Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Food and Nutrition Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Federal Contract Compliance Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Maritime Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Final rule; official interpretation.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) is amending official commentary interpreting requirements of the Bureau's Regulation C to reflect the asset-size exemption threshold for banks, savings associations, and credit unions based on the annual percentage change in the average of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). Based on the 2.5 average percent increase in the CPI-W for the 12-month period ending November 2025, the exemption threshold is adjusted to $59 million from $58 million. Institutions with assets of $59 million or less as of December 31, 2025, are exempt from collecting data in 2026.
This rule is effective on January 7, 2026.
Dave Gettler, Paralegal Specialist, Office of Regulations, at (202) 435-7700 or at:
The Bureau is amending Regulation C, which implements the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (HMDA) asset thresholds, to establish the asset-sized exemption threshold for depository financial institutions for 2026. The asset threshold will be $59 million for 2026.
HMDA requires most mortgage lenders located in metropolitan areas to collect data about their housing-related lending activity.
Prior to 1997, HMDA exempted certain depository institutions as defined in HMDA (
The definition of “financial institution” in § 1003.2(g) provides that the Bureau will adjust the asset threshold based on the year-to-year change in the average of the CPI-W, not seasonally adjusted, for each 12-month period ending in November, rounded to the nearest $1 million. For 2025, the threshold was $58 million. During the 12-month period ending in November 2025, the average of the CPI-W increased by 2.5 percent.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the Bureau finds that notice and opportunity for public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
Section 553(d) of the APA generally requires publication of a final rule not less than 30 days before its effective date, except in the case of (1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction; (2) interpretive rules and statements of policy; or (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Bureau has determined that this final rule would not impose any new or revised information collection requirements (recordkeeping, reporting or disclosure requirements) that would constitute collections of information requiring OMB approval under the PRA.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866, as amended.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, the Bureau will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to the rule taking effect.
Banks, Banking, Credit unions, Mortgages, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
For the reasons set forth above, the Bureau amends Regulation C, 12 CFR part 1003, as set forth below:
12 U.S.C. 2803, 2804, 2805, 5512, 5581.
1.
2.
i. Two institutions that are not covered merge. The surviving or newly formed institution meets all of the requirements necessary to be a covered institution. No data collection is required for the calendar year of the merger (even though the merger creates an institution that meets all of the requirements necessary to be a covered institution). When a branch office of an institution that is not covered is acquired by another institution that is not covered, and the acquisition results in a covered institution, no data collection is required for the calendar year of the acquisition.
ii. A covered institution and an institution that is not covered merge. The covered institution is the surviving institution, or a new covered institution is formed. For the calendar year of the merger, data collection is required for covered loans and applications handled in the offices of the merged institution that was previously covered and is optional for covered loans and applications handled in offices of the merged institution that was previously not covered. When a covered institution acquires a branch office of an institution that is not covered, data collection is optional for covered loans and applications handled by the acquired branch office for the calendar year of the acquisition.
iii. A covered institution and an institution that is not covered merge. The institution that is not covered is the surviving institution, or a new institution that is not covered is formed. For the calendar year of the merger, data collection is required for covered loans and applications handled in offices of the previously covered institution that took place prior to the merger. After the merger date, data collection is optional for covered loans and applications handled in the offices of the institution that was previously covered. When an institution remains not covered after
iv. Two covered institutions merge. The surviving or newly formed institution is a covered institution. Data collection is required for the entire calendar year of the merger. The surviving or newly formed institution files either a consolidated submission or separate submissions for that calendar year. When a covered institution acquires a branch office of a covered institution, data collection is required for the entire calendar year of the merger. Data for the acquired branch office may be submitted by either institution.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Final rule; official interpretation.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) is amending the official commentary to its Regulation Z in order to make annual adjustments to the asset-size thresholds exempting certain creditors from the requirement to establish an escrow account for a higher-priced mortgage loan (HPML). The exemption threshold for creditors and their affiliates that regularly extended covered transactions secured by first liens is adjusted to $2.785 billion and the exemption threshold for certain insured depository institutions and insured credit unions with assets of $10 billion or less is adjusted to $12.485 billion.
This rule is effective on January 7, 2026.
Dave Gettler, Paralegal Specialist, Office of Regulations, at (202) 435-7700 or at:
Section 129D of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) generally requires creditors to establish escrow accounts for certain first-lien higher-priced mortgage loan transactions. However, TILA section 129D also permits the Bureau to exempt creditors from this higher-priced mortgage loan escrow requirement if they meet certain requirements, including any asset-size threshold that the Bureau may establish.
In the 2013 Escrows Final Rule,
During the 12-month period ending in November 2025, the average of the CPI-W increased by 2.5 percent.
In the 2018 Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA),
During the 12-month period ending in November 2025, the average of the CPI-W increased by 2.5 percent. As a result, the exemption threshold is increased to $12.485 billion for 2026. Thus, a creditor that is an insured depository institution or insured credit union that during calendar year 2025 had assets of $12.485 billion or less on December 31, 2025, satisfies this criterion for purposes of any loan consummated in 2026 and for purposes of any loan secured by a first lien on a principal dwelling of a consumer consummated in 2027 for which the application was received before April 1, 2027.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the Bureau finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Pursuant to this final rule, comment 35(b)(2)(iii)-1 in Regulation Z is amended to update the exemption threshold in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii) and comment 35(b)(2)(vi)(A)-1 in Regulation Z is amended to update the exemption threshold in § 1026.35(b)(2)(vi). The amendments in this final rule are technical and merely apply the formulae previously established in Regulation Z for determining any adjustments to the exemption thresholds. For these reasons, the Bureau has determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, the amendments are adopted in final form.
Section 553(d) of the APA generally requires publication of a final rule not less than 30 days before its effective date, except in the case of (1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction; (2) interpretive rules and statements of policy; or (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). At a minimum, the Bureau has determined the amendments fall under the third exception to section 553(d). The Bureau finds that there is good cause to make the amendments effective as of the date of publication in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Bureau has determined that this final rule would not impose any new or revised information collection requirements (recordkeeping, reporting or disclosure requirements) that would constitute collections of information requiring OMB approval under the PRA.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866, as amended.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Advertising, Banks, Banking, Consumer protection, Credit, Credit unions, Mortgages, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Truth-in-lending.
For the reasons set forth above, the Bureau amends Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, as set forth below:
12 U.S.C. 2601, 2603-2605, 2607, 2609, 2617, 3353, 3354, 5511, 5512, 5532, 5581; 15 U.S.C. 1601
1.
i. During the preceding calendar year, or during either of the two preceding calendar years if the application for the loan was received before April 1 of the current calendar year, a creditor extended a first-lien covered transaction, as defined in § 1026.43(b)(1), secured by a property located in an area that is either “rural” or “underserved,” as set forth in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iv).
A. In general, whether the rural-or-underserved test is satisfied depends on the creditor's activity during the preceding calendar year. However, if the application for the loan in question was received before April 1 of the current calendar year, the creditor may instead meet the rural-or-underserved test based on its activity during the next-to-last calendar year. This provides creditors with a grace period if their activity meets the rural-or-underserved test (in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(A)) in one calendar year but fails to meet it in the next calendar year.
B. A creditor meets the rural-or-underserved test for any higher-priced mortgage loan consummated during a calendar year if it extended a first-lien covered transaction in the preceding calendar year secured by a property located in a rural-or-underserved area. If the creditor does not meet the rural-or-underserved test in the preceding calendar year, the creditor meets this condition for a higher-priced mortgage loan consummated during the current calendar year only if the application for the loan was received before April 1 of the current calendar year and the creditor extended a first-lien covered transaction during the next-to-last calendar year that is secured by a property located in a rural or underserved area. The following examples are illustrative:
ii. The creditor and its affiliates together extended no more than 2,000 covered transactions, as defined in § 1026.43(b)(1), secured by first liens, that were sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred by the creditor or its affiliates to another person, or that were subject at the time of consummation to a commitment to be acquired by another person, during the preceding calendar year or during either of the two preceding calendar years if the application for the loan was received before April 1 of the current calendar year. For purposes of § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(B), a transfer of a first-lien covered transaction to “another person” includes a transfer by a creditor to its affiliate.
A. In general, whether this condition is satisfied depends on the creditor's activity during the preceding calendar year. However, if the application for the loan in question is received before April 1 of the current calendar year, the creditor may instead meet this condition based on activity during the next-to-last calendar year. This provides creditors with a grace period if their activity falls at or below the threshold in one calendar year but exceeds it in the next calendar year.
B. For example, assume that in 2015 a creditor and its affiliates together extended 1,500 loans that were sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred by the creditor or its affiliates to another person, or that were subject at the time of consummation to a commitment to be acquired by another person, and 2,500 such loans in 2016. Because the 2016 transaction activity exceeds the threshold but the 2015 transaction activity does not, the creditor satisfies this condition for exemption for a higher-priced mortgage loan consummated during 2017 if the creditor received the application for the loan before April 1, 2017, but does not satisfy this condition for a higher-priced mortgage loan consummated during 2017 if the application for the loan was received on or after April 1, 2017.
C. For purposes of § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(B), extensions of first-lien covered transactions, during the applicable time period, by all of a creditor's affiliates, as “affiliate” is defined in § 1026.32(b)(5), are counted toward the threshold in this section. “Affiliate” is defined in § 1026.32(b)(5) as “any company that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with another company, as set forth in the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
iii. As of the end of the preceding calendar year, or as of the end of either of the two preceding calendar years if the application for the loan was received before April 1 of the current calendar year, the creditor and its affiliates that regularly extended covered transactions secured by first liens, together, had total assets that are less than the applicable annual asset threshold.
A. For purposes of § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(C), in addition to the creditor's assets, only the assets of a creditor's “affiliate” (as defined by § 1026.32(b)(5)) that regularly extended covered transactions (as defined by § 1026.43(b)(1)) secured by first liens, are counted toward the applicable annual asset threshold.
B. Only the assets of a creditor's affiliate that regularly extended first-lien covered transactions during the applicable period are included in calculating the creditor's assets. The meaning of “regularly extended” is based on the number of times a person extends consumer credit for purposes of the definition of “creditor” in § 1026.2(a)(17). Because covered transactions are “transactions secured by a dwelling,” consistent with § 1026.2(a)(17)(v), an affiliate regularly extended covered transactions if it extended more than five covered transactions in a calendar year. Also consistent with § 1026.2(a)(17)(v), because a covered transaction may be a high-cost mortgage subject to § 1026.32, an affiliate regularly extends covered transactions if, in any 12-month period, it extends more than one covered transaction that is subject to the requirements of § 1026.32 or one or more such transactions through a mortgage broker. Thus, if a creditor's affiliate regularly extended first-lien covered transactions during the preceding calendar year, the creditor's assets as of the end of the preceding calendar year, for purposes of the asset limit, take into account the assets of that affiliate. If the creditor, together with its affiliates that regularly extended first-lien covered transactions, exceeded the asset limit in the preceding calendar year—to be eligible to operate as a small creditor for transactions with applications received before April 1 of the current calendar year—the assets of the creditor's affiliates that regularly extended covered transactions in the year before the preceding calendar year are included in calculating the creditor's assets.
C. If multiple creditors share ownership of a company that regularly extended first-lien covered transactions, the assets of the company count toward the asset limit for a co-owner creditor if the company is an “affiliate,” as defined in § 1026.32(b)(5), of the co-owner creditor. Assuming the company is not an affiliate of the co-owner creditor by virtue of any other aspect of the definition (such as by the company and co-owner creditor being under common control), the company's assets are included toward the asset limit of the co-owner creditor only if the company is controlled by the co-owner creditor, “as set forth in the Bank Holding Company Act.” If the co-owner creditor and the company are affiliates (by virtue of any aspect of the definition), the co-owner creditor counts all of the company's assets toward the asset limit, regardless of the co-owner creditor's ownership share. Further, because the co-owner and the company are mutual affiliates the company also would count all of the co-owner's assets towards its own asset limit.
