange ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. In addition, the Exchange will not implement the On-Exchange ORF until all other options exchanges are prepared to adopt a similar model to avoid overlapping ORFs.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that AE Ventures Fund III LP, 6700 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Boca Raton, FL, 33487, Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with financings of a small business, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and 13 CFR 107.730,
The financing is brought within the purview of 13 CFR 107.730(a) of the regulations because AE Industrial HorizonX Venture Fund I, LP, AE Industrial HorizonX Co-Investment Fund I, LP and AE Industrial Partners Structured Solutions I, LP (“AE Industrial Partners”), Associates of AE Ventures Fund III LP, own more than ten percent of the All.Space Networks Limited. AE Ventures Fund III LP and AE Industrial Partners are Associates by virtue of Common Control, as those terms are defined in 13 CFR 107.50; therefore, this transaction is considered a financing which constitutes a conflict of interest.
Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of this publication, to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under Section 309 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, and 13 CFR 107.1900 of the Code of Federal Regulations to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company license number 06060345 issued to Diamond State Ventures III, LP said license is hereby declared null and void.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under Section 309 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, and 13 CFR 107.1900 of the Code of Federal Regulations to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company license number 07/07-0120 issued to
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Alaska (FEMA-4893-DR), dated October 22, 2025.
Issued on December 15, 2025.
Sharon Henderson, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of ALASKA, dated October 22, 2025, is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to February 20, 2026.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “Gainsborough: The Fashion of Portraiture” at The Frick Collection, New York, New York, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that a certain object being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with its foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “Caravaggio's `Boy with a Basket of Fruit' in Focus” at The Morgan Library & Museum, New York, New York, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is of cultural significance, and, further, that its temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Surface Transportation Board.
Approval of rail cost adjustment factor.
The Surface Transportation Board has adopted the first quarter 2026 Rail Cost Adjustment Factor and cost index filed by the Association of American Railroads.
Pedro Ramirez, (202) 915-0862. If you require an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, please call (202) 245-0245.
The rail cost adjustment factor (RCAF) is an index formulated to represent changes in railroad costs incurred by the nation's largest railroads over a specified period of time. The Surface Transportation Board (Board) is required by law to publish the RCAF on at least a quarterly basis. Each quarter, the Association of
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, and Schultz.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
On September 5, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14346 (Modifying the Scope of Reciprocal Tariffs and Establishing Procedures for Implementing Trade and Security Agreements). Executive Order 14346 directed and authorized the Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative to take the necessary and appropriate steps to implement any current or forthcoming trade and security framework agreements between a foreign trading partner and the United States. On November 14, 2025, the United States, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein announced a Framework to negotiate an Agreement on Fair, Balanced, and Reciprocal Trade, and have agreed to modification of certain tariff rates. This notice amends the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to implement the elements of the Framework to apply the higher of either the U.S. most-favored-nation tariff rate or a tariff rate of 15 percent, comprised of the most-favored-nation tariff and a reciprocal tariff, on products of Switzerland or Liechtenstein, and to adjust tariffs on certain articles that are products of Switzerland or Liechtenstein, including certain agricultural goods, unavailable natural resources, aircraft and aircraft parts, and generic pharmaceuticals and their ingredients and chemical precursors. The United States has agreed to modify these tariff rates with the understanding and expectation that the Agreement on Fair, Balanced, and Reciprocal Trade will be successfully negotiated by the first quarter of 2026. If the Agreement is not successfully negotiated by March 31, 2026, the United States will review and reconsider these modifications, as appropriate.
This notice is effective December 18, 2025. The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States modifications set out in Annex II to this notice are effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern time on November 14, 2025.
Emily Davis, Director for Public Affairs, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 202-482-3809,
In Executive Order 14346 of September 5, 2025 (Modifying the Scope of Reciprocal Tariffs and Establishing Procedures for Implementing Trade and Security Agreements), President Trump determined, among other things, that it is necessary and appropriate to take steps contemplated in certain current and forthcoming trade and security agreements between a foreign trading partner and the United States and that any modification of tariffs required to implement such agreements is necessary and appropriate to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14257 of April 2, 2025 (Regulating Imports with a Reciprocal Tariff to Rectify Trade Practices that Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United States Goods Trade Deficits).
Executive Order 14346 also directed and authorized the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and the United States Trade Representative (Trade Representative) to determine whether the United States must take any action to implement a final agreement, and to take such actions as necessary and appropriate. It also directed and authorized the Secretary, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Trade Representative to take all necessary action to implement and effectuate that order and any actions taken under section 3 or section 4 of that order, and to employ all powers granted to the President as may be necessary to do so. That Executive Order also directs the Secretary and the Trade Representative, in consultation with the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Chair of the United States International Trade Commission (USITC), to determine whether modifications to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) are necessary to effectuate that order and actions taken under that order and authorizes them to direct such modifications through notice in the
On November 14, 2025, the United States, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein announced a Framework to negotiate an Agreement on Fair, Balanced, and Reciprocal Trade (Agreement). The Framework provides, among other things, that the United States intends to apply the higher of either the U.S. most-favored-nation (MFN) tariff rate or a tariff rate of 15 percent, comprised of the MFN tariff and a reciprocal tariff, on products of Switzerland or Liechtenstein, and that with respect to certain products of Switzerland and certain products of Liechtenstein, the United States shall not apply the additional
Consistent with Executive Order 14346, the Secretary and the Trade Representative have determined that the additional
Additionally, in order to implement certain tariff-related elements of the Framework, the Secretary and the Trade Representative have determined that
Executive Order 14346 provides that the Secretary and the Trade Representative, in consultation with other officials, are to continue to monitor the conditions underlying the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14257, update the President on the status of these conditions, inform the President of any circumstance that, in their opinion, might indicate the need for further action, and recommend additional action that, in their opinion, will more effectively deal with that emergency. Accordingly, the annexes to this notice may be amended.
Notes on certain HTSUS provisions for which only a portion of the provision is covered in this Annex, as provided in the “Scope Limitations” column:
• A subheading marked with “Aircraft” includes only articles of civil aircraft (all aircraft other than military aircraft); their engines, parts, and components; their other parts, components, and subassemblies; and ground flight simulators and their parts and components, that otherwise meet the criteria of General Note 6 of HTSUS, regardless of whether a product is entered under a provision for which the rate of duty “Free (C)” appears in the “Special” sub-column.
• A subheading marked with “Pharma” includes only non-patented articles for use in pharmaceutical applications.
Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern time on November 14, 2025, subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) is modified as follows:
1. Headings 9903.02.36 and 9903.02.58 are hereby terminated.
2. Subdivision (v) of U.S. note 2 is amended by deleting “and 9903.02.01-9903.02.73 and 9903.02.79-9903.02.80” each place it appears and inserting “9903.02.01-9903.02.73, 9903.02.79-9903.02.80, 9903.02.82-9903.02.83, and 9903.02.87-9903.02.88” in lieu thereof.
3. Subdivision (v)(i) of U.S. note 2 is amended by:
i. Deleting “9903.02.81” and inserting “9903.02.78, 9903.02.81, 9903.02.84-9903.02.86, and 9903.02.89-9903.02.91” in lieu thereof.
ii. Deleting “subdivisions (v)(ii) through (v)(xxiii)” each place that it appears and inserting “subdivisions (v)(ii) through (v)(xxiv)” in lieu thereof.
4. Subdivision (v)(xviii) of U.S. note 2 is amended by:
i. Deleting “and 9903.02.80” and inserting “9903.02.80, 9903.02.82, 9903.02.83, 9903.02.87, and 9903.02.88” in lieu thereof.
ii. Deleting “or South Korea” and inserting “South Korea, Switzerland, or Liechtenstein” in lieu thereof.
5. U.S. note 2 is amended by inserting the following new subdivisions in numerical sequence at the end of subdivision (v):
“(xxiv)(a) As provided in headings 9903.02.82 and 9903.02.83, for articles the product of Switzerland for which the U.S. Most Favored Nation (“MFN”) tariff rate (column 1-General) is less than 15 percent, the sum of the column 1 duty rate and the additional ad valorem rate of duty pursuant to heading 9903.02.83 will be 15 percent ad valorem, and for articles the product of Switzerland for which the column 1 duty rate is 15 percent or higher, heading 9903.02.82 applies, and no additional duty is due pursuant to heading 9903.02.83. As provided in headings 9903.02.87 and 9903.02.88, for articles the product of Liechtenstein for which the MFN tariff rate (column 1-General) is less than 15 percent, the sum of the column 1 duty rate and the additional ad valorem rate of duty pursuant to heading 9903.02.88 will be 15 percent ad valorem, and for articles the product of Liechtenstein for which the column 1 duty rate is 15 percent or higher, heading 9903.02.87 applies, and no additional duty is due pursuant to heading 9903.02.88.
(b) As provided in headings 9903.02.84 and 9903.02.89, the additional duties imposed by headings 9903.02.82-9903.02.83 and 9903.02.87-9903.02.88 shall not apply to articles the product of Switzerland or Liechtenstein, respectively, that are classifiable in the following provisions of the HTSUS:
(c) As provided in headings 9903.02.85 and 9903.02.90, the additional duties imposed by headings 9903.02.82-9903.02.83 and 9903.02.87-9903.02.88 shall not apply to articles the product of Switzerland or Liechtenstein, respectively, that are civil aircraft (all aircraft other than military aircraft and unmanned aircraft); their engines, parts, and components; their other parts, components, and subassemblies; and ground flight simulators and their parts and components, that otherwise meet the criteria of General Note 6 of HTSUS, and are classifiable in the following provisions of the HTSUS, but regardless of whether a product is entered under a provision for which the rate of duty “Free (C)” appears in the “Special” sub-column:
(d) As provided in headings 9903.02.86 and 9903.02.91, the additional duties imposed by headings 9903.02.82-9903.02.83 and 9903.02.87-9903.02.88 shall not apply to articles the product of Switzerland or Liechtenstein, respectively, that are not
6. Heading 9903.01.25 is modified by deleting “9903.02.81” in the article description and inserting “9903.02.91” in lieu thereof;
7. New headings 9903.02.82-9903.02.91 shall be inserted in numerical sequence, with the material in the new heading inserted in the columns of the HTSUS labeled “Heading/Subheading”, “Article Description”, “Rates of Duty 1-General”, “Rates of Duty 1-Special”, and “Rates of Duty 2”, respectively:
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
In accordance with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is providing notice of its determination of the trade surplus in certain sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products of Chile, Morocco, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Peru, Colombia, and Panama. The level of a country's trade surplus in these goods relates to the quantity of sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products for which the United States grants preferential tariff treatment under (i) the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement (Chile FTA); (ii) the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement (Morocco FTA); (iii) the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR); (iv) the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (Peru TPA); (v) the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (Colombia TPA); and (vi) the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement (Panama TPA).