D. A creditor satisfies the criterion in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(C) for purposes of any higher-priced mortgage loan consummated during 2016, for example, if the creditor (together with its affiliates that regularly extended first-lien covered transactions) had total assets of less than the applicable asset threshold on December 31, 2015. A creditor that (together with its affiliates that regularly extended first-lien covered transactions) did not meet the applicable asset threshold on December 31, 2015, satisfies this criterion for a higher-priced mortgage loan consummated during 2016 if the application for the loan was received before April 1, 2016, and the creditor (together with its affiliates that regularly extended first-lien covered transactions) had total assets of less than the applicable asset threshold on December 31, 2014.
E. Under § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(C), the $2,000,000,000 asset threshold adjusts automatically each year based on the year-to-year change in the average of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, not seasonally adjusted, for each 12-month period ending in November, with rounding to the nearest million dollars. The Bureau will publish notice of the asset threshold each year by amending this comment. For calendar year 2026, the asset threshold is $2,785,000,000. A creditor that together with the assets of its affiliates that regularly extended first-lien covered transactions during calendar year 2025 has total assets of less than $2,785,000,000 on December 31, 2025, satisfies this criterion for purposes of any loan consummated in 2026 and for purposes of any loan consummated in 2027 for which the application was received before April 1, 2027. For historical purposes:
iv. The creditor and its affiliates do not maintain an escrow account for any mortgage transaction being serviced by the creditor or its affiliate at the time the transaction is consummated, except as provided in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(D)(
1. The asset threshold in § 1026.35(b)(2)(vi)(A) will adjust automatically each year, based on the year-to-year change in the average of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, not seasonally adjusted, for each 12-month period ending in November, with rounding to the nearest million dollars. Unlike the asset threshold in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii) and the other thresholds in § 1026.35(b)(2)(vi), affiliates are not considered in calculating compliance with this threshold. The Bureau will publish notice of the asset threshold each year by amending this comment. For calendar year 2026, the asset threshold is $12,485,000,000. A creditor that is an insured depository institution or insured credit union that during calendar year 2025 had assets of $12,485,000,000 or less on December 31, 2025, satisfies this criterion for purposes of any loan consummated in 2026 and for purposes of any loan secured by a first lien on a principal dwelling of a consumer consummated in 2027 for which the application was received before April 1, 2027. For historical purposes:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of expired temporary rules issued.
This document provides notification of substantive rules issued by the Coast Guard that were made temporarily effective but expired before they could be published in the
This document lists temporary Coast Guard rules and notifications of enforcement that became effective, primarily between January 2024 and March 2024, and expired before they could be published in the
Temporary rules listed in this document may be viewed online, under their respective docket numbers at
For questions on this document contact Ambar Ali, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, email
Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety and security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain local regulations.
Timely publication of these rules in the
Because
The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily during the period between January 2024 and March 2024. To view copies of these rules, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by multiple in-service reports of cracks in elevator power control unit (PCU) brackets (fittings) and the elevator front spar. This proposed AD would require replacing bushings and installing new washers on the elevator PCU arm fitting assembly, installing doublers at the front spar of the elevator structure assembly, replacing horizontal stabilizer rear spar elevator PCU fittings, and applicable on-conditions actions. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 23, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Transport Canada material identified in this proposed AD, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Yaser Osman, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228 7300; 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 the
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 (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Yaser Osman, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228 7300; email:
Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Transport Canada AD CF-2025-19, dated March 24, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-19) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Model DHC-8-401, and -402 airplanes. The MCAI states there have been reports of multiple instances of in-service cracking in the elevator PCU brackets (fittings) located on the horizontal stabilizer rear spar, as well as four cases of cracking on the elevator front spar. In one case, the cracking progressed to the point where the PCU bracket detached. An investigation determined that the common contributing factor in all cases was force-fight loads generated during elevator movement by the PCUs.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address cracks in elevator PCU brackets (fittings) and the elevator front spar, which could result in failure of an elevator PCU bracket and lead to an elevator jam. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could, if both elevators are affected, result in the loss of pitch control. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
This NPRM would require the actions specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-19. Accomplishment of certain actions would then terminate inspections required by Transport Canada AD CF-2024-10, dated March 1, 2024, which corresponds to FAA AD 2025-19-05, Amendment 39-23145 (90 FR 46340, September 26, 2025) (AD 2025-19-05). Paragraph (j) of AD 2025-19-05 provides the terminating action that corresponds to the terminating action specified in paragraph C. of Part I and paragraph D. of Part II of Transport Canada AD CF-2025-19.
Transport Canada AD CF-2025-19 specifies the following procedures:
• Replacing bushings and installing new washers on the elevator PCU arm fitting assembly, which includes inspecting bushing holes in the arm fitting assembly for corrosion, scoring, and structural degradation (
• Installing doublers between ribs 12 and 13 and between ribs 13 and 14 at the front spar of the elevator structure assembly and applicable on-condition actions. The installation includes a detailed visual inspection of the elevator front spar caps and detailed inspection of the upper skin panel for damage (
• Replacing horizontal stabilizer rear spar elevator PCU fittings, which includes an eddy current inspection, if fittings are removed, for cracking at all mating holes on the spar web assembly and the lower skin.
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 of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-19 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. See “Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Referenced Material” for a discussion of the general differences included in this AD.
The material referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-19 specifies inspecting bushing holes in the arm fitting assembly for corrosion, scoring, and structural degradation; however, it does not specify corrective action if any corrosion, scoring, and structural degradation is found. Therefore, this proposed AD would require, if any corrosion, scoring, and structural degradation is found, doing a repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited's Transport Canada Design Approval Organization (DAO).
The material referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-19 specifies replacing pressure sensitive lightening tape if required; however, it does not specify the conditions that would require replacement. Therefore, this proposed AD would require replacing the pressure sensitive lightening tape if tape is missing or torn.
The material referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-19 specifies inspecting mating holes on the spar web assembly and the lower skin for cracking; however, it does not specify corrective action if any cracking is found. Therefore, this proposed AD would require, if any cracking is found, doing a repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited's Transport Canada DAO.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate Transport Canada AD CF-2025-19 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with Transport Canada AD CF-2025-19 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Material required by Transport Canada AD CF-2025-19 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 54 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
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 23, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited (type certificate previously held by Bombardier, Inc.) Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-19, dated March 24, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-19).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.
This AD was prompted by multiple in-service reports of cracks found in the elevator power control unit (PCU) brackets (fittings) and the elevator front spar. The FAA is issuing this AD to address such cracks, which could result in failure of an elevator PCU bracket and lead to an elevator jam. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could, if both elevators are affected, result in the loss of pitch control.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, Transport Canada AD CF-2025-19.
(1) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2025-19 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2025-19 refers to hours air time, this AD requires using flight hours.
(3) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any corrosion, scoring, or structural degradation of the bushing holes in arm fitting assembly is found, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited's Transport Canada Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.
(4) Where the material referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-19 specifies contacting the DHC technical helpdesk for an approved repair or support, for this AD, a repair must be done before further flight using a method approved by the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited's Transport Canada DAO. If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.
(5) Where the material referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-19 specifies replacing pressure sensitive lightening tape if required, for this AD, replace the pressure sensitive lightening tape before further flight if tape is missing or torn.
(6) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any cracking at any mating hole on the spar web assembly or the lower skin is found, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited's Transport Canada DAO. If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact Yaser Osman, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Transport Canada AD CF-2025-19, dated March 24, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Transport Canada material identified in this AD, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Gulfstream Aerospace LP (GALP) Model Gulfstream G280 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of the accumulation of water in electrical connectors located in the aft fuselage directly below the empennage, resulting in empennage flight control related crew alerting system (CAS) messages. This proposed AD would require retrofitting the flight controls empennage electrical harness. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 23, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI) material identified in this proposed AD, contact: CAAI, P.O. Box 1101, Golan Street, Airport City, 70100, Israel; telephone 972-3-9774665; fax 972-3-9774592; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Richard Bolden, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 404-474-5592; 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 the
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 (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential
The CAAI, which is the aviation authority for Israel, has issued CAAI AD ISR I-27-2025-03-06 R1, dated August 28, 2025 (CAAI AD ISR I-27-2025-03-06 R1) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain GALP Model G280 airplanes. The MCAI states that several reports of empennage flight control related CAS messages have been attributed to the accumulation of water in electrical connectors located in the aft fuselage directly below the empennage. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could, in combination with various specific failures or scenarios, result in loss of controllability of the airplane.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
CAAI AD ISR I-27-2025-03-06 R1 specifies procedures for retrofitting the flight controls empennage electrical harness by replacing the backshells of electrical connectors at the vertical tail compartment.
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 of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in CAAI AD ISR I-27-2025-03-06 R1 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate CAAI AD ISR I-27-2025-03-06 R1 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with CAAI AD ISR I-27-2025-03-06 R1 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Material required by CAAI AD ISR I-27-2025-03-06 R1 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 140 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
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 23, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream G280 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI) AD ISR I-27-2025-03-06 R1, dated August 28, 2025 (CAAI AD ISR I-27-2025-03-06 R1).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by reports of the accumulation of water in electrical connectors located in the aft fuselage directly below the empennage, resulting in empennage flight control related crew alerting system (CAS) messages. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the accumulation of water in electrical connectors located in the aft fuselage directly below the empennage. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could, in combination with various specific failures or scenarios, result in loss of controllability of the airplane.
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, CAAI AD ISR I-27-2025-03-06 R1.
Where CAAI AD ISR I-27-2025-03-06 R1 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
Although the material referenced in CAAI AD ISR I-27-2025-03-06 R1 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact Richard Bolden, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 404-474-5592; 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI) AD ISR I-27-2025-03-06 R1, dated August 28, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For CAAI material identified in this AD, contact CAAI, P.O. Box 1101, Golan Street, Airport City, 70100, Israel; telephone 972-3-9774665; fax 972-3-9774592; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
In July 2025, President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Section 40002 of that law re-institutes the Federal Communications Commission's general auction authority and specifically directs the Commission to complete a system of competitive bidding for not less than 100 megahertz in the 3.98-4.2 gigahertz band (Upper C-band). To ensure safe, efficient, and reliable aviation operations in the presence of wireless signals in the Upper C-band, the Federal Aviation Administration is proposing new regulations that would require all radio altimeters to meet specific minimum performance requirements. These new radio altimeters must withstand interference from wireless signals in neighboring spectrum bands and continue to provide accurate altitude readings to both pilots and integrated aircraft safety systems. The minimum interference tolerance requirements proposed in this rule reflect the best achievable interference rejection using current technology without compromising radio altimeter system performance. These regulations would require all aircraft equipped with radio altimeters operating under part 121 and those aircraft with radio altimeters operating under part 129 with 30 or more passenger seats or a payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds to comply with the minimum performance requirements by the date the Federal Communications Commission authorizes wireless services in the Upper C-band. All other aircraft equipped with radio altimeters would be required to comply with the same minimum performance requirements two years later. This proposed rule is a companion to the Federal Communications Commission's NPRM to expand the ecosystem for next-generation wireless services in the 3.7-4.2 gigahertz band by making as much as 180, and at least 100, megahertz of
Send comments on or before March 9, 2026.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2025-5666 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mark Fox, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, AFS-400, Federal Aviation Administration, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd., Building 26, Suite 217, Oklahoma City, OK 73169; telephone (847) 294-7546; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing new regulations that would require all radio (also known as radar) altimeter (RA) systems
RAs measure an aircraft's height above terrain and obstacles using low-powered signals in the 4.2-4.4 GHz frequency band (RA band). Wireless signals in the neighboring spectrum bands may interfere with RA systems and cause inaccurate altitude readings. New RA systems must be able to withstand interference from higher-powered wireless signals in neighboring spectrum bands and spurious emissions from those wireless base stations into the RA band, and continue to provide accurate altitude readings. Accurate RA data is critical for pilots as well as integrated automation, navigation, and safety systems, including autoland, rotorcraft automation modes, and systems that alert pilots of immediate hazards such as terrain, windshear, and traffic. This is particularly critical when the pilot cannot see the runway in low-visibility conditions. Anomalous RA inputs to these systems may cause the aircraft to maneuver in an unexpected or hazardous manner at a very low altitude during the final stages of approach and landing or may prevent collision alerting technology from functioning properly. The pilot might not be able to detect the error or adjust the flight path in time to maintain safe flight and landing, which could result in catastrophic outcomes, including aircraft accidents that may be fatal.
FCC issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI)
FAA expects future wireless services in the Upper C-band aligned with service rules in the Lower C-band to cause interference to current RA systems. Existing RA systems are not compatible with this envisioned use, and airworthiness directives (AD) issued by FAA in 2023 are insufficient to address the unsafe condition that will result from wireless services in the Upper C-band. In addition, existing RA systems are currently operating with reduced capabilities. Several ADs currently restrict operations to resolve the unsafe conditions caused by wireless services in the Lower C-band. Voluntary measures were adopted by the wireless service providers to minimize the national economic impact of restrictions by coordinating the power level of wireless services in the Lower C-band and ensuring airport access for air carriers at major airports.
A single retrofit of RA systems can address long-term compatibility with wireless in both the Lower and Upper C-band. The aviation industry has been developing standards for next-generation RA systems for several years. A joint industry committee, RTCA, Inc Special Committee 239 (SC-239)
FAA is proposing new regulations that would require all aircraft operating under part 91 in the airspace of the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia and equipped with RAs to upgrade to RA systems that meet minimum interference tolerance requirements that reflect the best achievable interference rejection using current technology and without compromising the RA system performance. These new RA systems must provide accurate altitude readings to pilots and integrated safety systems in the presence of the defined interference environment. The goal of these proposed regulations is to
RA systems are integral to aviation safety by providing altitude information directly to pilots and to safety systems that need accurate information to function properly. Besides the importance of pilots having accurate height over terrain information in low visibility conditions, RA data is vital for the proper functioning of safety systems such as TCAS, TAWS, and other aircraft-specific functions, which historically have reduced the risk of airline crashes in the United States significantly.
FAA is proposing two compliance dates for RA retrofits. FAA considered several factors in proposing a staggered compliance schedule, including the role the operations play in the economy, expected level of safety, and the expected availability of RA units. The initial RA performance deadline would apply to all aircraft equipped with an RA operating under part 121 and aircraft equipped with an RA operating under part 129 with 30 or more passenger seats or a payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds. FAA would require an earlier compliance date for part 121 and 129 operations because they constitute flights by the major domestic and international airlines and affect the majority of the flying public, have the highest public expectation of safety, and are the most critical to the national economy.
Any other aircraft operating in the airspace of the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia equipped with an RA would have two additional years from the first compliance date to retrofit with an RA system that meets the proposed performance requirement. As necessary, FAA would supersede the current ADs to impose operating limitations on the use of RAs that do not meet the proposed performance requirements until such time as the RA system is replaced. The superseding ADs would address operators who have upgraded to a Lower C-band interference-tolerant RA, but do not upgrade to an RA system compliant with the proposed rule prior to the initial compliance date (see section IV-H).
In order to properly evaluate a regulation, agencies must measure its costs and benefits against a baseline. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4 defines the “no action” baseline as “the best assessment of the way the world would look absent the proposed action.” FAA considers the primary baseline for this analysis to be a no action baseline, in which FAA assumes FCC completes the auction required by Public Law 119-21 and the voluntary commitments of the wireless service providers lapse. Under this scenario, FAA would have to react to the interference to prohibit all operations of certain aircraft makes and models, as well as prohibit low-visibility operations in all aircraft, causing significant operational impacts. Aircraft owners would need to replace their RA systems to achieve compatibility with the new spectrum environment. The inherent costs of delays, cancellations, and groundings resulting from re-imposing AD operational prohibitions under this no action baseline can be negated by the cost of retrofitting the RA system in compliance with proposed performance standards.
FAA also considers an alternative pre-C-band utilization baseline, in which FAA does not account for the inherent costs of delays, cancellations, and groundings resulting from AD operational prohibitions that would be necessary due to the proposed Upper C-band auction or expiration of the voluntary wireless commitments. Relative to this baseline, FAA estimates the total undiscounted cost to retrofit with interference-tolerant RA units is $4.49 billion, or $424 million annualized at a 7 percent discount rate over 20 years,
FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of FAA's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the authority of the Administrator to promulgate and revise regulations and rules related to aviation safety. This rulemaking is also issued under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, FAA is charged with prescribing regulations 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 this authority. This proposed rule will ensure continued safety after completion of FCC's auction of at least 100 MHz of spectrum in the band immediately adjacent to the RA spectrum band, which Public Law 119-21 requires to be completed by July 4, 2027. The requirement for an RA system retrofit is necessary due to FCC's
Aircraft rely on RA systems to measure height above terrain and obstacles in all phases of flight. The RA provides this information to the pilot and to the aircraft's interconnected navigation and safety systems to support functions such as low-visibility approaches and landings, terrain awareness and alerting, wind shear detection and recovery, aircraft collision avoidance, automated rotorcraft systems, and other flight control systems. The safety and efficiency of flight depend heavily on RAs providing accurate inputs to these systems. For example, automatic and manual flight guidance systems on airplanes rely on RA data to facilitate low-visibility operations such as autoland and guidance provided for manual landing using a Head Up Display to touchdown (TD) when conducting Category (CAT) II, CAT III, Special Authorization (SA) CAT I, SA CAT II or Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) to TD operations. These inputs determine when and where the pilot or automation system flares for landing (
Accurate RA readings are critical for all of these applications. Inaccurate altitude information from an RA experiencing signal interference from higher-powered wireless services in neighboring frequency bands may give the pilot a false sense of the aircraft's position in the air and can cause missing or erroneous (anomalous) RA inputs to navigation and safety systems, potentially resulting in catastrophic consequences. For example, automated safety systems reading erroneous altitude information can cause the aircraft to make unexpected or hazardous maneuvers during the final stages of approach and landing, or prevent ground collision alerting technology from functioning properly. Importantly, the pilot might not be able to detect the error or adjust the flight path in time to maintain safe flight and landing, which could result in an accident with fatalities or injuries.
RA systems work by emitting and then detecting low-powered signals returning from the ground or other obstacles, similar to how radar works. The 4.2-4.4 GHz frequency band (RA band) is allocated for RA operational use in the U.S. and worldwide. Before 2020, satellite operators and other low-powered sources used the neighboring frequency bands, and their low-power signals in-band and out-of-band did not interfere with RAs. This changed when the Lower C-band was reallocated to permit high-powered commercial wireless services.
In April 2020, RTCA formed a “5G Task Force,” including members from RTCA, FAA, aircraft and radio altimeter manufacturers, EUROCAE, industry organizations, and operators, to perform “a quantitative evaluation of radar altimeter performance regarding RF interference from expected 5G emissions in the 3.7-3.98 GHz band, as well as a detailed assessment of the risk of such interference occurring and impacting aviation safety”
In late 2021, to address the unsafe conditions caused by interference from wireless services in the Lower C-band, FAA issued ADs prohibiting certain transport and commuter category airplane
In January 2022, Verizon and AT&T (the first licensees to begin next-generation wireless services in the Lower C-band) agreed to limit wireless base station deployments and coordinate power levels around certain airports with FAA until July 1, 2023. The 2022 voluntary agreement provided the aviation industry time to find a solution to address the immediate, critical issue of increased risk of RA interference: to quickly develop, produce, and install modified RA systems that were tolerant to interference caused by Lower C-band signals. FAA worked collaboratively with RA and airframe manufacturers throughout 2022 to develop the aviation safety case that would allow a steady deployment of Lower C-band wireless base stations while avoiding unsafe conditions and preventing significant disruptions for aviation operations. Other types of operations and safety enhancements such as TAWS, which is intended to provide ground warning away from airports, have been disrupted
FAA conducted a series of flight tests in 2022, with cooperation from AT&T and Verizon, to measure real-world Lower C-band signal levels in an airspace. Each set of flights had unique goals and objectives, with each flight furthering FAA's understanding of how to measure C-band signals through an airspace. Lessons learned from each flight were incrementally incorporated into subsequent flights to improve measurement fidelity and accuracy. Flight locations were chosen strategically to extract maximal value based on the objectives and goals for each flight. Coordination with AT&T and Verizon preceded the flights to ensure FAA properly understood the wireless base station deployments relevant to each location. Technical interchanges between FAA, AT&T, and Verizon engineers helped to ensure the measurement procedures and equipment were properly suited for making accurate Lower C-band signal measurements from an aircraft. After each flight, measurement data and engineering analysis reports were shared with the associated wireless service provider to maximize transparency. While the primary objectives of each flight varied, FAA collected evidence during those flights showing ambient levels of fundamental Lower C-band signals that exceeded the interference tolerance of RA systems in use at the time. Both the raw and processed data associated with each of these flights were shared with AT&T and Verizon. The flight tests measured the signal present at the aircraft at multiple locations within the airspace and were not intended to observe real-world effects of Lower C-band signals on the performance of any specific RA or the test aircraft's equipped RA. These flights provided empirical evidence that it was possible for an airborne aircraft to experience Lower C-band signal levels that exceed the performance tolerance of unmodified RA equipment.
As of July 1, 2023, Verizon, AT&T, and the other 19 wireless service license holders
When publishing these ADs, FAA noted they were an interim action until a new technical standard order (TSO) for RAs is established to incorporate new Minimum Operating Performance Standards (MOPS) that were in development. Currently, in accordance with the provisions in the ADs, FAA determines whether an RA is interference tolerant based on compatibility with the power limits in the voluntary agreements with the Lower C-band license holders, which temporarily reduces emissions through January 2028. However, these ADs do not address future next-generation wireless services in the Upper C-band and do not provide a long-term resolution that would ensure safety in the presence of Lower C-band wireless services.
A new industry standard for RA systems is being developed jointly by U.S. and European consensus bodies through RTCA SC-239
When the RTCA standard is complete, FAA anticipates recognizing the industry standard with new TSOs, which will provide a means for obtaining an FAA design and production approval for compliant equipment to facilitate aircraft equipage under this proposed rule. FAA will ensure that the TSOs conform to the interference tolerance mask (ITM) requirements in the final rule; any difference in the ITM of the industry standard will be corrected to conform to the FAA final rule by the implementing TSOs.
The 3.7-4.2 GHz band (C-band) is an ideal band for many next-generation advanced wireless services, including 5G, due to its desirable coverage, capacity, and propagation characteristics. As a result of previous efforts to expand access to the 3.7-3.98 GHz band, wireless operators have extensively deployed 5G throughout the continental United States, bringing enhanced services and increased connectivity to countless communities, including many in rural, remote, and underserved areas. Making additional spectrum available in the 3.98-4.2 GHz frequency range will expand on the success of these prior efforts to help meet projected demand for advanced wireless services, spur economic growth, and advance American security interests.