This notice is applicable on January 1, 2026.
Erin H. Nicholson, Office of Agricultural Affairs, (202) 395-9419 or
Pursuant to section 201 of the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 108-77; 19 U.S.C. 3805 note), Presidential Proclamation No. 7746 of December 30, 2003 (68 FR 75789) implemented the Chile FTA on behalf of the United States and modified the HTSUS to reflect the tariff treatment provided for in the Chile FTA.
Note 3(a) to subchapter XXII of HTSUS chapter 98 requires USTR to publish annually a determination of the amount of Chile's trade surplus, by volume, with all sources for goods in Harmonized System (HS) subheadings 1701.12, 1701.13, 1701.14, 1701.91, 1701.99, 1702.20, 1702.30, 1702.40, 1702.60, 1702.90, 1806.10, 2101.12, 2101.20, and 2106.90, except that Chile's imports of goods classified under HS subheadings 1702.40 and 1702.60 that qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the Chile FTA are not included in the calculation of Chile's trade surplus.
Note 3(b) to subchapter XXII of HTSUS chapter 98 provides duty-free treatment for certain sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products of Chile entered under subheading 9822.02.01 in any calendar year (CY) (beginning in CY 2016) in the quantity of goods equal to the amount of Chile's trade surplus in subdivision (a) of the note.
During CY 2024, the most recent year for which data are available, Chile's imports of the sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products described above exceeded its exports of those goods by 664,764 metric tons according to data published by its customs authority, the
Pursuant to section 201 of the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 108-302; 19 U.S.C. 3805 note), Presidential Proclamation No. 7971 of December 22, 2005 (70 FR 76651) implemented the Morocco FTA on behalf of the United States and modified the HTSUS to reflect the tariff treatment provided for in the Morocco FTA.
Note 6(a) to subchapter XXII of HTSUS chapter 98 requires USTR to annually publish a determination of the amount of Morocco's trade surplus, by volume, with all sources for goods in HS subheadings 1701.12, 1701.13, 1701.14, 1701.91, 1701.99, 1702.40, and 1702.60, except that Morocco's imports of U.S. goods classified under HS subheadings 1702.40 and 1702.60 that qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the Morocco FTA are not included in the calculation of Morocco's trade surplus.
Note 6(b) to subchapter XXII of HTSUS chapter 98 provides duty-free treatment for certain sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products of Morocco entered under subheading 9822.03.01 in any calendar year (CY) in the quantity of goods equal to the amount of Morocco's trade surplus in subdivision (a) of the note.
During CY 2024, the most recent year for which data are available, Morocco's imports of the sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products described above exceeded its exports of those goods by 1,148,574 metric tons according to data published by its customs authority, the
Pursuant to section 201 of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 109-53; 19 U.S.C. 4031), Presidential Proclamation No. 7987 of February 28, 2006 (71 FR 10827), Presidential Proclamation No. 7991 of March 24, 2006 (71 FR 16009), Presidential Proclamation No. 7996 of March 31, 2006 (71 FR 16971), Presidential Proclamation No. 8034 of June 30, 2006 (71 FR 38509), Presidential Proclamation No. 8111 of February 28, 2007 (72 FR 10025), Presidential Proclamation No. 8331 of December 23, 2008 (73 FR 79585), and Presidential Proclamation No. 8536 of June 12, 2010 (75 FR 34311), implemented the CAFTA-DR on behalf of the United States and modified the HTSUS to reflect the tariff treatment provided for in the CAFTA-DR.
Note 25(b)(i) to subchapter XXII of HTSUS chapter 98 requires USTR to publish annually a determination of the amount of each CAFTA-DR country's trade surplus, by volume, with all sources for goods in HS subheadings 1701.12, 1701.13, 1701.14, 1701.91, 1701.99, 1702.40, and 1702.60, except that each CAFTA-DR country's exports to the United States of goods classified under HS subheadings 1701.12, 1701.13, 1701.14, 1701.91, and 1701.99 and its imports of goods classified under HS subheadings 1702.40 and 1702.60 that qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the CAFTA-DR are not included in the calculation of that country's trade surplus.
U.S. Note 25(b)(ii) to subchapter XXII of HTSUS chapter 98 provides duty-free treatment for certain sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products of each CAFTA-DR country entered under subheading 9822.05.20 in an amount equal to the lesser of that country's trade surplus or the specific quantity set out in that note for that country and that
During CY 2024, the most recent year for which data are available, Costa Rica's exports of the sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products described above exceeded its imports of those goods by 41,548 metric tons according to data published by the
During CY 2024, the most recent year for which data are available, the Dominican Republic's imports of the sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products described above exceeded its exports of those goods by 115,993 metric tons according to data published by the
During CY 2024, the most recent year for which data are available, El Salvador's exports of the sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products described above exceeded its imports of those goods by 271,876 metric tons according to data published by the
During CY 2024, the most recent year for which data are available, Guatemala's exports of the sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products described above exceeded its imports of those goods by 966,270 metric tons according to data published by the
During CY 2024, the most recent year for which data are available, Honduras' exports of the sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products described above exceeded its imports of those goods by 118,014 metric tons according to data published by the
During CY 2024, the most recent year for which data are available, Nicaragua's exports of the sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products described above exceeded its imports of those goods by 406,136 metric tons according to data published by the
Pursuant to section 201 of the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 110-138; 19 U.S.C. 3805 note), Presidential Proclamation No. 8341 of January 16, 2009 (74 FR 4105) implemented the Peru TPA on behalf of the United States and modified the HTSUS to reflect the tariff treatment provided for in the Peru TPA.
Note 28(c) to subchapter XXII of HTSUS chapter 98 requires USTR to annually publish a determination of the amount of Peru's trade surplus, by volume, with all sources for goods in HS subheadings 1701.12, 1701.13, 1701.14, 1701.91, 1701.99, 1702.40, and 1702.60, except that Peru's imports of U.S. goods classified under HS subheadings 1702.40 and 1702.60 that are originating goods under the Peru TPA and Peru's exports to the United States of goods classified under HS subheadings 1701.12, 1701.13, 1701.14, 1701.91, and 1701.99 are not included in the calculation of Peru's trade surplus.
Note 28(d) to subchapter XXII of HTSUS chapter 98 provides duty-free treatment for certain sugar goods of Peru entered under subheading 9822.06.10 in an amount equal to the lesser of Peru's trade surplus or the specific quantity set out in that note for that calendar year.
During CY 2024, the most recent year for which data are available, Peru's imports of the sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products described above exceeded its exports of those goods by 279,860 metric tons according to data published by the
Pursuant to section 201 of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 112-42; 19 U.S.C. 3805 note), Presidential Proclamation No. 8818 of May 14, 2012 (77 FR 29519) implemented the Colombia TPA on behalf of the United States and modified the HTSUS to reflect the tariff treatment provided for in the Colombia TPA.
Note 32(b) to subchapter XXII of HTSUS chapter 98 requires USTR to publish annually a determination of the amount of Colombia's trade surplus, by volume, with all sources for goods in HS subheadings 1701.12, 1701.13, 1701.14, 1701.91, 1701.99, 1702.40 and 1702.60, except that Colombia's imports of U.S. goods classified under subheadings 1702.40 and 1702.60 that are originating goods under the Colombia TPA and Colombia's exports to the United States of goods classified under subheadings 1701.12, 1701.13, 1701.14, 1701.91 and 1701.99 are not included in the calculation of Colombia's trade surplus.
Note 32(c)(i) to subchapter XXII of HTSUS chapter 98 provides duty-free treatment for certain sugar goods of Colombia entered under subheading 9822.08.01 in an amount equal to the lesser of Colombia's trade surplus or the specific quantity set out in that note for that calendar year.
During CY 2024, the most recent year for which data are available, Colombia's exports of the sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products described above exceeded its imports of those goods by 141,864 metric tons according to data published by the
Pursuant to section 201 of the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 112-43; 19 U.S.C. 3805 note), Presidential Proclamation No. 8894 of October 29, 2012 (77 FR 66505) implemented the Panama TPA on behalf of the United States and modified the HTSUS to reflect the tariff treatment provided for in the Panama TPA.
Note 35(a) to subchapter XXII of HTSUS chapter 98 requires USTR to publish annually a determination of the amount of Panama's trade surplus, by volume, with all sources for goods in HS subheadings 1701.12, 1701.13, 1701.14, 1701.91, 1701.99, 1702.40 and 1702.60, except that Panama's imports of U.S. goods classified under subheadings 1702.40 and 1702.60 that are originating goods under the Panama TPA and Panama's exports to the United States of goods classified under subheadings 1701.12, 1701.13, 1701.14, 1701.91 and 1701.99 are not included in the calculation of Panama's trade surplus.
Note 35(c) to subchapter XXII of HTSUS chapter 98 provides duty-free treatment for certain sugar goods of Panama entered under subheading 9822.09.17 in an amount equal to the lesser of Panama's trade surplus or the specific quantity set out in that note for that calendar year.
During CY 2024, the most recent year for which data are available, Panama's imports of the sugar and syrup goods and sugar-containing products described above exceeded its exports of those goods by 146 metric tons according to data published by the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of intent to designate supplemental type certificate as abandoned; request for comments.
This notice announces the FAA's intent to designate Stephen M. Hill Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) No. SA1584SW as abandoned and make the related engineering data available upon request. The FAA has received a request to provide engineering data concerning this STC. The FAA has been unsuccessful in contacting Stephen M. Hill concerning the STC. This action is intended to enhance aviation safety.
The FAA must receive all comments by June 16, 2026.
You may send comments on this notice by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Richard Bolden, FAA, East Certification Branch, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone: 404-474-5592; email:
The FAA invites interested parties to provide comments, written data, views, or arguments relating to this notice. Send your comments using a method listed under the
The FAA is posting this notice to inform the public that the FAA intends to designate as abandoned Stephen M. Hill STC No. SA1584SW and subsequently release the related engineering data. Stephen M. Hill STC No. SA1584SW is for single and dual camera installations, navigation sight installations, drop port installation, and emergency exit and door optical glass installations for oblique cameras in Gulfstream American Model 680FL(P), 680T, 680V, 680W, 681, 690, 680F(Press), 690A, 685, 690B, 690C, and 695 airplanes.
The FAA has received a third-party request for the release of the aforementioned engineering data under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. The FAA cannot release commercial or financial information under FOIA without the permission of the data owner. However, in accordance with title 49 of the United States Code § 44704(a)(5), the FAA can provide STC “engineering data” it possesses for STC maintenance or improvement, upon request, if the following conditions are met:
1. The FAA determines the STC has been inactive for 3 years or more;
2. Using due diligence, the FAA is unable to locate the owner of record or the owner of record's heir; and
3. The availability of such data will enhance aviation safety.
There has been no activity on this STC for more than 3 years.
On April 18, 2025, the FAA sent a certified letter to Stephen M. Hill at his last known addresses: 151 Chase Street, Florence, SC 29501 and 1300 Pickney Avenue, Florence, SC 29501. The letter informed Stephen M. Hill that the FAA had received a request for engineering data related to STC No. SA1584SW and was conducting a due diligence search to determine whether the STC was inactive and may be considered abandoned. The letter further requested Mr. Stephen M. Hill to respond in writing within 60 days and state whether he is the holder of the STC. The FAA also attempted to contact Stephen M. Hill by other means, including telephone communication, email, registered mail, etc., without success.
If you are the owner or heir or a transferee of STC No. SA1584SW or have any knowledge regarding who may now hold STC No. SA1584SW, please contact Richard Bolden using a method described in this notice under
If the FAA does not receive any response by June 16, 2026, the FAA will consider STC No. SA1584SW abandoned, and the FAA will proceed with the release of the requested data. This action is for the purpose of maintaining the airworthiness of an aircraft and enhancing aviation safety.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations, this notice announces that FRA is forwarding the Information Collection Request (ICR) summarized below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the information collection and its expected burden. On September 12, 2025, FRA published a notice providing a 60-day period for public comment on the ICR. FRA received no comments in response to the notice.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 20, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Ms. Arlette Mussington, Information Collection Clearance Officer, at email:
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages.
Before OMB decides whether to approve this proposed collection of information, it must provide 30 days' notice for public comment. Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b) and (c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d);
Comments are invited on the following ICR regarding: (1) whether the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the information collection activities, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of information collection activities on the public, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB clearance as the PRA requires:
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information that does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled, “Securities Exchange Act Disclosure Rules.”
Comments must be received by February 17, 2026.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Following the close of this notice's 60-day comment period, the OCC will publish a second notice with a 30-day comment period. You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection beginning on the date of publication of the second notice for this collection by the method set forth in the next bullet.
•
• For assistance in navigating
Shaquita Merritt, Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is required by statute to collect, in accordance with its regulations, certain information and documents from any firm that is required to register its stock with the SEC. Federal law requires the OCC to apply similar regulations to any national bank or Federal savings association similarly required to be registered with the SEC (generally those with a class of equity securities held by 2,000 or more shareholders). 12 CFR part 11 ensures that a national bank or Federal savings association whose securities are subject to registration provides adequate information about its operations to current and potential shareholders and the public. The OCC reviews the information to ensure that it complies with Federal law and makes public all information required to be filed under the rule.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS is inviting comments on the information collection request outlined in this notice.
Written comments should be received on or before February 17, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
View the latest drafts of the tax forms related to the information collection listed in this notice at
The IRS, 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 IRS assess the impact and minimize the burden of its information collection requirements. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record, and viewable on relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS is inviting comments on the information collection request outlined in this notice. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments regarding the burden associated with disclaiming an interest in property received by gift or inheritance.
Written comments should be received on or before February 17, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and recommendations to Andrés Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email at
Requests for additional information or copies of this collection should be directed to Ronald J. Durbala, (202)-317-5746, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or via email at
The IRS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess the impact and minimize the burden of its information collection requirements. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All
Departmental Offices, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) is providing notice to the public of the insurance marketplace aggregate retention amount (IMARA) for calendar year 2026 for purposes of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program (TRIP or the Program) under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, as amended (TRIA or the Act). As explained below, Treasury has determined that the IMARA for calendar year 2026 is $58,673,180,666.
The IMARA for calendar year 2026 is effective January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2026.
Richard Ifft, Lead Management and Senior Insurance Regulatory Policy Analyst, Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, Federal Insurance Office, 202-622-2922 or Theodore Newman, Senior Insurance Regulatory Policy Analyst, Federal Insurance Office, 202-622-7009.
TRIA—which established TRIP—was signed into law on November 26, 2002, following the attacks of September 11, 2001, to address disruptions in the market for terrorism risk insurance, to help ensure the continued availability and affordability of commercial property and casualty insurance for terrorism risk, and to allow for the private markets to stabilize and build insurance capacity to absorb any future losses for terrorism events.
TRIA provides for an “industry marketplace aggregate retention amount” or “IMARA” to be used for determining whether Treasury must recoup any payments it makes under the Program. Under the Act, if total annual payments by all participating insurers are below the IMARA, then Treasury must recoup all amounts expended by it up to the IMARA threshold. If total annual payments by all participating insurers are above the IMARA, then Treasury has the discretionary authority (but not the obligation) to recoup all of the expended amounts that are above the IMARA threshold.
TRIA provides for a schedule of defined IMARA values from calendar year 2015 through calendar year 2019.
On November 15, 2019, Treasury issued a final rule for calculation of the IMARA.
Accordingly, for purposes of determining the IMARA for calendar 2026, Treasury has averaged the aggregate insurer deductibles for calendar years 2025, 2024, and 2023 (as reported to Treasury in each of these years), which are based on the reported DEP for calendar years 2024, 2023, and 2022, respectively.
For purposes of the 2026 IMARA calculation, those figures are as follows:
Treasury has used these reported premiums to calculate the IMARA for calendar year 2026. The average annual DEP figure for the combined period of 2022, 2023, and 2024 is $293,365,903,330 [($$269,460,403,215 + $291,438,878,341 + 319,198,428,435)/3 = $293,365,903,330]. The average aggregate deductible for the prior three years is 20 percent of $293,365,903,330, which equals $58,673,180,666.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
On September 26, 2024, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) solicited public comments on VA's plan to assess the current scientific literature and historical claims data regarding exposure to Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and kidney cancer. The notice provided an opportunity for veterans, caregivers, survivors, and the public to share relevant information with VA to inform decisions regarding presumptive benefits that could impact veterans who may have experienced environmental and/or occupational exposures to PFAS during military service. Additionally, VA held a virtual public listening session on November 19, 2024, for the public to provide feedback on the planned assessment. This notice provides VA's responses to comments received from the public.
Erin Dursa, Ph.D., MPH, Director of Surveillance Military Environmental Exposures, Health Outcomes Military Exposures, Veterans Health Administration, (202) 461-7297.
On September 26, 2024, VA published a notice in the
Thirty-six comments were positive and/or in agreement with VA's planned scientific assessment, while the remaining six were neutral. No comments disagreed with the planned scientific assessment. Seventeen comments provided veteran testimony, exposure experience, or personal medical history. Thirteen comments voiced concern that kidney cancer is a narrow scope of possible conditions associated with PFAS exposure. Ten comments were requests to establish kidney cancer as a presumptive service-connected condition due to possible PFAS exposure. The remaining two comments requested benefits consideration. Twenty-two comments spoke to exposures at a specific location or in an occupation; of those, nine comments discussed firefighting foam/gear as the chief exposure concern. Eight comments discussed medical conditions other than kidney cancer. Three comments dealt with exposures other than PFAS. Of the remaining nine comments, six dealt with personal medical histories, two provided scientific evidence, and one was unclear.
With the enactment of Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022 (PACT Act), VA enhanced the presumptive decision-making process to align with 38 U.S.C. 1171-1176 and implement recommendations from National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine's (NASEM) review of the process. Under the current enhanced process, every year VA announces in the
In accordance with this process, VA established a working group called the Military Environmental Exposure Sub-Council to conduct ongoing surveillance and scientific assessments that may lead to a recommendation for formal evaluation. The duration of a scientific assessment is dependent on the availability, volume, and complexity of relevant literature and data. VA is required to complete formal evaluations within 120 days in accordance with the requirements in 38 U.S.C. 1173.
At this time, VA will focus solely on the possibility of a relationship between
VA agrees that the NASEM report “Guidance on PFAS Exposure, Testing, and Clinical Follow-up” (2022) is an important resource, and it will be one of several resources VA uses to inform its scientific assessment. However, under the PACT Act and 38 U.S.C. 1172, VA follows a specific process to support any decisions regarding creating new presumptions of service-connection. This process generally includes a scientific assessment, which requires convening an interagency expert panel and reviewing relevant peer-reviewed scientific literature and historical claims data across multiple evidence streams. The panel will make recommendations to VA leadership regarding whether the evidence supports conducting a formal evaluation. The panel will not make any recommendations regarding future studies, as that is outside of the scope of the scientific assessment.
This current assessment will focus on kidney cancer because it is the disability identified in the NASEM report as having the strongest evidence linking it to PFAS exposure. The other outcomes categorized as having “sufficient evidence of an association” were either clinical indicators (not disabilities) or were conditions that occur in children. VA only has the authority to create presumptions for disabilities in veterans; policies related to care/compensation for children would require Congressional mandate and appropriations. Other disabilities, such as those included in other categories identified by NASEM, may be assessed in future assessments as additional data becomes available. VA remains committed to transparency, scientific integrity, and supporting the health of all veterans affected by PFAS and other military environmental exposures.
VA agrees that it is important to ensure that the scientific assessment includes PFAS compounds and exposure routes specific to military settings, such as those involving fire-fighting foams or aqueous film-forming foam used to extinguish jet fuel in military and commercial settings. The assessment will examine all peer-reviewed studies involving relevant PFAS compounds, including those with known military applications. The Department of War is still in the process of identifying all of its uses of PFAS; therefore, not all potential exposure routes related to military service are known. To ensure that the assessment allows for as broad of a review on the potential relationship between PFAS and kidney cancer as possible, any published data on this relationship in any population will be considered.
Regarding potential exposures at Fort McClellan, Alabama, section 801 of the PACT Act required a Congressionally mandated epidemiological study to conduct analyses of morbidity and mortality vis-à-vis veterans who served at this location between January 1, 1935, and May 20, 1999. VA is currently conducting this research and will disseminate the results upon completion.
VA does not currently offer PFAS blood testing. This is because PFAS blood tests have limited clinical value in that they can detect levels of certain PFAS in an individual's body at one point in time, but they cannot be used to determine when an individual was exposed, the source of exposure, or whether it could affect an individual's health now or in the future. These tests also do not guide treatment decisions. Veterans who are still interested in testing may choose to do so through private laboratories outside the VA health care system. If an individual has concerns about PFAS exposure, they can speak with their primary care provider, who can review the individual's health history and determine if additional evaluations are needed.