FCC issued an NOI in February 2025 to signal its intent to auction spectrum for next-generation wireless services in the Upper C-band, which is immediately adjacent to the RA band. While the Upper C-band presents a unique opportunity for commercial wireless expansion, it is even closer to the RA band than the current Lower C-band wireless services and poses a risk of increased interference with RAs and critical aviation systems dependent on the RA for accurate altitude data. FCC issued an NPRM to expand the ecosystem for next generation wireless services in the C-band by making as much as 180, and at least 100, MHz of the Upper C-band available for terrestrial wireless flexible use via a system of competitive bidding. FAA and FCC conducted extensive inter-agency coordination prior to the release of these respective NPRMs, with the goal of aligning aviation and wireless objectives
The U.S. has the safest aviation system in the world, and an RA is an essential component that contributes to this enviable safety record. An RA measures aircraft height above terrain and obstacles in all phases of flight for tens of thousands of commercial aircraft, helicopters, business jets, GA aircraft, and future operations by powered-lift. An RA operates in the frequency band 4.2-4.4 GHz (RA band). The receiver on an RA is typically highly accurate, measuring height to within a few feet. An RA operates like radar and must detect faint signals reflected off the ground to measure altitude. The receiver must be able to isolate a reflected signal as low as approximately −120 dBm.
Automatic and manual flight guidance systems on airplanes rely on accurate RA data to facilitate autoland and operation in low-visibility conditions. An RA is critical equipment for conducting operations when the cloud base is less than 200 feet above the runway, and it is embedded within all types of CAT II, CAT III, and EFVS landing systems. An RA determines when and where the pilot or automation systems initiate the aircraft flare for landing, when power reductions are made for landing, and when other control inputs are made. This is critically important when the pilot cannot see the runway in low-visibility conditions. Anomalous RA inputs to these systems may cause the aircraft to maneuver in an unexpected or hazardous manner during the final stages of approach and landing, and may not be detectable by the pilot within sufficient time to maintain continued safe flight and landing. This could result in catastrophic outcomes, including aircraft accidents that may be fatal. Inaccurate RA data can also reduce pilot confidence in their instruments, eroding the foundation of all instrument flight training.
An RA is also integrated into several safety systems, starting with the TAWS. TAWS is an onboard aircraft system designed to prevent unintentional impact with the ground, commonly referred to as controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) accidents. An operable RA is a required element of TAWS. The accurate altitude provided by the RA is used to trigger an alarm in the flight deck when the aircraft is too low or there is an excessive closure rate to the ground. This system is required to generate alerts between 30 feet and 2,500 feet above ground level (AGL).
An RA is also used within TCAS. In 1987, Congress mandated in Public Law 100-223
Wind shear alerting systems also require accurate RA data. Wind shear alerting has been required for part 121 turbine-powered commercial operations since 1991.
The aviation community has used RAs to improve pilot situational awareness in a variety of visual operations, and FAA has required it for certain helicopter operations due to the safety benefit it provides. Public Law 112-95
Night Vision Goggles (NVG), the common term to describe the use of Night Vision Imaging Systems and Night Vision Enhancement Devices, are used in the operation of airplanes, rotorcraft, and powered-lift. When used properly, NVGs can increase safety, enhance situational awareness, and reduce the pilot workload and stress typically associated with night operations. In 2009,
In addition to these common use cases, some aircraft designers have integrated RA systems into other safety systems. This includes tail-strike prevention systems, which push the nose down if the RA indicates a tail-strike is imminent. Some aircraft use RA data to verify the aircraft is on the ground to permit automatic throttle power reduction as well as the safe deployment of thrust reversers and ground spoilers after landing or during an aborted takeoff. RA data that erroneously show the aircraft is above the ground will increase the required stopping distance and increase the risk of overrunning the runway. Similarly, RA data that erroneously show the aircraft is lower than the actual position can trigger auto throttle and landing flare systems, which reduces aircraft speed and increases the risk of landing short of the runway if the pilots do not quickly identify and correct these automatic control systems.
All of these applications must be preserved in the presence of Upper C-band wireless services or restored for those that have been degraded by wireless services in the Lower C-band. Long-term safe coexistence between efficient aviation operations and next-generation wireless services requires RA systems resilient to spectrum interference from signals in neighboring spectrum bands.
Historically, out-of-band emissions were not a problem for RA because there were no high-powered signals in neighboring spectrum bands. Current industry standards for RA such as RTCA/DO-155, Minimum Performance Standards Airborne Low-Range Radar Altimeters,
The voluntary commitments by the wireless service providers have minimized the national economic impact of the AD restrictions and ensured airport access by designating 188 major airports as C-band Mitigation Airports (CMAs) at which Lower C-band licensees are limiting base station power, when necessary, at the request of FAA. These 188 CMAs are the airports that would be most impacted by AD prohibitions on specific operations due to a number of factors, such as passenger traffic, cargo volume, very low-visibility approach procedures, historic weather information, or a combination of these factors. Due to extensive efforts from 2022 to 2024, the aviation industry successfully developed, produced, and installed supplemental (in-line) filters or replaced RA transceivers on thousands of air carrier airplanes with other available units that were more tolerant to interference from transmissions in the Lower C-band, and aligned with the interim voluntary agreements from all 21 FCC license holders. However, this work by the aviation industry to address the unsafe conditions and quickly upgrade within the limits of existing RA system capabilities did not provide sufficient time to develop more robust solutions that would enable the full range of RA applications or address the potential for additional spectrum expansion.
FAA permitted operators of approximately 26,500 aircraft to choose to accept operational restrictions instead of upgrading their systems. FAA analysis showed that there was not an immediate need to mandate RA replacement for non-part 121 operators when the highest risk operations remained prohibited by the ADs and the cumulative risk of other hazards was found acceptable in the short-term. However, the safety enhancements for these aircraft have been compromised, such as the potential for erroneous alerts or no alerts from TCAS and TAWS, due to the risk of interference causing incorrect RA altitude data. These cumulative risks must be resolved to support long-term safe coexistence.
The FAA requested the RA equipment manufacturers share available data concerning the performance of their equipment to interfering signals in the Upper C-band. All five existing manufacturers provided proprietary data for their Lower C-band tolerant equipment (
There are also thousands of RA systems that have not been modified to be tolerant to Lower C-band wireless services under the current voluntary agreement and are more susceptible to interference than shown in Table 2.
FAA is proposing an ITM that reflects the best achievable interference rejection using current technology and without compromising RA system performance. This proposal has been informed by briefings from existing RA suppliers and by various industry forums that have discussed performance collectively. The wireless and aviation industries have also been engaged in ongoing discussions about how to promote safe coexistence between expanded wireless services in the Upper C-band and RA systems.
The most substantive industry discussions concerning RA system performance have taken place in the RTCA and EUROCAE joint committee, which has been developing an industry consensus standard for next-generation RA systems since 2019. These next-generation RA systems will be responsible spectrum users, with an up-to-date design to provide the best currently achievable performance to tolerate and reject potential interference. RTCA SC-239 was established in 2019 and tasked with revising RTCA/DO-155. RTCA SC-239 is working on these MOPS jointly with EUROCAE WG-119, which will also be releasing an update to ED-30. The joint committee has completed a draft standard that is undergoing validation, which involves testing and analysis with prototype new designs to ensure that the requirements are both achievable and sufficient to meet the industry's needs. RTCA plans to publish a final new standard in March 2027. FAA has participated in the RTCA/EUROCAE industry standard development.
FAA has considered all available information from individual manufacturers and the various working groups to develop the ITM proposed in this NPRM. FAA plans to issue a TSO that references the final industry standard and will ensure the TSO aligns with this proposed rule, identifying differences from the final industry standard if necessary. The TSO will enable companies to use equipment qualified to the ITM and industry standard as a means of compliance with this regulation. FAA is not proposing changes to the intended function or performance requirements of RA systems, which may also include requirements derived by the aircraft design approval holder for each RA application. The proposed rule effectively defines an interference environment within which the intended RA system functions and performance are achieved.
The interference tolerance requirement would apply to the entire RA system, comprised of the RA antenna(s), cables, and transceiver. When defining interference tolerance close to the edge of the RA band, the frequency selectivity of the antenna does not have an appreciable effect due to other design constraints, such as the group delay and the lack of available space for a separate radio frequency (RF) filter. The achievable ITM in the near-band is driven by the transceiver performance requirements. While it would be possible to require additional interference rejection due to the RA antenna's ability to reject signals far from the desired RA band, doing so would have a significant cost and schedule effect because it would require the requalification, and potentially replacement, of all RA antennas. The proposed ITM does not require this additional interference rejection, as it would not have a benefit in the potential use of the adjacent band for next-generation wireless services. As a result, operators can use RA transceivers that meet the ITM without requalification of an existing RA antenna. The ITM is specified as a PFD regardless of the angle of arrival to the RA antenna, so the maximum RA antenna gain must be used when showing compliance. The ITM is specified for a single polarization because the RA antennas are linearly polarized and the orientation of the polarization of an interference source and that of the RA antenna cannot be controlled.
FAA has developed additional guidance to address this and other aircraft-level qualification issues in the proposed AC 20-199
FAA is proposing new regulations that would require all RAs to meet specific minimum performance requirements for all aircraft operating under 14 CFR part 91 that are equipped with RAs. FAA is proposing two different compliance dates based on the safety risks associated with the different types of aircraft operations. Aircraft operating under 14 CFR part 121, and aircraft operating under 14 CFR part 129 with 30 or more seats or a payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds, would be required to meet the minimum RA performance requirements by an initial RA performance date that would be specified in the final rule. FAA proposes to provide an additional two years for compliance for all other operations of aircraft operating under part 91 in the airspace of the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia and equipped with RAs.
The initial RA performance deadline is proposed to coincide with FCC's date authorizing the initiation of new wireless services in the Upper C-band. FAA expects this initial RA performance deadline to be sometime between 2029 and 2032. As addressed in section E.2, FAA is soliciting public comments on the proposed compliance dates. In the final rule, FAA would prescribe specific RA performance deadlines, as informed by public comments.
To implement the new minimum performance requirements, FAA is proposing to add § 91.220 to define the minimum RA interference tolerance necessary to address next-generation wireless in the Upper C-band aligned with Lower C-band technical rules, subject to resolving the spurious emissions from wireless base stations described in section IV.E.5. FAA also proposes new sections in parts 121 and 129 to implement the initial RA performance deadline. Specifically, § 121.326 would require all aircraft operating under 14 CFR part 121, if equipped with an RA system, to meet
FAA is proposing in § 91.220(b) to specify the minimum RA interference tolerance necessary to address wireless services in both the Lower and Upper C-band as well as a broader range of frequencies surrounding the RA band. Table 3 shows the proposed minimum RA system interference tolerance requirement applicable to different frequency ranges. The RA system would be required to operate at an altitude of 0-500 feet above ground level in this proposed interference environment. The interference environment is broken down by specific frequency ranges above, in, and below the RA band as shown in Table 3. The interference environment is specified as a PFD at the surface of the aircraft antenna, measured as RMS in dBW/m
Table 4 shows the proposed CFR section additions to attain this compliance schedule.