VA does not plan to create a PFAS registry, since self-reported registries have limited scientific value. Instead, VA is conducting epidemiologic studies to try to improve our understanding of the impact of PFAS exposures in military populations. Further, under the PACT Act, VA is conducting a review of the current evidence linking PFAS exposure to kidney cancer as the first step in the presumptive decision process. Additional conditions may be considered in future phases of review. The findings of this and all presumptive decision process reviews will be shared in the
VA cannot comment on veteran medical histories or claims shared through the public comment process. VA encourages all veterans who feel their military service has negatively impacted their health to submit a claim for disability compensation. VA will review the claims on a case-by-case basis. Veterans who have evidence of an in-service toxic exposure and developed a non-presumptive disability related to that exposure may be entitled to receive compensation benefits under the direct service connection provisions if a medical opinion provides a causal link between the two. VA is unable to grant benefits if a link between the veteran's medical conditions and military service is not found. When determining eligibility for benefits, VA considers all avenues of service connection, which includes direct service connection, secondary service connection, and presumptive service connection. Service connection is not limited to potential exposures and may be warranted for chronic conditions manifesting to a compensable degree within the recognized time. If a claimant disagrees with a claim decision, they can choose from the following decision review options: Supplemental Claim, Higher-Level Review, or Board Appeal, to continue their case. Visit
VA will provide status updates on the scientific assessment at the PACT Act Quarterly Briefing for VSOs and stakeholders. Additionally, VA will publish the annual notice for fiscal year (FY) 2025 as required by 38 U.S.C. 1172. The FY 2025 notice will announce plans and details for the annual listening session. The quarterly briefings, annual notice, and listening session will provide the opportunity for veterans, family members, VSOs, stakeholders, and the public to provide their input.
Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on December 15, 2025 and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C.
This meeting is open to the public.
The Committee on Minority Veterans advises the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with respect to the administration of benefits by the Department for Veterans who are minority group members, by reviewing reports and studies on compensation, health care, rehabilitation, outreach, and other benefits and services administered by the Department.
On January 14, 2026, the Committee will receive briefings and updates from the Office of Health Equity, Veterans Benefits Administration, National Cemetery Administration, Veterans Experience Office, Office of Rural Health, and Office of Survivor Assistance.
The Committee will receive public comments on January 14, from 4:45 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. The comment period may end sooner if no comments are presented or they are exhausted before the end time. Individuals who speak are invited to submit a 1-2-page summary of their comments at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official meeting record. Members of the public may also submit written statements for the Committee's review to Mr. Dwayne E. Campbell, Department of Veterans Affairs, Center for Minority Veterans (00M), 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, or email at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.
NMFS has received a request from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (L-DEO) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to a marine geophysical survey of the East Pacific Rise in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible one-time, 1-year renewal that could be issued under certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in Request for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorization and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Comments and information must be received no later than January 20, 2026.
Comments should be addressed to the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service and should be submitted via email to
Jenna Harlacher, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS 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; 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 the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of the takings. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms used above are included in the relevant sections below (
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 preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
On June 16, 2025, NMFS received a request from L-DEO for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to a marine geophysical survey of the East Pacific Rise in the ETP. After review of the application and confirming details with the applicant, the application was deemed adequate and complete on September 10, 2025. L-DEO's request is for take of 28 species of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only. Neither L-DEO nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
Researchers from the University of California, San Diego, and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, with funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), and in collaboration with the Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, propose to conduct a three-dimensional (3-D) seismic survey, using airguns as the acoustic source, from the research vessel (R/V)
The purpose of the proposed survey is to obtain information that would be used to address the evolution of fast-spreading mid-ocean ridge magmatic systems and volcanic cycles at the East Pacific Rise in the ETP. The main goal of the proposed seismic surveys is to collect 3-D multi-channel seismic (MCS) reflection data in the ETP, repeating the same experiment conducted in 2008 on board
The proposed IHA would be valid for the statutory maximum of 1 year from the date of effectiveness. It will become effective upon written notification from the applicant to NMFS, but not beginning later than 1 year from the date of issuance or extending beyond 2 years from the date of issuance. The expected timing of the survey is February through March 2026, lasting 35 days, which includes approximately 20 days of seismic operations, 3.5 days of Ocean Bottom Seismometers deployment, 4 days of equipment deployment/recovery, 6 days contingency, and 5 days of transit.
The proposed survey would occur within approximately 10.2° N lat., 104.5° W long.; 10.2° N lat., 104.1° W long.; 8.3° N lat., 104.1° W long.; and 8.3° N lat., 104.5° W long., off the Pacific coast of Mexico in international waters, in water depths ranging from approximately 2,500 to 3,200 m. The region where the survey is proposed to occur is depicted in figure 1. Representative survey tracklines are shown; however, some deviation in actual tracklines, including the order of survey operations, could be necessary for reasons such as science drivers, poor data quality, inclement weather, or mechanical issues with the research vessel and/or equipment. Therefore, for the proposed survey, the tracklines could occur anywhere within the coordinates noted above. The
The procedures to be used for the proposed survey would be similar to those used during previous seismic surveys conducted by L-DEO and would use conventional seismic methodology. The survey would involve one source vessel,
The airgun arrays consist of a mixture of Bolt 1500LL and Bolt 1900LLX airguns. The airgun array configurations are illustrated in figure 2-11 of NSF and the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS; NSF-USGS, 2011). The PEIS is available online at:
The 3-D survey would be acquired in a racetrack formation, a pattern whereby the next acquisition line is several kilometers away from and traversed in the opposite direction of the trackline just completed. The 3-D surveys would consist of 2 racetracks; one with 49 cross-axis transect lines and one with 40 cross-axis transect lines. There would be a total of 89 lines, spaced ~300 m apart. Each line would be 26 km long, for a total of 2,314 line km; however, with infill or repeat acquisition along some transects, the total for the racetrack survey is expected to be approximately 2,900 km. Data would not be acquired during turns; thus, turns are not included in the total. In addition, one single long-axis transect, 210 km long, would also be acquired (figure 1). Thus, the total survey effort would consist of approximately 3,110 km of seismic acquisition.
In addition to the operations of the airgun array, the ocean floor would be mapped with the Kongsberg EM 122 multibeam echosounder (MBES) and a Knudsen Chirp 3260 sub bottom profiler (SBP). A Teledyne RDI 75 kilohertz (kHz) Ocean Surveyor acoustic doppler current profiler (ADCP) would be used to measure water current velocities. Take of marine mammals is not expected to occur incidental to use of the MBES, SBP, and ADCP operations whether or not the airguns are operating simultaneously with the other sources. Given their characteristics (
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this Notice (please see Proposed Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
Most populations of marine mammals found in the survey area do not occur within the U.S. EEZ and therefore, are not assessed in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs). For these populations, NMFS is evaluating impacts at the population level and ranges are considered to be the Eastern Tropical Pacific. As such, information on potential biological removal level (PBR; defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population) and annual levels of serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are not available for these marine mammal populations.
For marine mammal populations that occur within the U.S. EEZ and are assessed in a SAR, table 1 summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality (M/SI) from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks and other threats. All values presented in Table 1 for populations that are assessed in the SARs are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available in the draft 2024 SARs (available online at:
Abundance estimates for marine mammals in the survey location are based on a variety of sources, including Gerrodette
As indicated above, all 28 species in table 1 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take could occur. Although the ETP abundance for Sei whale is zero, they were sighted in a previous seismic survey in the ETP and therefore, could occur in or nearby the action area.
Some species could occur in the proposed survey area but are not likely to be encountered due to the rarity of their occurrence. These species are the North Pacific right whale (
In addition to what is included in sections 3 and 4 of the IHA application, and NMFS' website, further detail informing the regional occurrence for select species of particular or unique vulnerability (
The Central America distinct population segment (DPS) equates to the Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock designated under the MMPA and shown in table 1. The endangered Central America DPS may occur within the proposed survey area, based on the timing of the proposed survey (February-March). Humpbacks from the Central America DPS could be migrating through the survey area at the time of the proposed survey.
Whales in the Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock winter off the coasts of Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, Costa Rica, and southern Mexico including the states of Oaxaca and Guerrero, with some animals ranging even farther north (Taylor
Nine sightings were made during surveys off the Pacific coast of Mexico in November 2019 (Oedekoven
Although there are other stocks of humpback whales found in Mexico near the project area, it's likely that humpbacks from the Mexico DPS (Mexico-North Pacific Stock and Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA Stock) are not found in the survey area. The Mexico DPS's winter breeding grounds are north of the proposed survey area in the Revillagigedos Islands. Therefore, we assume that all humpback whales that may be taken by the proposed survey activities would be from the Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock.
Sei whales are less common in the survey area but there have been some reports as summarized below. Sei whales are known to occasionally occur in the Gulf of California (Urbán
Fin whale calls are recorded in the North Pacific year-round (
In the Northeast Pacific Ocean, including the ETP, blue whale calls are detected year-round (Stafford
During surveys within the EEZ of Pacific Mexico, 30 sightings of blue whales were reported by Gerrodette and Palacios (1996). The density of blue whales in the proposed study area was zero based on July-December surveys during 1986-1996 (Ferguson and Barlow 2001). However, sightings have been made just east of the proposed
During summer and fall, sperm whales are widely distributed in the ETP, although they are generally more abundant in deeper “nearshore” waters than far offshore (
The pantropical spotted dolphin is one of the most abundant cetaceans and is distributed worldwide in tropical and some subtropical waters, between ~40° N and 40° S lat. (Jefferson
The spinner dolphin is pantropical in distribution, including oceanic tropical and sub-tropical waters between 40° N and 40° S lat. (Jefferson
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2024) for a review of available information.
This section provides a discussion of the ways in which components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the content of this section, the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and whether those impacts are reasonably expected to, or reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
This section contains a brief technical background on sound, the characteristics of certain sound types, and on metrics used in this proposal inasmuch as the information is relevant to the specified activity and to a discussion of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals found later in this document.
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance between two peaks or corresponding points of a sound wave (length of one cycle). Higher frequency sounds have shorter wavelengths than lower frequency sounds, and typically attenuate (decrease) more rapidly, except in certain cases in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of the sound pressure wave or the “loudness” of a sound and is typically described using the relative unit of the dB. A sound pressure level (SPL) in dB is described as the ratio between a measured pressure and a reference pressure (for underwater sound, this is 1 micropascal (μPa)) and is a logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude; therefore, a relatively small change in dB corresponds to large changes in sound pressure. The source level (SL) represents the SPL referenced at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1 μPa) while the received level is the SPL at the listener's position (referenced to 1 μPa).
Root mean square (RMS) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse. Root mean square is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean square accounts for both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed through averaged units than by peak pressures.
Sound exposure level (SEL; represented as dB re 1 μPa
When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in a manner similar to ripples on the surface of a pond and may be either directed in a beam or beams or may radiate in all directions (omnidirectional sources), as is the case for pulses produced by the airgun array considered here. The compressions and decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as hydrophones.
Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a single source or point (Richardson
Wind and waves—The complex interactions between wind and water surface, including processes such as breaking waves and wave-induced bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a main source of naturally occurring ambient sound for frequencies between 200 Hz and 50 kHz (Mitson, 1995). In general, ambient sound levels tend to increase with increasing wind speed and wave height. Surf sound becomes important near shore, with measurements collected at a distance of 8.5 km from shore showing an increase of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band during heavy surf conditions;
Precipitation—Sound from rain and hail impacting the water surface can become an important component of total sound at frequencies above 500 Hz, and possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet times;
Biological—Marine mammals can contribute significantly to ambient sound levels, as can some fish and snapping shrimp. The frequency band for biological contributions is from approximately 12 Hz to over 100 kHz; and
Anthropogenic—Sources of anthropogenic sound related to human activity include transportation (surface vessels), dredging and construction, oil and gas drilling and production, seismic surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean acoustic studies. Vessel noise typically dominates the total ambient sound for frequencies between 20 and 300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz and, if higher frequency sound levels are created, they attenuate rapidly. Sound from identifiable anthropogenic sources other than the activity of interest (
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at any given location and time—which comprise “ambient” or “background” sound—depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and human activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of this dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson
Sounds are often considered to fall into one of two general types: Pulsed and non-pulsed. The distinction between these two sound types is important because they have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing (
Pulsed sound sources (
Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (
Airgun arrays produce pulsed signals with energy in a frequency range from about 10 to 2,000 Hz, with most energy radiated at frequencies below 200 Hz. The amplitude of the acoustic wave emitted from the source is equal in all directions (
Here, we discuss the effects of active acoustic sources on marine mammals.
Potential Effects of Underwater Sound
Richardson
We describe the more severe effects of certain non-auditory physical or physiological effects only briefly as we do not expect that use of airgun arrays are reasonably likely to result in such effects (see below for further discussion). Potential effects from impulsive sound sources can range in severity from effects such as behavioral disturbance or tactile perception to physical discomfort, slight injury of the internal organs and the auditory system, or mortality (Yelverton
Marine mammals, like all mammals, develop increased hearing thresholds over time due to age-related degeneration of auditory pathways and sensory cells of the inner ear. This natural, age-related hearing loss is contrasted by noise-induced hearing loss (Møller, 2012). Marine mammals exposed to high-intensity sound or to lower-intensity sound for prolonged periods can experience a noise-induced hearing threshold shift (TS), which NMFS defines as a change, usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level as a result of noise exposure (NMFS, 2018, 2024). The amount of TS is customarily expressed in dB. Noise-induced hearing TS can be temporary (TTS) or permanent (PTS), and higher-level sound exposures are more likely to cause PTS or other Auditory Injury (AUD INJ). As described in NMFS (2018, 2024) there are numerous factors to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, but not limited to, the signal temporal pattern (
NMFS (2024) defines AUD INJ as damage to the inner ear that can result in destruction of tissue, such as the loss of cochlear neuron synapses or auditory neuropathy (Houser 2021; Finneran 2024). AUD INJ may or may not result in a PTS. PTS is subsequently defined as a permanent, irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2024). PTS does not generally affect more than a limited frequency range, and an animal that has incurred PTS has some level of hearing loss at the relevant frequencies; typically animals with PTS or other AUD INJ are not functionally deaf (Au and Hastings, 2008; Finneran, 2016). For marine mammals, AUD INJ is considered to be possible when sound exposures are sufficient to produce 40 dB of TTS measured after exposure (Southall
TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to sound. TTS is a temporary, reversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2024) that represents primarily tissue fatigue (Henderson
In terrestrial and marine mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (
Relationships between TTS and AUD INJ thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals, and there are no measured PTS data for cetaceans, but such relationships are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. AUD INJ typically occurs at exposure levels at least several dB above that inducing mild TTS (
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
Finneran
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale (
Critical questions remain regarding the rate of TTS growth and recovery after exposure to intermittent noise and the effects of single and multiple pulses. Data at present are also insufficient to construct generalized models for recovery and determine the time necessary to treat subsequent exposures as independent events. More information is needed on the relationship between auditory evoked potential and behavioral measures of TTS for various stimuli. For summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall
Behavioral Effects—Behavioral disturbance may include a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behavior (
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok
Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant (
Changes in dive behavior can vary widely, and may consist of increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary indicators (
Visual tracking, passive acoustic monitoring (PAM), and movement recording tags were used to quantify sperm whale behavior prior to, during, and following exposure to airgun arrays at received levels in the range 140-160 dB at distances of 7-13 km, following a phase-in of sound intensity and full array exposures at 1-13 km (Madsen
Changes in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic sound exposure (
Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have been observed to increase the length of their songs or amplitude of calls (Miller
Cerchio
Castellote
Seismic pulses at average received levels of 131 dB re 1 μPa
Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or migration path as a result of the presence of sound or other stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance in marine mammals (Richardson
Forney
Forney
A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in the intensity of the response (
Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to diversion of focus and attention (
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors, such as sound exposure, are more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall
Stone (2015) reported data from at-sea observations during 1,196 seismic surveys from 1994 to 2010. When large arrays of airguns (considered to be 500 in
Stress Responses—An animal's perception of a threat may be sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses, neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbance (
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and distress is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of distress will last until the animal replenishes its
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals (
Auditory Masking—Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or interfering with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or discriminate between acoustic signals of interest (
Under certain circumstances, significant masking could disrupt behavioral patterns, which in turn could affect fitness for survival and reproduction. It is important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in a TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but rather a potential behavioral effect.
The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in predicting any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals (
Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammals at the population level as well as at the individual level. Low-frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, with most of the increase from distant commercial shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially chronic and lower-frequency signals (
Masking effects of pulsed sounds (even from large arrays of airguns) on marine mammal calls and other natural sounds are expected to be limited, although there are few specific data on this. Because of the intermittent nature and low duty cycle of seismic pulses, animals can emit and receive sounds in the relatively quiet intervals between pulses. However, in exceptional situations, reverberation occurs for much or all of the interval between pulses (
Some baleen and toothed whales are known to continue calling in the presence of seismic pulses, and their calls usually can be heard between the pulses (
Vessel noise from the
Vessel noise, through masking, can reduce the effective communication distance of a marine mammal if the frequency of the sound source is close to that used by the animal, and if the sound is present for a significant fraction of time (
Baleen whales are thought to be more sensitive to sound at these low frequencies than are toothed whales (
In summary, project vessel sounds would not be at levels expected to cause anything more than possible localized and temporary behavioral changes in marine mammals, and would not be expected to result in significant negative effects on individuals or at the population level. In addition, in all oceans of the world, large vessel traffic is currently so prevalent that it is commonly considered a usual source of ambient sound (NSF-USGS, 2011).
Vessel collisions with marine mammals, or vessel strikes, can result in death or serious injury of the animal. Wounds resulting from vessel strike may include massive trauma, hemorrhaging, broken bones, or propeller lacerations (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001). An animal at the surface may be struck directly by a vessel, a surfacing animal may hit the bottom of a vessel, or an animal just below the surface may be cut by a vessel's propeller. Superficial strikes may not kill or result in the death of the animal. These interactions are typically associated with large whales (
Pace and Silber (2005) also found that the probability of death or serious injury increased rapidly with increasing vessel speed. Specifically, the predicted probability of serious injury or death increased from 45 to 75 percent as vessel speed increased from 10 to 14 knots (kn, 26 kilometer per hour (kph)), and exceeded 90 percent at 17 kn (31 kph). Higher speeds during collisions result in greater force of impact, but higher speeds also appear to increase the chance of severe injuries or death through increased likelihood of collision by pulling whales toward the vessel (Clyne, 1999; Knowlton
The
It is possible for vessel strikes to occur while traveling at slow speeds. For example, a hydrographic survey vessel traveling at low speed (5.5 kn (10 kph)) while conducting mapping surveys off the central California coast struck and killed a blue whale in 2009. The State of California determined that the whale had suddenly and unexpectedly surfaced beneath the hull, with the result that the propeller severed the whale's vertebrae, and that this was an unavoidable event. This strike represents the only such incident in approximately 540,000 hours of similar coastal mapping activity (
Although the likelihood of the vessel striking a marine mammal is low, we propose a robust vessel strike avoidance protocol (see Proposed Mitigation), which we believe eliminates any foreseeable risk of vessel strike during transit. We anticipate that vessel
Stranding—When a living or dead marine mammal swims or floats onto shore and becomes “beached” or incapable of returning to sea, the event is a “stranding” (Geraci
Marine mammals strand for a variety of reasons, such as infectious agents, biotoxicosis, starvation, fishery interaction, vessel strike, unusual oceanographic or weather events, sound exposure, or combinations of these stressors sustained concurrently or in series. However, the cause or causes of most strandings are unknown (Geraci
There is no conclusive evidence that exposure to airgun noise results in behaviorally-mediated forms of injury. Behaviorally-mediated injury (
To understand why military MFA sonar affects beaked whales differently than airguns do, it is important to note the distinction between behavioral sensitivity and susceptibility to auditory injury. To understand the potential for auditory injury in a particular marine mammal species in relation to a given acoustic signal, the frequency range the species is able to hear is critical, as well as the species' auditory sensitivity to frequencies within that range. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities across all frequencies and, therefore, species are grouped into hearing groups with generalized hearing ranges assigned on the basis of available data (Southall
Military MFA sonar effects beaked whales differently than airguns do because it produces energy at different frequencies than airguns. High-frequency cetacean hearing is generically thought to be best between 8.8 and 110 kHz,
It is important to distinguish between energy (loudness, measured in dB) and frequency (pitch, measured in Hz). In considering the potential impacts of mid-frequency components of airgun noise (1-10 kHz, where beaked whales can be expected to hear) on marine mammal hearing, one needs to account for the energy associated with these higher frequencies and determine what energy is truly “significant.” Although there is mid-frequency energy associated with airgun noise (as expected from a broadband source), airgun sound is predominantly below 1 kHz (Breitzke
Aside from frequency content, there are other significant differences between MFA sonar signals and the sounds produced by airguns that minimize the risk of severe behavioral reactions that could lead to strandings or deaths at sea,
The available scientific literature also provides a useful contrast between airgun noise and MFA sonar regarding the likely risk of behaviorally-mediated injury. There is strong evidence for the association of beaked whale stranding events with MFA sonar use, and particularly detailed accounting of several events is available (
A review of possible stranding associations with seismic surveys (Castellote and Llorens, 2016) states that, “[s]peculation concerning possible links between seismic survey noise and cetacean strandings is available for a dozen events but without convincing causal evidence.” The authors' search of available information found 10 events worth further investigation via a ranking system representing a rough metric of the relative level of confidence offered by the data for inferences about the possible role of the seismic survey in a given stranding event. Only three of these events involved beaked whales. Whereas D'Amico
However, one of these stranding events, involving two Cuvier's beaked whales, was contemporaneous with and reasonably associated spatially with a 2002 seismic survey in the Gulf of California conducted by L-DEO, as was the case for the 2007 Gulf of Cadiz seismic survey discussed by Castellote and Llorens (also involving two Cuvier's beaked whales). Neither event was considered a “true atypical mass stranding” (according to Frantzis (1998)) as used in the analysis of Castellote and Llorens (2016). While we agree with the authors that this lack of evidence should not be considered conclusive, it is clear that there is very little evidence that seismic surveys should be considered as posing a significant risk of acute harm to beaked whales or other high-frequency cetaceans. We have considered the potential for the proposed surveys to result in marine mammal stranding and, based on the best available information, do not expect a stranding to occur.