FAA considered potential changes to the current ADs that address interference with RA systems and found that no further regulatory action regarding those ADs needs to be taken at this time. The ADs address unsafe conditions with wireless services in the Lower C-band, and those conditions will continue until aircraft comply with the new performance requirements. FAA has also granted several exemptions providing relief from
RA systems are used in a variety of aircraft as described previously. To maintain the safety advantages provided by reliable, accurate RA data, FAA proposes to require that all aircraft equipped with RA must be equipped with an RA system that can operate in the future interference environment. Many aircraft rely on accurate RA data to support safety systems that are required by other regulations, and RA systems must function properly to provide the safety benefits that justify these equipment requirements.
There are also civil aircraft that have voluntarily been equipped with an RA for safety and operational reasons. The intended function of that equipment is to provide accurate altitude data, and FAA proposes to preserve that capability in the future operating environment. For these aircraft, there is a cost increase from the existing RA equipment to interference-tolerant RA equipment. Some avionics companies have proposed a class of equipment that would stop functioning by design when exposed to adjacent band interference. Their proposal would ensure the integrity of the RA output while exposed to the full RFI levels specified in this proposed rule by ensuring that the RA stops functioning rather than reporting an erroneous altitude. However, this would prevent the RA from enhancing safety in those environments and complicate the aircraft integration. The proposed regulation would require all GA aircraft with an RA to upgrade their equipment to be capable of operating in the interference environment specified in this proposed rule. FAA recognizes that the future voluntary adoption of RA may be negatively impacted by the increased costs of a compliant RA.
FAA proposes that these regulations apply to public aircraft operations, including military aircraft that are equipped with RA when operating in the airspace of the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia. The RA is important equipment for public aircraft operations for the same reasons as civil aircraft (as discussed in sections E.3 and E.4), and its functionality must be assured. Military aircraft have unique use-cases for their RA systems, but the minimum safe distance described below is expected to be sufficient for their operations. Many military aircraft use RA technology that is different than the civil fleet and is more robust in the presence of interference.
The proposed rule would not address operations that are not conducted under 14 CFR part 91 and therefore would not apply to unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) operating under part 107, the proposed part 108,
FCC is proposing to preserve the status quo regarding its current licenses outside of the contiguous United States, which would be permitted to continue in the entire 3.7-4.2 GHz band.
The proposed requirements would not extend into the airspace overlying the waters between 3 and 12 nautical miles (nm) from the coast of the U.S, and therefore does not propose a revision to § 91.1(b). The proposed requirements would be applicable to aircraft operating in that offshore airspace if they arrive, depart, or otherwise operate in the airspace within 3 nm of the coast of the 48 contiguous United States as described in this proposed rule. FAA seeks comments about the need to require specific RA performance, as proposed, in additional offshore waters.
FAA is proposing this rule to provide a permanent resolution for next-generation wireless services in the Lower and Upper C-band, as well as a broader range of frequencies surrounding the RA band. The objective is to maintain aviation safety in the NAS and provide high confidence that all aircraft equipped with RA operating under 14 CFR part 91 will be compatible with expanded next-generation wireless services in the Upper C-band. While FAA anticipates the initial RA performance deadline will be between 2029 and 2032, FAA does not have sufficient data to determine a specific date at this time. FAA will be considering a variety of factors to help balance the urgency as a result of expanding wireless services in the Upper C-band with the development of the next generation RA systems with acceptable schedule risk. FAA also asks for public comments in consideration of the factors discussed in this section. RA performance deadlines will be prescribed in the final rule as informed by public comments. We also seek comment on how the timing of the aviation industry's future implementation efforts should be aligned with FCC's statutory responsibility to complete an auction by July, 2027.
The schedule to accomplish the retrofit is driven by several activities and different stakeholders, so that no single stakeholder can provide a high-confidence schedule for the retrofit. Factors to consider in the compliance schedule include:
In their terms of reference, RTCA SC-239 notes that the new MOPS “is envisioned to be referenced by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other civil aviation authorities (CAAs) as appropriate in certification guidance material, including TSOs or other national documents.” FAA recognizes that adoption by other CAAs, as intended, is likely to increase worldwide demand for new RA systems that meet these performance requirements. This increased demand could result in competition for resources to support the retrofit for civil and military aircraft. FAA specifically requests comments about the potential impact on schedule and cost due to early adoption by operators who do not regularly fly to the U.S.
The aviation community has addressed a number of large-scale equipment mandates that provide additional experience-based insight into the schedule. For comparison, Table 5 shows the timeline for other broad equipage mandates.
These schedule drivers indicate that the initial RA performance deadline is achievable within 3 to 6 years of the final rule, or between 2029 and 2032, depending on a variety of factors as discussed previously. FAA intends to select compliance dates that reflect the urgency of expanding next-generation wireless services, recognizing any real constraints on the rapidity with which the retrofits can occur. FAA is requesting comments from the aviation stakeholders to inform the deadlines for inclusion in the final rule. When providing comments, please consider the following questions:
FAA analysis of current information indicates that these schedule risks will be resolved as additional information is finalized before the final rule is issued. FAA requests comments about the proposed timeline to meet RA performance requirements, from the perspective of RA transceiver and antenna suppliers, aircraft manufacturers, and operators. The most valuable comments to help inform final regulations are data-driven comments that detail capabilities, costs, benefits, timeline impacts, and other specific information directly relevant to the proposed regulations.
FAA proposes that aircraft equipped with RA operating under part 121 and aircraft operating for foreign air carriers with 30 or more seats or a payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds under part 129 must retrofit their RAs by the initial RA performance deadline. This compliance deadline is proposed to align with FCC's date authorizing wireless services in the Upper C-band. The initial RA performance deadline would be specified in the final rule and is anticipated to be between 2029 and 2032. These operations are the most critical to the national economy and have the highest expected level of safety, making them a priority. By completing these retrofits, the U.S. would preserve safe aviation operations while expanding the use of next-generation wireless services in the adjacent band as addressed in section E.5. Other actions must be taken to ensure unsafe conditions do not arise between the sunset of the existing Lower C-band FAA-wireless voluntary agreement and the initial RA performance deadline; this is addressed in section G.
ICAO is planning updates to Annex 10 Volume V intended to help protect RAs from potentially harmful in-band and adjacent band interference caused by non-aeronautical systems operating in adjacent frequency bands. FAA seeks comment on the proposed compliance deadline for part 129 operators, in light of these potential updates to Annex 10.
FAA estimates that there are 8,014 aircraft operating under part 121, though some of those aircraft are temporarily or permanently inactive. With specific fleets requiring 1 to 3 RA per aircraft, FAA anticipates part 121 air carriers would need approximately 17,033 new RAs to comply with this proposed rule. While part 129 foreign air carriers operate a very large number of aircraft, not all of those aircraft fly in U.S. airspace on a regular basis. There are approximately 4,519 large aircraft with 30 or more seats or a payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds operating under 14 CFR part 129 that fly to the U.S.,
FAA recognizes that it may be more costly and complex to upgrade RAs in older aircraft models due to reduced support from manufacturers for out-of-production units and potential compatibility issues with older integrated systems, impacting the design, development, certification, and cost of replacement RA systems. Operators of those airplanes will need to decide whether to upgrade to RA systems that meet the proposed performance requirements or retire those airplanes from contiguous U.S. operations. FAA specifically requests comments about implementation challenges for older RAs and older aircraft and the associated costs of retrofit or aircraft retirement for older aircraft.
FAA proposes an additional two years after the initial RA performance deadline for all other aircraft operating under 14 CFR part 91 including GA, rotorcraft, other commercial aircraft, and public aircraft. Some of these operators currently have AD-mandated restrictions on their operations dependent on accurate RA data due to the Lower C-band wireless services, and many of these operators are accepting the risks associated with localized interference that could disrupt TAWS, TCAS, and other RA applications. Those restrictions must continue until a retrofit is accomplished, which would address both the Lower and Upper C-band compatibility. Section H discusses the relationship between the proposed rule, current ADs, and other FAA policy.
FAA recognizes that there are potential challenges with the proposed deadlines due to the need to complete standards, develop prototypes, certify new RAs for multiple aircraft fleets, and install new RAs without significantly disrupting revenue service. With the final RA performance deadline two years after the initial RA performance deadline, FAA seeks to reduce stress on supply chains, manufacturing, and
FAA also recognizes that it may be more costly and complex to upgrade RAs in older aircraft models. Older RA models may be more difficult to replace due to reduced support from manufacturers for out-of-production units and potential compatibility issues with older integrated systems, impacting the design, development, certification, and cost of replacement RA systems. Operators of those airplanes will need to decide whether to upgrade to RA systems that meet the proposed performance requirements, remove the RA system altogether, or retire those airplanes from contiguous U.S. operations. FAA specifically requests comments about implementation challenges for older RA and older aircraft and the associated costs of retrofit or aircraft retirement for older aircraft.
The purpose of this proposed regulation is to achieve the full functionality of RAs in the presence of next-generation wireless services in the adjacent C-Band. This section summarizes FAA's methodology to ensure the safe operation of RAs and the equipment that relies on accurate RA data. Based on this analysis, RA systems compliant with the proposed rule can safely operate with more than 100 MHz for next-generation wireless services in the adjacent band (up to 4160 MHz) aligned with Lower C-band technical rules, provided emissions limits into the RA band are addressed as discussed below. This safety analysis assumes that there are no siting constraints on the wireless base stations.
To operate reliably, the RA system must be demonstrated for the expected operating environment, including interference levels that may be encountered in flight. The interference environment that will be encountered after the initial RA performance deadline has not yet been determined, so FAA is not able to evaluate a specific interference proposal. In lieu of that, FAA has applied FCC's baseline proposition that the existing 3.7 GHz Service rules would apply to new services in the Upper C-band. FAA has found that the proposed ITM is fully compatible with the power levels of rural next-generation wireless services (
As long as the calculated PFD at a given frequency is less than or equal to the ITM, the RA system will perform safely. Therefore, the ITM levels ≥+6.5 dBW/m
The rationale for the parameters used in Table 6 are discussed below. FAA considered MSD and 6 decibel (dB) safety margins to set these parameters. The RA antenna gain is not shown, as the maximum RA antenna gain is used when showing compliance to the ITM.
Due to the wide range of applications for the RA system and the variety of aircraft equipped with RAs, FAA proposes that the RA must function reliably at 35 feet MSD from any wireless base station when the aircraft is 500 feet AGL or lower. MSD is defined as a sphere with a 35-foot radius, originating at the wireless base station antenna phase center, for an aircraft at 500 feet AGL and lower. The smallest transport category airplanes certificated under part 25 have wingspans greater than 35 feet (and half-wingspans of approximately 35 feet), and most helicopters required to be equipped with RA have an overall length of 35 feet or more. The proposed MSD supports the continued safe function of the RA and integrated safety systems in all normal, off-nominal, and emergency operations unless the aircraft is so close to a wireless base station or the structure where it is mounted that the catastrophic risk of collision is greater than the risk of interference.
Thirty-five feet of vertical clearance is less than the closest expected distance during normal and off-nominal operation for aircraft equipped with RA systems. Aircraft have significantly greater separation from obstacles during normal operations due to the minimum safe altitude requirements in § 91.119, obstacle clearance criteria for instrument procedures and routes, and requirements for obstacle-free areas surrounding runways, including in the approach and departure area to protect low altitude operations and ensure approach light systems are not obscured. FAA heliport criteria
The MSD also considered off-nominal operations and emergency operations. One engine inoperative obstacle clearance requirements in § § 121.189, 135.379, and 135.398 require 35 feet of vertical clearance. The most demanding alerting function is the ground proximity warning of TAWS, which must properly analyze and alert pilots of hazards as low as 30 feet AGL. The 35-foot MSD provides assurance that GPWS will operate in all but the most severe terrain scenarios. Predictive windshear alerting systems must also be able to function properly at a very low altitude due to the potentially catastrophic risks of microbursts, downdrafts, and similar wind shifts that cause the aircraft to lose altitude and approach the bottom of the normal approach obstacle clearance surface (OCS). The RA must function properly, even when very close to a wireless base station, to ensure that the RA does not report an erroneous low altitude, which could cause TCAS to fail to provide resolution advisory guidance if a nearby aircraft is on a collision course.
RA performance requirements for operations above 500 feet AGL are not specifically addressed in the proposed regulations. When an aircraft is above 500 feet AGL, interference that prevents the RA system from operating normally is less likely, and the consequence is also reduced as there is more time to recover after interference. Stricter obstacle clearance rules apply for all operations above 500 feet AGL. Minimum safe altitude requirements in § 91.119 define clearance from terrain and obstacles, such as the requirement to be at an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft when operating over congested areas; the requirement to be at an altitude of 500 feet above the surface when operating over other than congested areas; and the requirement to be no closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure when operating over water or sparsely populated areas. Under instrument flight rules, separation from obstacles increases at higher altitudes due to increases in required obstacle clearance for routes at higher altitudes and greater separation distances provided by sloping OCS when the aircraft is further from the runway and at a higher altitude. Given the larger MSD in operation, the RA system is expected to operate normally above 500 feet AGL as the amount of interference received by the RA antenna decreases with the increasing path loss.
For safety applications, the aviation community applies a minimum 6 dB safety margin above the expected interference environment to account for unknown issues that could impact the safe operation of the RA. The equipment is required to operate normally when the actual interference level is 6 dB above the expected interference level. For spectrum compatibility, this accounts for uncertainties in the design and implementation of adjacent-band RF base stations, which do not have to meet aviation safety standards. The safety margin also addresses the risk from unforeseen factors. This is consistent with ICAO recommendations in ICAO Doc 9718, the Handbook on Radio Frequency Spectrum Requirements for Civil Aviation, which indicates that a safety margin of 6-10 dB is to be applied for aeronautical safety systems.
FAA also evaluated the safe compatibility with respect to interference into the RA band. Emissions into the RA band are a result of base station out-of-band spurious emissions. The RA system must operate with the interference from all emissions sources into the RA band, including, but not limited to, the interference from Lower and Upper C-band wireless service. The total aggregate in-band interference depends on the number and the relative position of all other interference sources to the RA system antenna. To simplify that analysis, FAA considered the out-of-band emissions from a dominant source. A dominant source would have the same MSD as the adjacent band case (35 feet), for the reasons described previously above. Wireless base stations may be housed on the same antenna structure operating at different frequencies. An upper limit of three base stations is assumed, with the effective aggregate interference of all other base stations and mobile units no greater than that of a single base station at the MSD. This limiting case has an aggregate interference that is 6 dB higher than a single base station. Table 7 summarizes the parameters that are used to determine in-band compatibility.
The RA system can operate safely if the aggregate in-band interference from external sources is less than the in-band interference limit of −82 dBW/m
FAA is also seeking comments on the overall safety analysis presented in this section. The factors in the safety link analysis have many variables. Due to the potentially catastrophic severity of interference, FAA has adopted values
Existing RA systems cannot accommodate wireless signals above 3.98 GHz aligned with Lower C-band technical rules without constraints on wireless base station location and power levels. While FAA and wireless service providers have agreed to similar constraints in the short term for the Lower C-band, FAA does not plan to expand that analysis to the Upper C-band. Instead, FAA proposes to require the RA retrofit to be completed in the most critical aircraft by the time FCC authorizes new wireless services in the Upper C-band. The safety analysis presented previously provides a template for MSD from next-generation wireless services in the 3.98-4.2 GHz band, accounting for the more sensitive RA performance described in section C, Current RA Limitations.
The suitability of a new RA cannot be assured without also addressing the potential for interference from wireless base stations in the Lower C-band (3.7-3.98 GHz). The twenty-one wireless licensees have filed a voluntary commitment with FCC to ensure their signals do not cause an unsafe condition, as determined by FAA, and that the most critical aircraft operations for commerce can continue without disruption.
In the end state, after the RA retrofit proposed by this rule is complete, the updated RA systems will operate safely, assuming the final Lower and Upper C-band wireless transmissions into the RA band are harmonized.
There are a number of ADs that address the unsafe conditions posed by interference from the Lower C-band wireless services, as discussed previously in section III. The RA system performance requirements proposed by this rule would provide sufficient tolerance to Lower C-band wireless services to prevent the unsafe conditions identified and addressed in the current ADs, subject to resolving the spurious emissions issue described in section IV.E.5.
Under the wireless voluntary agreement, the wireless signals near 188 airports are limited to lower levels to allow certain aircraft to conduct unrestricted operations. Those aircraft were modified in 2022-2024 with RA systems that are tolerant to the Lower C-band wireless signals. The next generation RA systems proposed in § 91.220 would ensure continued unrestricted operations after the initial RA compliance deadline without any airport-specific wireless power limitations. After that date, if necessary, FAA would supersede the current ADs to impose operating limitations on the use of RAs that do not meet the proposed performance requirements until such time as the RA system is replaced. The superseding ADs would address operators who have upgraded to a Lower C-band interference-tolerant RA, but do not upgrade to an RA system compliant with the proposed rule prior to the initial compliance date.
FAA plans to recognize an aircraft's compliance with the proposed 14 CFR 91.220(b) as an AMOC with all existing ADs and any superseded ADs that may be necessary, to permit operation without limitations for those aircraft once they are equipped. FAA also plans to authorize a foreign operator to operate without additional limitations in the U.S. if the aircraft complies with this retrofit requirement.
Most airplanes operating under part 121 and large airplanes operating under part 129 are equipped with RA systems that comply with FAA policy statement PS-AIR-600-39-01,
There are also a small number of transport category airplanes operating under the restrictions prescribed in the current ADs.
FAA also issued ADs applicable to helicopters,
Finally, FAA had identified a number of aircraft systems that could be affected by erroneous RA data and issued SAFO 21007
As FAA would end the accommodation of Lower C-band interference-tolerant RA systems at the initial RA performance deadline, several policies would end at that time. A current Flight Standards policy memo
FAA would withdraw PS-AIR-600-39-01 after the initial RA performance deadline. If there were aircraft that upgraded to Lower C-band tolerant equipment but did not subsequently upgrade to comply with the proposed 91.220(b), the relevant AD would need to be updated to restore the original operating limitations to reflect the sunset of the Lower C-band commitments and the onset of Upper C-band emissions.
After the final RA performance deadline, FAA may elect to remove the ADs as they would be made obsolete by the proposed RA requirements.
FAA will also be evaluating if any frequencies in the Lower and Upper C-band should be added to the Colo Void Policy
An alternative to this retrofit requirement would be for FAA to evaluate whether an unsafe condition is created by changes in the RF environment and issue additional ADs as appropriate. That alternative would not regain the full safety benefits of RA systems, would have a significant impact on aircraft operational capability by imposing new limitations for aircraft with RA systems that are currently compliant (limiting some aircraft from operating at all airports where C-band wireless base stations transmit and limiting low-visibility access for all aircraft), and would create market instability both for the aviation and wireless industries. Because ADs would be issued after FCC finalized service rules, ADs would impose severe operational limitations until the aviation industry has sufficient time to dedicate the necessary capital and resources to the appropriate RA upgrades and replacements. In addition, ADs would require an extension to the current voluntary wireless agreements or amendments to the current FCC R&O necessary to ensure long-term safe coexistence with Lower C-band wireless service, potentially exposing more severe operating conditions if the wireless service providers do not agree to indefinitely extend the voluntary agreements. Because ADs are not applicable to non-U.S. registered aircraft, other methods would also be required to ensure safety for part 129 foreign air carriers, such as issuing notices to airmen (NOTAM) and amending the U.S. Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) to address changes in the spectrum environment. In addition, FCC would have to determine the new Upper C-band wireless environment without a compatible RA standard. This may result in wireless interference that cannot be safely accommodated even with new RA systems, which would indefinitely prohibit certain aircraft from operating in the U.S. and prohibit all low-visibility approach and landing operations. The absence of a compatible standard could also result in FCC authorizing less spectrum than could otherwise be safely accommodated, such as if only 100 MHz were authorized. In the best case, FCC would define the Upper C-band wireless environment that is aligned with the feasible RA performance. However, this would not ensure that aircraft upgrade to suitable RA systems in time to avoid severe operational disruption.
Similarly, an alternative where FAA delays the proposed performance requirement until completion of the new RTCA/EUROCAE standards would introduce the same costs, limitations, and risks.
Another alternative, where FAA does not evaluate and address any unsafe conditions that would be created by changes in the RF environment, would create unacceptable catastrophic risks and would not address FAA's statutory mandate to ensure safe operations in the NAS. FAA risk assessments in support of the ADs issued to date
FAA also considered a two-phase implementation, with the goal of enabling earlier access to less than 100 MHz as soon as possible and transitioning to the next generation RA as a second phase. However, due to the existing RA performance (see Section IV.C), any early wireless access that requires an interim retrofit for safe operations would impose a significant additional cost on the aviation industry, requiring operators to procure and install interim RA solutions available now that are not likely to meet these proposed RA performance requirements. Increased demand and manufacturing requirements for an interim retrofit would also significantly extend the timeline for all operators to equip with RA systems that meet these proposed requirements, duplicating the requirements and efforts needed and diverting aviation manufacturers' resources and personnel who are working towards the development and certification of new RA systems that will meet the proposed RA performance requirements. Also, it would not result in the full 100 MHz being available to next-generation wireless services, requiring extensive and ongoing coordination, reduced power level, and constraints on wireless base station antenna height/elevation masks.
E.O. 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and E.O. 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) require agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” The Office of Management and Budget has determined this proposed rulemaking is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
Radio or Radar Altimeters (RAs) are devices that measure an aircraft's current height above terrain by sending out low-powered radar waves in the 4.2 to 4.4 GHz spectrum and measuring their return against the ground or other obstacles. The accurate height data RAs provide is crucial to a variety of automatic safety systems and is used by pilots in low-visibility situations. Since RAs utilize relatively low-powered transmissions, there is a risk that wireless signals, such as those emitted by next-generation wireless base stations utilizing adjacent spectrum bands, can interfere with or overpower the RA signal and result in missing or erroneous data. As was discussed in more detail in the preamble to the NPRM, the coming expiration of current voluntary commitments by wireless license holders to limit base station power level and out-of-band emissions in the Lower C-band spectrum (3.7-3.98 GHz) in 2028 and the upcoming FCC auction reallocating some or all of the Upper C-band spectrum (3.98-4.2 GHz) directly adjacent to the RA band are expected to exceed the ability of current avionics technology to mitigate the risk of spectrum interference and will create unacceptable risk to the NAS.
Public Law 119-21 requires FCC to complete an auction of at least 100 MHz in the Upper C-band, and FAA has found that the associated authorization would cause existing RAs to experience interference and cause unsafe conditions. The upcoming auction would create an externality, defined as a market failure in OMB Circular A-4 occurring when one party's actions impose uncompensated benefits or costs on another party.
To address this risk, FAA proposes requiring the replacement of all existing RA systems with ones that meet the new interference tolerance performance standards for aircraft operating under part 91 in the airspace of the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia. FAA is proposing RA performance requirements that reflect the best achievable interference rejection and without compromising the RA system performance. These requirements would apply first to all aircraft with an RA operating under 14 CFR part 121 and all aircraft with an RA operating under 14 CFR part 129 with 30 or more passenger seats or a payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds, which have the highest expected level of safety and are the most critical to the national economy. All other aircraft operating under part 91 in the airspace of the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia and equipped with RAs would have two additional years from the initial RA performance deadline to replace any RAs with units that meet the proposed performance requirement.