Entanglement—Entanglements occur when marine mammals become wrapped around cables, lines, nets, or other objects suspended in the water column. During seismic operations, numerous cables, lines, and other objects primarily associated with the airgun array and hydrophone streamers will be towed behind the
Effects to Prey—Marine mammal prey varies by species, season, and location and, for some, is not well documented. Fish react to sounds which are especially strong and/or intermittent low-frequency sounds, and behavioral responses such as flight or avoidance are the most likely effects. However, the reaction of fish to airguns depends on the physiological state of the fish, past exposures, motivation (
Skalski
SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fish and fish mortality and, in some studies, fish auditory systems have been damaged by airgun noise (McCauley
A comprehensive review (Carroll
Available data suggest that cephalopods are capable of sensing the particle motion of sounds and detect low frequencies up to 1-1.5 kHz, depending on the species, and so are likely to detect airgun noise (Kaifu
With regard to potential impacts on zooplankton, McCauley
A modeling exercise was conducted as a follow-up to the McCauley
Notably, a more recently described study produced results inconsistent with those of McCauley
A review article concluded that, while laboratory results provide scientific evidence for high-intensity and low-frequency sound-induced physical trauma and other negative effects on some fish and invertebrates, the sound exposure scenarios in some cases are not realistic to those encountered by marine organisms during routine seismic operations (Carroll
In summary, impacts of the specified activity on marine mammal prey species will likely generally be limited to behavioral responses, the majority of prey species will be capable of moving out of the area during the survey, a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution, and behavior for prey species is anticipated, and, overall, impacts to prey species will be minor and temporary. Prey species exposed to sound might move away from the sound
Acoustic Habitat—Acoustic habitat is the soundscape—which encompasses all of the sound present in a particular location and time, as a whole—when considered from the perspective of the animals experiencing it. Animals produce sound for, or listen for sounds produced by, conspecifics (communication during feeding, mating, and other social activities), other animals (finding prey or avoiding predators), and the physical environment (finding suitable habitats, navigating). Together, sounds made by animals and the geophysical environment (
Soundscapes are also defined by, and acoustic habitat influenced by, the total contribution of anthropogenic sound. This may include incidental emissions from sources such as vessel traffic, or may be intentionally introduced to the marine environment for data acquisition purposes (as in the use of airgun arrays). Anthropogenic noise varies widely in its frequency content, duration, and loudness and these characteristics greatly influence the potential habitat-mediated effects to marine mammals (please see also the previous discussion on masking under
Problems arising from a failure to detect cues are more likely to occur when noise stimuli are chronic and overlap with biologically relevant cues used for communication, orientation, and predator/prey detection (Francis and Barber, 2013). Although the signals emitted by seismic airgun arrays are generally low frequency, they would also likely be of short duration and transient in any given area due to the nature of these surveys. As described previously, exploratory surveys such as these cover a large area but would be transient rather than focused in a given location over time and therefore would not be considered chronic in any given location.
Based on the information discussed herein, we conclude that impacts of the specified activity are not likely to have more than short-term adverse effects on any prey habitat or populations of prey species. Further, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to result in significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals, or to contribute to adverse impacts on their populations.
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through the IHA, which will inform NMFS' consideration of “small numbers,” and the negligible impact determinations.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of 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).
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of behavioral reactions and/or TTS, for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to noise from the use of seismic airguns. Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures (
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) acoustic criteria above which NMFS believes there is some reasonable potential for marine mammals to be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of AUD INJ; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) the number of days of activities. We note that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of potential takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available (
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic criteria that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur AUD INJ of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). We note that the criteria for AUD INJ, as well as the names of two hearing groups, have been recently updated (NMFS 2024) as reflected below in the Level A harassment section.
Level B Harassment—Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source or exposure context (
Level A Harassment—NMFS' Updated Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 3.0) (NMFS, 2024) identifies dual criteria to assess AUD INJ (Level A harassment) to five different underwater marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). L-DEO's proposed activity includes the use of impulsive seismic sources (
The 2024 Updated Technical Guidance criteria include both updated thresholds and updated weighting functions for each hearing group. The thresholds are provided in the table below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the criteria are described in NMFS' 2024 Updated Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss coefficient.
The ensonified area associated with Level A harassment is more technically challenging to predict due to the need to account for a duration component. Therefore, NMFS developed an optional User Spreadsheet tool to accompany the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance that can be used to relatively simply predict an isopleth distance for use in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict potential takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods underlying this optional tool, we anticipate that the resulting isopleth estimates are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in an overestimate of potential take by Level A harassment. However, this optional tool offers the best way to estimate isopleth distances when more sophisticated modeling methods are not available or practical.
The proposed survey would entail the use of a cluster of 2 18-airgun array with a total discharge volume of 3,300 in
For deep and intermediate water cases, the field measurements cannot be used readily to derive the harassment isopleths, as at those sites the calibration hydrophone was located at a roughly constant depth of 350-550 m, which may not intersect all the SPL isopleths at their widest point from the
In deep and intermediate water depths at short ranges, sound levels for direct arrivals recorded by the calibration hydrophone and L-DEO model results for the same array tow depth are in good alignment (see figures 12 and 14 in Diebold
The proposed geophysical survey would acquire data with the 18-airgun array at a tow depth of 7.5 m. For deep water (>1,000 m), we use the deep-water radii obtained from the L-DEO model results down to a maximum water depth of 2,000 m for the airgun array.
L-DEO's modeling methodology is described in greater detail in their application. The estimated distances to the Level B harassment isopleth for the proposed airgun configuration are shown in table 4.
Table 5 presents the modeled Level A harassment isopleths for each marine mammal hearing group based on L-DEO modeling incorporated in the companion user spreadsheet, for the low-energy surveys with the shortest shot interval (
Predicted distances to Level A harassment isopleths, which vary based on marine mammal hearing groups, were calculated based on modeling performed by L-DEO using the Nucleus software program and the NMFS user spreadsheet, described below. The acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds contained in the NMFS Technical Guidance were presented as dual metric acoustic thresholds using both SEL
The SEL
In consideration of the received sound levels in the near-field as described above, we expect the potential for Level A harassment of any species to be de minimis, even before the likely
The Level B harassment estimates are based on a consideration of the number of marine mammals that could be within the area around the operating airgun array where received levels of sound ≥160 dB re 1 µPa RMS are predicted to occur. The estimated numbers are based on the densities (numbers per unit area) of marine mammals expected to occur in the area in the absence of seismic surveys. To the extent that marine mammals tend to move away from seismic sources before the sound level reaches the criterion level and tend not to approach an operating airgun array, these estimates likely overestimate the numbers actually exposed to the specified level of sound.
In this section we provide information about the occurrence of marine mammals, including density or other relevant information which will inform the take calculations.
L-DEO used habitat-based stratified marine mammal densities for summer (July-December) for the ETP when available (Barlow
The NMFS SWFSC also developed density estimates for species in the ETP that may be affected by their own fisheries research activities (NMFS 2015a). These estimates were derived from abundance estimates using ship-based surveys of marine mammals in the ETP, as reported by Gerrodette
For the sei whale, for which Gerrodette
Here we describe how the information provided above is synthesized to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably likely to occur and proposed for authorization.
In order to estimate the number of marine mammals predicted to be exposed to sound levels that would result in Level A or Level B harassment, radial distances from the airgun array to the predicted isopleth corresponding to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds are calculated, as described above. Those radial distances were then used to calculate the area(s) around the airgun array predicted to be ensonified to sound levels that exceed the harassment thresholds. The distance for the 160-dB Level B harassment threshold and auditory injury (Level A harassment) thresholds (based on L-DEO model results) was used to draw a buffer around the area expected to be ensonified (
L-DEO assumed that their estimates of marine mammal exposures above harassment thresholds equate to take and requested authorization of those takes. Those estimates in turn form the basis for our proposed take authorization numbers. Based on the nature of the activity and due to the unlikelihood of the calculated Level A harassment exposures because of the small Level A harassment zones (158 m for LF and <15 m for HF species) and the need for individuals to stay in the Level A harassment zone for 24-hours to incur AUD INJ, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized. For some species (LF and HF) we have added L-DEO's estimated exposures above Level A harassment thresholds to their estimated exposures above the Level B harassment threshold to produce a total number of incidents of take by Level B harassment that is proposed for authorization.
Additionally, for three species (minke whale, fin whale, and
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS considers two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned), and;
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, and impact on operations.
The proposed mitigation requirements described in the following were proposed by L-DEO in its adequate and complete application or are the result of subsequent coordination between NMFS and L-DEO. L-DEO has agreed that all of the mitigation measures are practicable. NMFS has fully reviewed the specified activities and the mitigation measures to determine if the mitigation measures would result in the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammals and their habitat, as required by the MMPA, and has determined the proposed measures are appropriate. NMFS describes these below as proposed mitigation requirements, and has included them in the proposed IHA.
Visual monitoring requires the use of trained observers (herein referred to as visual protected species observers (PSOs)) to scan the ocean surface for the presence of marine mammals. The area to be scanned visually includes primarily the shutdown zone (SZ), within which observation of certain marine mammals requires shutdown of the acoustic source, a buffer zone, and to the extent possible depending on conditions, the surrounding waters. The buffer zone means an area beyond the SZ to be monitored for the presence of marine mammals that may enter the SZ. During pre-start clearance monitoring
During survey operations (
PSOs shall establish and monitor the SZ and buffer zone. These zones shall be based upon the radial distance from the edges of the airgun array (rather than being based on the center of the array or around the vessel itself). During use of the airgun array (
Visual PSOs may be on watch for a maximum of 4 consecutive hours followed by a break of at least 1 hour between watches and may conduct a maximum of 12 hours of observation per 24-hour period. Combined observational duties (visual and acoustic but not at same time) may not exceed 12 hours per 24-hour period for any individual PSO.