To properly evaluate regulations, agencies must weigh the costs and benefits against a baseline. OMB Circular A-4 defines the “no action” baseline as “the best assessment of the way the world would look absent the proposed action.” It also specifies that the baseline “should incorporate the agency's best forecast of how the world will change in the future,” absent the regulation. FAA considers the primary baseline for this analysis to be a no action baseline, in which FAA assumes FCC completes the auction required by Public Law 119-21 and the voluntary commitments of the wireless service providers lapse. Under this scenario, FAA would have to react to the interference to prohibit all operations of certain aircraft makes and models and prohibit low-visibility operations in all aircraft, causing significant operational impacts. Aircraft owners would need to replace their RA systems to achieve compatibility with the new spectrum environment, if it is possible to do so. The inherent costs of delays, cancellations, and groundings resulting from re-imposing AD operational prohibitions under this no action baseline can be negated by the cost of retrofitting the RA system in compliance with proposed performance standards. FAA could also seek voluntary constraints from the wireless carriers in order to mitigate these aviation impacts. There is no assurance that an agreement could be reached, and that scenario could impact FCC as the constraints would not be known at the time of the auction.
These costs are based on the prior expansion of next-generation wireless services in the Lower C-band, where FAA issued 14 ADs for aircraft equipped with RAs. These ADs maintained the safety environment of the NAS by prohibiting operations when spectrum interference affects the accuracy of RA data critical for safe operation of the aircraft. To accomplish this goal, the ADs prohibited transport and commuter category airplanes without an upgraded RA from flying in very low visibility conditions (CAT II/III and other operations), prohibited rotorcraft without an upgraded RA from flying in specific automation modes dependent on RA data, and imposed additional operating restrictions on specific model airplanes with vital safety systems heavily tied to RA data. The airplane model-specific ADs cover Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, MHI RJ, and Airbus 220/Bombardier 500 models. All combined, these aircraft make up around 52 percent of the U.S. commercial fleet based on MITRE fleet data.
Along with the aircraft specific ADs, FAA would have additional ADs restricting operations in low visibility CAT II or III conditions, which would impact air travel in the NAS. In 2019, these conditions ranged from 0 to 1.14 percent of hours at the core 30 airports,
Air carriers may choose to voluntarily upgrade their RA units to address potential interference concerns associated with the use of the Upper C-band spectrum, either to directly address the related safety risks to their aircraft or as a method of compliance with the new ADs to avoid the cost of capacity disruption. This action would limit both the operational impacts of the ADs and any impacts on the wireless industry's use of the spectrum. However, without the proposed rule, FAA is unable to assume the availability of Upper C-band compliant units or the extent and timeline of voluntary compliance.
FAA also considers an alternative pre-C-band utilization baseline, in which FAA avoids the prohibition of certain operations by achieving full fleet retrofit of RA systems to the proposed performance standards before any change in the spectrum environment. With no need for new ADs in this alternative baseline, only the costs of RA retrofit are considered in the current environment prior to the auction mandated by Public Law 119-21. With the pre-C-band utilization baseline representing a world where FAA considers mandating equipage of RAs that are tolerant to the Upper C-band spectrum and aircraft operators continue being able to fly without restrictions, baseline costs are $0.
As discussed in the preamble, RAs are not directly required by regulation for most aircraft, except for NVG operations under § 91.205(h)(7) and for rotorcraft operations under § 135.160, but are still carried on nearly all commercial and many noncommercial aircraft due to the vital role they play in the safety of aircraft operations by providing critical information directly to pilots and for mandated safety systems such as TCAS, TAWS, and other functions like autoland. Some aircraft may only need one RA unit, but given how vital the information is to safe operation, many commercial aircraft use two or more RA units to ensure accurate data. Using April 2025 data from MITRE, FAA estimates that there are roughly 58,579 RA units across 40,871 aircraft in the current operating civilian fleet (including many State-owned aircraft) that would be affected by the proposed rule.
From the same MITRE data, Table 9 below shows the estimated number of operators of affected RA-equipped aircraft operating under the rules of each CFR part.
FAA requests comment, with supporting documentation, on the no action and pre-C-band utilization baseline estimates and assumptions.
The benefits of this proposed rule stem from maintaining the safety benefits of RAs and preventing operational restrictions due to the high risk to aviation safety when utilizing current generation RA systems that are unable to filter out wireless signals (
Beyond data provided directly to pilots, RA information is used by several mandated systems whose safety benefits this proposed rule aims to preserve. Systems such as TCAS and TAWS, which rely on accurate RA altitude data, provide pilots vital safety enhancements for collision avoidance. Since implementation, these systems have played a large role in significantly reducing mid-air collisions or CFIT accidents on equipped aircraft in the United States.
Should interference-tolerant RAs not be available or mandated, FAA would supersede the current ADs to maintain the safety environment, with the potential to issue additional ADs covering other operations or aircraft models as needed. These ADs would maintain the appropriate level of safety in the NAS by preventing the operation of certain aircraft or in conditions where accurate RA data is vital to the safe operation, but do not retain the additional safety benefits generated by RAs and their dependent safety systems. There also would be further loss of economic benefits from the resulting groundings, cancellations, and delays of operational restrictions affecting the efficiency of air travel in the NAS. FAA currently lacks data to assess the estimated potential effects and requests comment with supporting documentation on the expected economic impact or on any other benefit assumption or estimate in this analysis.
Under the proposed rule, airlines and other operators would incur costs to retrofit their RA equipped aircraft with systems meeting the proposed RA interference tolerance standards. When issuing ADs in 2023 for transport and commuter category airplanes and for rotorcraft to mitigate interference from Lower C-band wireless services, FAA estimated that replacement of the RA transceiver unit for a civil aircraft would cost up to $80,000 for an airplane
FAA proposes the compliance timeline to complete the retrofitting as two tranches. For the first, all aircraft with RAs operating under 14 CFR part 121, and those aircraft operating under 14 CFR part 129 with 30 or more passenger seats or a payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds, would have to retrofit with RA systems meeting the new performance requirements by the initial RA performance deadline. These operations are the most critical to the national economy and have the highest expected level of safety, making them a priority. FAA proposes that this initial RA performance deadline be between 2029 and 2032. Based on the fleet data from MITRE, FAA estimates there are roughly 27,374 RA units on aircraft subject to the first deadline: 17,033 used by domestic part 121 operators and 10,341 used by foreign part 129 operators.
The second tranche includes any other aircraft operating under part 91 in the airspace of the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia and equipped with an RA; they would have an additional two years after the initial RA performance deadline to complete the retrofit. FAA currently estimates that there are 31,205 RA units across this category, covering both airplanes and rotorcraft.
Combining the estimates from both groups, the expected undiscounted total cost of retrofitting RAs across the civil fleet is $4.49 billion. Table 10 shows the total and annualized costs, broken out by type of CFR operation and annualized discount rate.
FCC's NPRM section 3.D also discusses exploring options for potential incentivization or reimbursement of RA retrofits. This action would be considered a transfer of costs under OMB Circular A-4 accounting, reducing or eliminating the burden of RA system retrofit for aircraft operators. The availability of incentive or reimbursement payments could affect the rate at which RAs are replaced in response to the requirements of this proposed rule.
FAA requests comment with supporting documentation on the estimated costs.
FAA considers this scenario as an alternative to the Pre-C-band Utilization Baseline. Without the availability of new interference-tolerant RAs, either due to failure to certify the new product in time, uncertainty regarding supply within the compliance timeframe, or not issuing the proposed regulations on RA performance, FAA would follow the actions presented in the baseline section and supersede the ADs covering Lower C-band interference based on changes in the spectrum environment to maintain current safety levels. Expiration of the wireless agreements in 2028 and expansion into frequencies closer to the RA band from the upcoming FCC auction would likely require prohibiting specific operations and grounding aircraft that cannot operate safely without interference-resistant RAs. These ADs would not be applicable to non-U.S. registered aircraft, so other methods would be required to ensure safety, such as issuing NOTAMs and amending the U.S. AIP to address changes in the spectrum environment.
The method by which the ADs would maintain the safety of the NAS is by prohibiting flights in low visibility conditions for aircraft that are heavily dependent on RA data for their safety systems. In doing so, safety is maintained by preventing scenarios where there is an unacceptable risk of incorrect RA data causing a catastrophic accident; however, this also comes with the loss of the additional safety benefits RAs and their dependent systems provide. The cost of these ADs would be flight delays and cancellations by operators, with spillover effects for the flying public.
FAA compares these grounding costs that may be incurred by aircraft operators to the costs within the pre-C-band utilization baseline to further consider this scenario. The International Bureau of Aviation (IBA) estimated in 2019 that the direct costs for an operator to ground a passenger jet like the Boeing 737 Max could be up to $150,000 per day.
In this environment, industry would likely turn to the upcoming new RTCA/EUROCAE standards to guide development of Upper C-band tolerant RAs. However, due to the timeline mandated by Public Law 119-21, FCC would have to determine the new Upper C-band wireless environment prior to standards publication. This may result in FCC establishing an environment where wireless interference cannot be safely accommodated, even with new RA systems, which would have significant economic costs as FAA would indefinitely prohibit certain aircraft from operating in the U.S. and prohibit all low-visibility approach and landing operations. In the best case, FCC would define the Upper C-band wireless environment that is aligned to the feasible RA performance. Even then, awaiting the international standards to be published would delay the design and production of RAs that can accommodate the new spectrum environment, requiring FAA to use the more costly ADs to cover the safety gap until the fleet is fully equipped.
This scenario would also require an extension of the current voluntary wireless agreements to continue safe coexistence with Lower C-band wireless service and continue to mitigate operational limitations in the current ADs. FAA lacks the authority to compel wireless licensees to extend the voluntary agreements, and notes that, even if extended, new voluntary emission limits for safe RA use are not commercially viable for the Upper C-band wireless services (see section IV.C for discussion). The additional uncertainty and timeline pressure of interference tolerant RA availability would continue to inhibit wireless companies' usage of the C-band and would severely limit realizing the full value of the FCC spectrum auction and the general economic benefits of expanding spectrum usage compared to the proposed rule.
If new interference-tolerant RA units are not developed or available, and the current ADs are withdrawn, FAA would be maintaining the current tempo of air operations, but would be accepting the risk of Upper C-band interference on the RA and all dependent aircraft safety systems. The most recent FAA risk assessments rated these risks from minor to catastrophic, with the most significant risks to operations in very low visibility (
This proposed rule aims to address a critical safety issue in the NAS, with the upcoming auction and proposed reallocation of the Upper C-band spectrum for next-generation wireless services posing a serious risk to the accuracy and usability of RAs. RAs provide height above terrain information, and the accuracy of its data is critical for low visibility operations and use in numerous mandated automatic safety systems. Without the ability to filter out neighboring C-band signals and prevent inaccurate or
To prevent this disruption to air operations and maintain high levels of aviation safety, FAA is proposing new regulations to require all RA systems meet specific minimum performance requirements on aircraft operating in the airspace of the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia by an initial performance deadline between 2029 and 2032 for all aircraft operating under 14 CFR part 121 and aircraft operating under part 129 with 30 or more passenger seats or a payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds. All other aircraft operating under part 91 in the airspace of the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia and equipped with an RA will have an additional two years after the initial performance deadline to use a unit that meets the proposed performance standard. These new RA systems must be resilient to interference from signals in neighboring spectrum bands and continue to provide accurate altitude readings to pilots and integrated aircraft safety systems.