Passive acoustic monitoring means the use of trained personnel (sometimes referred to as PAM operators, herein referred to as acoustic PSOs) to operate PAM equipment to acoustically detect the presence of marine mammals. Acoustic monitoring involves acoustically detecting marine mammals regardless of distance from the source, as localization of animals may not always be possible. Acoustic monitoring is intended to further support visual monitoring (during daylight hours) in maintaining a SZ around the sound source that is clear of marine mammals. In cases where visual monitoring is not effective (
PAM would take place in addition to the visual monitoring program. Visual monitoring typically is not effective during periods of poor visibility or at night and even with good visibility, is unable to detect marine mammals when they are below the surface or beyond visual range. Acoustic monitoring can be used in addition to visual observations to improve detection, identification, and localization of cetaceans. The acoustic monitoring would serve to alert visual PSOs (if on duty) when vocalizing cetaceans are detected. It is only useful when marine mammals vocalize, but it can be effective either by day or by night and does not depend on good visibility. It would be monitored in real time so that the visual observers can be advised when cetaceans are detected.
The
Survey activity may continue for 30 minutes when the PAM system malfunctions or is damaged, while the PAM operator diagnoses the issue. If the diagnosis indicates that the PAM system must be repaired to solve the problem, operations may continue for an additional 10 hours without acoustic monitoring during daylight hours only under the following conditions:
• Sea state is less than or equal to BSS 4;
• No marine mammals (excluding delphinids) detected solely by PAM in the SZ in the previous 2 hours;
• NMFS is notified via email as soon as practicable with the time and location in which operations began occurring without an active PAM system; and
• Operations with an active airgun array, but without an operating PAM system, do not exceed a cumulative total of 10 hours in any 24-hour period.
A SZ is a defined area within which occurrence of a marine mammal triggers mitigation action intended to reduce the potential for certain outcomes (
The pre-start clearance zone is defined as the area that must be clear of marine mammals prior to beginning ramp-up of the airgun array and includes the SZ plus the buffer zone. Detections of marine mammals within the pre-start clearance zone would prevent airgun operations from beginning (
The 500-m SZ is intended to be precautionary in the sense that it would be expected to contain sound exceeding
An extended SZ of 1,500 m must be enforced for all beaked whales,
Ramp-up (sometimes referred to as “soft start”) means the gradual and systematic increase of emitted sound levels from an airgun array. Ramp-up begins by first activating a single airgun of the smallest volume, followed by doubling the number of active elements in stages until the full complement of an array's airguns are active. Each stage should be approximately the same duration, and the total duration should not be less than approximately 20 minutes. The intent of pre-start clearance observation (30 minutes) is to ensure no marine mammals are observed within the pre-start clearance zone (or extended SZ, for beaked whales,
• The operator must notify a designated PSO of the planned start of ramp-up as agreed upon with the lead PSO; the notification time should not be less than 60 minutes prior to the planned ramp-up in order to allow the PSOs time to monitor the pre-start clearance zone (and extended SZ) for 30 minutes prior to the initiation of ramp-up (pre-start clearance);
• Ramp-ups shall be scheduled so as to minimize the time spent with the source activated prior to reaching the designated run-in;
• One of the PSOs conducting pre-start clearance observations must be notified again immediately prior to initiating ramp-up procedures and the operator must receive confirmation from the PSO to proceed;
• Ramp-up may not be initiated if any marine mammal is within the applicable shutdown or buffer zone. If a marine mammal is observed within the pre-start clearance zone (or extended SZ, for beaked whales, a large whale with a calf, and groups of six or more large whales) during the 30 minute pre-start clearance period, ramp-up may not begin until the animal(s) has been observed exiting the zones or until an additional time period has elapsed with no further sightings (15 minutes for small odontocetes, and 30 minutes for all mysticetes and all other odontocetes, including sperm whales, beaked whales, and large delphinids);
• Ramp-up shall begin by activating a single airgun of the smallest volume in the array and shall continue in stages by doubling the number of active elements at the commencement of each stage, with each stage of approximately the same duration. Duration shall not be less than 20 minutes. The operator must provide information to the PSO documenting that appropriate procedures were followed;
• PSOs must monitor the pre-start clearance zone and extended SZ during ramp-up, and ramp-up must cease and the source must be shut down upon detection of a marine mammal within the applicable zone. Once ramp-up has begun, detections of marine mammals within the buffer zone do not require shutdown, but such observation shall be communicated to the operator to prepare for the potential shutdown;
• Ramp-up may occur at times of poor visibility, including nighttime, if appropriate acoustic monitoring has occurred with no detections in the 30 minutes prior to beginning ramp-up. Airgun array activation may only occur at times of poor visibility where operational planning cannot reasonably avoid such circumstances;
• If the airgun array is shut down for brief periods (
• Testing of the airgun array involving all elements requires ramp-up. Testing limited to individual source elements or strings does not require ramp-up but does require pre-start clearance watch of 30 minutes.
The shutdown of an airgun array requires the immediate de-activation of all individual airgun elements of the array. Any PSO on duty will have the authority to call for shutdown of the airgun array if a marine mammal is detected within the applicable SZ. The operator must also establish and maintain clear lines of communication directly between PSOs on duty and crew controlling the airgun array to ensure that shutdown commands are conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs to maintain watch. When both visual and acoustic PSOs are on duty, all detections will be immediately communicated to the remainder of the on-duty PSO team for potential verification of visual observations by the acoustic PSO or of acoustic detections by visual PSOs. When the airgun array is active (
Following a shutdown, airgun activity would not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the SZ. The animal would be considered to have cleared the
The shutdown requirement is waived for specific genera of small dolphins if an individual is detected within the SZ. The small dolphin group is intended to encompass those members of the Family Delphinidae most likely to voluntarily approach the source vessel for purposes of interacting with the vessel and/or airgun array (
We include this small dolphin exception because shutdown requirements for these species under all circumstances represent practicability concerns without likely commensurate benefits for the animals in question. Small dolphins are generally the most commonly observed marine mammals in the specific geographic region and would typically be the only marine mammals likely to intentionally approach the vessel. As described above, auditory injury is extremely unlikely to occur for high-frequency cetaceans (
A large body of anecdotal evidence indicates that small dolphins commonly approach vessels and/or towed arrays during active sound production for purposes of bow riding with no apparent effect observed (
Visual PSOs shall use best professional judgment in making the decision to call for a shutdown if there is uncertainty regarding identification (
L-DEO must implement shutdown if a marine mammal species for which take was not authorized or a species for which authorization was granted but the authorized takes have been met approaches the Level A or Level B harassment zones. L-DEO must also implement an extended shutdown of 1,500 m if any large whale (defined as a sperm whale or any mysticete species) with a calf (defined as an animal less than two-thirds the body size of an adult observed to be in close association with an adult) and/or an aggregation of six or more large whales.
Vessel personnel should use an appropriate reference guide that includes identifying information on all marine mammals that may be encountered. Vessel operators must comply with the below measures except under extraordinary circumstances when the safety of the vessel or crew is in doubt or the safety of life at sea is in question. These requirements do not apply in any case where compliance would create an imminent and serious threat to a person or vessel or to the extent that a vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver and, because of the restriction, cannot comply.
Vessel operators and crews must maintain a vigilant watch for all marine mammals and slow down, stop their vessel, or alter course, as appropriate and regardless of vessel size, to avoid striking any marine mammal. A single marine mammal at the surface may indicate the presence of submerged animals in the vicinity of the vessel; therefore, precautionary measures should always be exercised. A visual observer aboard the vessel must monitor a vessel strike avoidance zone around the vessel (separation distances stated below). Visual observers monitoring the vessel strike avoidance zone may be third-party observers (
Vessel speeds must be reduced to 10 kn (18.5 kph) or less when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed near a vessel. All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m from sperm whales and all other baleen whales. All vessels must, to the maximum extent practicable, attempt to maintain a minimum separation distance of 50 m from all other marine mammals, with an understanding that at times this may not be possible (
When marine mammals are sighted while a vessel is underway, the vessel shall take action as necessary to avoid violating the relevant separation distance (
NMFS conducted an independent evaluation of the proposed measures, and has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
The proposed monitoring and reporting requirements described in the following were proposed by L-DEO in its adequate and complete application and/or are the result of subsequent coordination between NMFS and L-DEO. L-DEO has agreed to the requirements. NMFS describes these below as requirements and has included them in the proposed IHA.
L-DEO must use dedicated, trained, and NMFS-approved PSOs. The PSOs must have no tasks other than to conduct observational effort, record observational data, and communicate with and instruct relevant vessel crew with regard to the presence of marine mammals and mitigation requirements. PSO resumes shall be provided to NMFS for advance approval (prior to embarking on the vessel).
At least one of the visual and two of the acoustic PSOs (discussed below) aboard the vessel must have a minimum of 90 days at-sea experience working in those roles, respectively, with no more than 18 months elapsed since the conclusion of the at-sea experience. One visual PSO with such experience shall be designated as the lead for the entire protected species observation team. The lead PSO shall serve as primary point of contact for the vessel operator and ensure all PSO requirements per the IHA are met. To the maximum extent practicable, the experienced PSOs should be scheduled to be on duty with those PSOs with appropriate training but who have not yet gained relevant experience.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
As described above, PSO observations would take place during daytime airgun operations. During seismic survey operations, at least five visual PSOs would be based aboard the
• The operator shall provide PSOs with bigeye reticle binoculars (
• The operator will work with the selected third-party observer provider to ensure PSOs have all equipment (including backup equipment) needed to adequately perform necessary tasks, including accurate determination of distance and bearing to observed marine mammals.
PSOs must have the following requirements and qualifications:
• PSOs shall be independent, dedicated, trained visual and acoustic PSOs and must be employed by a third-party observer provider;
• PSOs shall have no tasks other than to conduct observational effort (visual or acoustic), collect data, and communicate with and instruct relevant vessel crew with regard to the presence of protected species and mitigation requirements (including brief alerts regarding maritime hazards);
• PSOs shall have successfully completed an approved PSO training course appropriate for their designated task (visual or acoustic). Acoustic PSOs are required to complete specialized training for operating PAM systems and are encouraged to have familiarity with the vessel with which they will be working;
• PSOs can act as acoustic or visual observers (but not at the same time) as long as they demonstrate that their training and experience are sufficient to perform the task at hand;
• NMFS must review and approve PSO resumes accompanied by a relevant training course information packet that includes the name and qualifications (
• PSOs must successfully complete relevant training, including completion of all required coursework and passing (80 percent or greater) a written and/or oral examination developed for the training program;
• PSOs must have successfully attained a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with a major in one of the natural sciences, a minimum of 30 semester hours or equivalent in the biological sciences, and at least one undergraduate course in math or statistics; and
• The educational requirements may be waived if the PSO has acquired the relevant skills through alternate
• For data collection purposes, PSOs shall use standardized electronic data collection forms. PSOs shall record detailed information about any implementation of mitigation requirements, including the distance of animals to the airgun array and description of specific actions that ensued, the behavior of the animal(s), any observed changes in behavior before and after implementation of mitigation, and if shutdown was implemented, the length of time before any subsequent ramp-up of the airgun array. If required mitigation was not implemented, PSOs should record a description of the circumstances. At a minimum, the following information must be recorded:
○ Vessel name, vessel size and type, maximum speed capability of vessel;
○ Dates (MM/DD/YYYY) of departures and returns to port with port name;
○ PSO names and affiliations, PSO ID (initials or other identifier);
○ Date (MM/DD/YYYY) and participants of PSO briefings;
○ Visual monitoring equipment used (description);
○ PSO location on vessel and height (meters) of observation location above water surface;
○ Watch status (description);
○ Dates (MM/DD/YYYY) and times (Greenwich Mean Time/UTC) of survey on/off effort and times (GMC/UTC) corresponding with PSO on/off effort;
○ Vessel location (decimal degrees) when survey effort began and ended and vessel location at beginning and end of visual PSO duty shifts;
○ Vessel location (decimal degrees) at 30-second intervals if obtainable from data collection software, otherwise at practical regular interval;
○ Vessel heading (compass heading) and speed (knots) at beginning and end of visual PSO duty shifts and upon any change;
○ Water depth (meters) (if obtainable from data collection software);
○ Environmental conditions while on visual survey (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions changed significantly), including BSS and any other relevant weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon;
○ Factors that may have contributed to impaired observations during each PSO shift change or as needed as environmental conditions changed (description) (
○ Vessel/Survey activity information (and changes thereof) (description), such as airgun power output while in operation, number and volume of airguns operating in the array, tow depth of the array, and any other notes of significance (
• Upon visual observation of any marine mammals, the following information must be recorded:
○ Sighting ID (numeric);
○ Watch status (sighting made by PSO on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, alternate vessel/platform);
○ Location of PSO/observer (description);
○ Vessel activity at the time of the sighting (
○ PSO who sighted the animal/ID;
○ Time/date of sighting (GMT/UTC, MM/DD/YYYY);
○ Initial detection method (description);
○ Sighting cue (description);
○ Vessel location at time of sighting (decimal degrees);
○ Water depth (meters);
○ Direction of vessel's travel (compass direction);
○ Speed (knots) of the vessel from which the observation was made;
○ Direction of animal's travel relative to the vessel (description, compass heading);
○ Bearing to sighting (degrees);
○ Identification of the animal (
○ Species reliability (an indicator of confidence in identification) (1 = unsure/possible, 2 = probable, 3 = definite/sure, 9 = unknown/not recorded);
○ Estimated distance to the animal (meters) and method of estimating distance;
○ Estimated number of animals (high/low/best) (numeric);
○ Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles, calves, group composition,
○ Description (as many distinguishing features as possible of each individual seen, including length, shape, color, pattern, scars or markings, shape and size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and blow characteristics);
○ Detailed behavior observations (
○ Animal's closest point of approach (meters) and/or closest distance from any element of the airgun array;
○ Description of any actions implemented in response to the sighting (
○ Photos (Yes/No);
○ Photo Frame Numbers (List of numbers); and
○ Conditions at time of sighting (Visibility; Beaufort Sea State).
If a marine mammal is detected while using the PAM system, the following information should be recorded:
• An acoustic encounter identification number, and whether the detection was linked with a visual sighting;
• Date and time when first and last heard;
• Types and nature of sounds heard (
• Any additional information recorded such as water depth of the hydrophone array, bearing of the animal to the vessel (if determinable), species or taxonomic group (if determinable), spectrogram screenshot, and any other notable information.
L-DEO shall submit a draft comprehensive report on all activities and monitoring results within 90 days of the completion of the survey or expiration of the IHA, whichever comes sooner. The report must describe all activities conducted and sightings of marine mammals, must provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring, and must summarize the dates and locations of survey operations and all marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated survey activities). The draft report shall also include geo-referenced time-stamped vessel tracklines for all time periods during which airgun arrays were operating. Tracklines should include points recording any change in
The report must include a validation document concerning the use of PAM, which should include necessary noise validation diagrams and demonstrate whether background noise levels on the PAM deployment limited achievement of the planned detection goals. Copies of any vessel self-noise assessment reports must be included with the report.
Discovery of injured or dead marine mammals—In the event that personnel involved in the survey activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the L-DEO shall report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR) as soon as feasible. The report must include the following information:
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
• Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead);
• Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
• If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and
• General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.
Vessel strike—In the event of a strike of a marine mammal by any vessel involved in the activities covered by the authorization, L-DEO shall report the incident to OPR as soon as feasible. The report must include the following information:
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
• Vessel's course/heading and what operations were being conducted (if applicable);
• Status of all sound sources in use;
• Description of avoidance measures/requirements that were in place at the time of the strike and what additional measure were taken, if any, to avoid strike;
• Environmental conditions (
• Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Estimated size and length of the animal that was struck;
• Description of the behavior of the marine mammal immediately preceding and following the strike;
• If available, description of the presence and behavior of any other marine mammals present immediately preceding the strike;
• Estimated fate of the animal (
• To the extent practicable, photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
NMFS has defined negligible impact 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 (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analysis applies to all the species listed in table 1, given that the anticipated effects of this activity on these different marine mammal stocks are expected to be similar. NMFS does not anticipate that serious injury or mortality would occur as a result of L-DEO's planned survey, even in the absence of mitigation, and no serious injury or mortality is proposed to be authorized. As discussed in the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat section above, non-auditory physical effects and vessel strike are not expected to occur. NMFS expects that all potential take would be in the form of Level B behavioral harassment in the form of temporary avoidance of the area or decreased foraging (if such activity was occurring), responses that are considered to be of low severity, and with no lasting biological consequences (
In addition, the maximum expected Level B harassment zone around the survey vessel is 3,526 m. Therefore, the ensonified area surrounding the vessel is relatively small compared to the overall distribution of animals in the area and their use of the habitat. Feeding behavior is not likely to be significantly impacted as prey species are mobile and are broadly distributed throughout the survey area; therefore, marine mammals that may be temporarily displaced during survey activities are expected to be able to resume foraging once they have moved away from areas with disturbing levels of underwater noise. Because of the short duration (35 total survey days with 20 days of seismic operations) and temporary nature of the disturbance and the availability of similar habitat and resources in the surrounding area, the impacts to marine mammals and marine mammal prey species are not expected to cause significant or long-term fitness consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.
Additionally, the acoustic “footprint” of the proposed survey would be very small relative to the ranges of all marine mammals that would potentially be affected. Sound levels would increase in the marine environment in a relatively small area surrounding the vessel compared to the range of the marine mammals within the proposed survey area. The seismic array would be active 24 hours per day throughout the duration of the proposed survey. However, the very brief overall duration of the proposed survey (35 total survey days with 20 days of seismic operations) would further limit potential impacts that may occur as a result of the proposed activity.
Of the marine mammal species that are likely to occur in the project area, the following species are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA: humpback whales (Central America DPS), fin whales, sei whales, blue whale, and sperm whales. The take numbers proposed for authorization for these species (table 6) are minimal relative to their modeled population sizes; therefore, we do not expect population-level impacts to any of these species. Moreover, the actual range of the populations extends past the area covered by the model, so modeled population sizes are likely smaller than their actual population size. Lastly, as previously described, meaningful impacts from the seismic survey are even less likely to occur for high-frequency cetaceans (
There are no rookeries, mating, or calving grounds known to be biologically important to marine mammals within the survey area, and there are no feeding areas known to be biologically important to marine mammals within the survey area.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect any of the species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No Level A harassment, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated or authorized;
• The proposed activity is temporary and of relatively short duration (35 days total with 20 days of airgun activity);
• The anticipated impacts of the proposed activity on marine mammals would be temporary behavioral changes due to avoidance of the ensonified area, which is relatively small (see tables 4 and 5);
• The availability of alternative areas of similar habitat value for marine mammals to temporarily vacate the survey area during the proposed survey to avoid exposure to sounds from the activity is readily abundant;
• The potential adverse effects on fish or invertebrate species that serve as prey species for marine mammals from the proposed survey would be temporary and spatially limited and impacts to marine mammal foraging would be minimal; and,
• The proposed mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number and severity of takes, to the extent practicable, by visually and/or acoustically detecting marine mammals within the established zones and implementing corresponding mitigation measures (
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals may be authorized under section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or population in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken is fewer than one-third of the species or population abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers (
The number of takes NMFS proposes to authorize is below one-third of the modeled abundance for all relevant populations (specifically, take of individuals is less than 2 percent of the modeled abundance of each affected population, see table 6). This is conservative because the modeled abundance represents a population of the species and we assume all takes are of different individual animals, which is likely not the case. Some individuals may be encountered multiple times in a day, but PSOs would count them as separate individuals if they cannot be identified.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the estimated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the size of the affected species or population.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS is proposing to authorize take of humpback whales (Central America DPS), fin whales, sei whales, sperm whales and blue whales, which are listed under the ESA. The NMFS OPR Permits and Conservation Division has requested initiation of section 7 consultation with the OPR ESA Interagency Cooperation Division for the issuance of this IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA consultation prior to reaching a determination regarding the proposed issuance of the authorization.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to L-DEO for conducting a marine geophysical survey of the East Pacific Rise in the ETP, provided the
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed marine geophysical survey. We also request comment on the potential renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform decisions on the request for this IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, 1-year renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the
• A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond 1 year from expiration of the initial IHA).
• The request for renewal must include the following:
1. An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor (
2. A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.
• Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
(a) the Attorney General shall immediately pursue investigations and prosecutions into fentanyl trafficking, including through criminal charges as appropriate, sentencing enhancements, and sentencing variances;
(b) the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury shall pursue appropriate actions against relevant assets and financial institutions in accordance with applicable law for those involved in or supporting the manufacture, distribution, and sale of illicit fentanyl and its core precursor chemicals;
(c) the Secretary of War and the Attorney General shall determine whether the threats posed by illicit fentanyl and its impact on the United States warrant the provision of resources from the Department of War to the Department of Justice to aid in the enforcement of title 18 of the United States Code, as consistent with 10 U.S.C. 282;
(d) the Secretary of War, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall update all directives regarding the Armed Forces' response to chemical incidents in the homeland to include the threat of illicit fentanyl; and
(e) to ensure the United States uses the full array of appropriate counter-fentanyl tools, the Secretary of Homeland Security, as consistent with applicable law and in coordination with the heads of relevant agencies, as appropriate, shall identify threat networks related to fentanyl smuggling using
(b) “Core precursor chemicals” means the core chemicals that create illicit fentanyl and its analogues, such as Piperidone or other Piperidone-based substances.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Justice.