FAA estimates the undiscounted total cost to retrofit all RAs in the civil fleet is $4.49 billion, or $424 million annualized at a 7 percent discount rate over a 20-year average remaining aircraft service life compared to the pre-C-band utilization baseline. Compared to the no-action baseline, FAA assumes relative cost savings for operators of RA equipped aircraft to retrofit to units that meet the new interference tolerance standards and therefore not be subject to the operating restrictions of the current ADs, which would also be required in future ADs. FAA requests comments, with supporting documentation, on the assumptions and estimates made in this RIA. As the estimated cost exceeds the threshold for an economically significant rule under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, FAA prepared the required OMB Circular A-4 accounting statements below.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, Mar. 29, 1996) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240, 124 Stat. 2504 Sept. 27, 2010), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
FAA is publishing this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) to aid the public in commenting on the potential impacts to small entities from this proposal. FAA invites interested parties to submit data and information regarding the potential economic impact that would result from the proposal. FAA will consider comments when making a determination or when completing a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
Under Section 603(b) and (c) of the RFA, an IRFA must contain the following:
(1) A description of the reasons why the action by the agency is being considered;
(2) A succinct statement of the objective of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule;
(3) A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
(4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record;
(5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule; and
(6) A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.
This rule is being proposed to address a critical safety issue with RAs. RAs are dependent on receiving faint waves in the 4.2 to 4.4 GHz spectrum reflected by terrain and obstacles to determine the aircraft's height above the terrain. Higher power signals in neighboring spectrum bands, such as those emitted by next-generation wireless services, can interfere with the RA waves and cause the unit to indicate missing or erroneous data. In turn, the lack of accurate height above terrain data presents a significant safety risk for pilots operating in low-visibility conditions and affects numerous safety systems that are dependent on RA information. These issues have been previously mitigated with wireless companies voluntarily agreeing to limit base station power level and out-of-band emissions in the Lower C-band (3.7 to 3.98 GHz) and operators making changes to their RA units to improve interference tolerance. However, with the voluntary agreements expiring in 2028, and the mandate for FCC to auction off the Upper C-band spectrum (3.98 to 4.2 GHz) adjacent to the RA band, these measures will no longer be adequate to prevent RA interference and associated catastrophic risk to air operations.
To address the safety issue from wireless interference, this rule proposes that all RA units on aircraft operating under part 91 in the airspace of the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia must be replaced by new RA systems that meet the proposed interference tolerance requirements. RA systems that meet the new requirements will continue to function properly when the Lower and Upper C-band wireless services become active following FCC auction and expiration of the voluntary Lower C-band wireless agreements. Installing these interference-tolerant RAs in the fleet would allow air operations to continue at their current tempo and preserve safety levels provided by the benefits of accurate RA data and its use in numerous dependent safety systems. In the absence of requiring interference-tolerant RAs, FAA would issue ADs to maintain the safety environment, which would cost operators more over time due to groundings, delays, and cancellations of aircraft operations.
The legal basis for this action lies in FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety 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 FAA's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the authority of the Administrator to promulgate and revise regulations and rules related to aviation safety. This rulemaking is also issued under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, FAA is charged with prescribing regulations 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.
FAA used the definition of small entities in the RFA for this analysis. The RFA defines small entities as small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, or small organizations. In 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the RFA defines “small business” to have the same meaning as “small business concern” under section 3 of the Small Business Act. The Small Business Act authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA) to define “small business” by issuing regulations.
SBA (2023) has established size standards for various types of economic
To identify small entities, FAA first identified the primary NAICS of the airline or parent company and then used data from different sources (
In general, entities classified as scheduled air transportation (NAICS 481111 and 481112) operate under part 121, and entities engaged in nonscheduled air transportation (NAICS 481211 and 481212) operate under part 135. Part 91 operations include entities under NAICS 481219, such as air clubs and sightseeing operations, as well as entities in any other non-air transportation NAICS code that own and operate aircraft for private use or internal company transportation.
In the absence of cost data on a future product, FAA assumes the cost to retrofit an interference-tolerant RA in accordance with this proposed rule is up to $80,000 for an airplane and $40,000 for a rotorcraft, based on the 2023 ADs concerning Lower C-band interference mitigation.
FAA does not estimate the per entity costs for part 91 operators, as companies operating under this section are generally not engaged in commercial air transportation services. While there are some operators for sightseeing services or aviation club activities under NAICS 481219, the vast majority of these aircraft are used by private operators or entities for personal transportation across many different industries (
There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
As discussed in Section V.A.5 of the preamble, the alternative to not requiring the use of interference-tolerant RAs would be for FAA to supersede the current ADs to impose new requirements curtailing operations where inaccurate RA data poses a catastrophic risk to air safety. These ADs would cover commuter and transport category airplanes, rotorcraft, and some specific large passenger aircraft, with potential as needed for FAA to issue additional ADs based on changes in the C-band spectrum environment. The cost of these ADs is likely to outweigh the cost of retrofitting with an interference-tolerant RA in expenses incurred from resulting groundings, cancellations, and delays. The option of not controlling the risk of spectrum interference with ADs or requiring interference-tolerant RAs is not considered acceptable as FAA has a statutory responsibility to protect the safety of the NAS. FAA requests comments on alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of the applicable statutes, and that minimize impact of the proposed rule on small entities.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, they be the basis for U.S. standards.
FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that it ensures the safety of the American public. If this proposed rule is not implemented, there would be no cost savings and no significant differences in the potential impacts to foreign commerce. In the absence of new regulations, FAA will have to issue new or amended ADs to address U.S. registered aircraft, as well as other necessary policy changes directly relevant to foreign air carriers to prevent catastrophic risk to aviation safety due to future changes in the spectrum environment. The cost of compliance with the ADs would likely be higher than the cost of compliance with the proposed rule, as a lack of RA retrofit compliance would result in significant impacts to domestic and foreign air carrier capacity, efficiency, and schedule reliability. As a result, FAA does not consider this proposed rule as creating an unnecessary obstacle to foreign commerce and welcomes comment on this assessment.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). The value equivalent of $100 million in 1995 adjusted for inflation using the most current Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product is $187 million. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires FAA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows FAA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted.
This proposed rule would not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, of more than $187 million annually, but would result in the expenditure of that magnitude by airlines and other private operators of RA-equipped aircraft. This document seeks comments on the alternatives presented in section V.A.5 for achieving the purposes of FAA's safety mandate in support of the spectrum auction mandate of Public Law 119-21 (One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act).
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
FAA has determined there would be no new information collection associated with the proposed requirement to operate aircraft with RA systems that comply with the specified performance. This proposed requirement will update the RA performance standard, but there will be no new requirements beyond existing policy.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) to the maximum extent practicable. FAA has determined that there are currently no ICAO SARPs that correspond to these proposed regulations. ICAO is planning updates to Annex 10 Volume V intended to help protect RAs from potentially harmful in-band and adjacent band interference caused by non-aeronautical systems operating in adjacent frequency bands. FAA will continue to work with the international community to promote the spectrum compatibility achieved by the proposed next generation RA system requirements.
Considering these SARPs have yet to be finalized, FAA seeks comment on the interoperability of the proposed RA requirements across international airspace and the feasibility of making such updates within the proposed compliance timeline.
The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this proposed rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying 14 CFR regulations in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation, and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions. FAA expects reduced impact because this proposed rule would not apply to aircraft equipped with RA that only conduct intrastate operations in Alaska. However, this proposed rule could, if adopted, affect aviation operations in Alaska because it applies to aircraft equipped with RA based in Alaska that operate regularly to the 48 contiguous United States, or aircraft based in the 48 contiguous United States that operate regularly to and from Alaska. FCC is proposing to preserve the status quo regarding its current licenses outside of the contiguous United States, which would be permitted to continue in the entire 3.7-4.2 GHz band. FCC notes that its proposal to only reallocate spectrum within the contiguous U.S. would ensure the ongoing provision of current C-band services necessary to protect life and property outside the contiguous U.S.—including telehealth, E911, and education services—for which C-band service may be the only option available, such as in remote areas of Alaska. Therefore, FAA specifically requests comments on the suitability of applying the proposed rule differently for intrastate operations in Alaska.
FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of E.O. 13132, Federalism. FAA has determined this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have federalism implications.
Consistent with E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
FAA analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). FAA has determined it would not be a “significant energy action” under the E.O. and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect
E.O. 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to (1) meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and reduce, eliminate, or (2) prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. FAA has analyzed this action under the policy and agency responsibilities of E.O. 13609. FAA has determined this action would help prevent future differences between U.S. aviation standards and those of other CAAs by being the first nation to adopt and require these new RA system performance standards, to set a standard for future harmonization with other CAAs, and inform future wireless standards for the spectrum authorities of other nations who are considering similar spectrum reallocation near the RA band.
Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) requires that, for each new regulatory rule, an agency must identify 10 prior regulations for elimination. This proposed rule responds to statutory requirements of section 40002 of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which re-institutes FCC's general auction authority and specifically directs the Commission to complete a system of competitive bidding for not less than 100 megahertz in the Upper C-band. To ensure safe, efficient, and reliable aviation operations in the presence of wireless signals in the Upper C-band, FAA is proposing new regulations that would require all RAs to meet specific minimum performance requirements. This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is expected to be an E.O. 14192 regulatory action.
FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. FAA also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. 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.
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 rule. Before acting on this proposal, FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
FCC has initiated a rulemaking on repurposing the 3.98-4.2 GHz band for advanced wireless services consistent with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. As part of that rulemaking, FCC seeks comments on issues related to adjacent band coexistence.
Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to the person in the
A copy of this NPRM, all comments received, any final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.
All documents FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed in the electronic docket for this rulemaking.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104 121, 110 Stat. 857, Mar. 29, 1996) requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the
Air carriers, Air taxis, Aircraft, Aviation safety.
Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534; Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note); Sec. 828 of Pub. L. 118-63, 138 Stat. 1330 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).
(a) After [two years after the initial RA performance deadline], no person may operate an aircraft in the airspace of the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia with a radio altimeter unless the radio altimeter system meets the performance requirements of paragraph (b).
(b) The radio altimeter system must operate at an altitude of 0-500 feet above ground level in the interference environment defined in table 1:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40103, 40113, 40119, 41706, 42301 preceding note added by Pub. L. 112-95, sec. 412, 126 Stat. 89, 44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44729, 44732; 46105; Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note); Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 62 (49 U.S.C. 44732 note); Pub. L. 115-254, 132 Stat. 3186 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note).
After [the initial RA performance deadline], no person may operate an aircraft under this part in the airspace of the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia with a radio altimeter unless the radio altimeter system meets the performance requirements of § 91.220(b) of this chapter.
49 U.S.C. 1372, 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901-44904, 44906, 44912, 46105, Pub. L. 107-71 sec. 104.
(a) After [the initial RA performance deadline], no person may operate an aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats or a payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds under this part in the airspace of the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia with a radio altimeter unless the radio altimeter system meets the performance requirements of § 91.220(b) of this chapter.
(b) After [two years after the initial RA performance deadline], no person may operate an aircraft under this part in the airspace of the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia with a radio altimeter unless the radio altimeter system meets the performance requirements of § 91.220(b) of this chapter.
Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and 44701(a), in Washington, DC.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a safety zone for certain navigable waters west of Cyril E. King Airport in St. Thomas, USVI. The safety zone is needed protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the proximity of the low flying aircrafts to vessels in the vicinity of the waters off the Cyril E. King Airport in St. Thomas, USVI. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector San Juan. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before February 6, 2026.
To submit comments and view available documents, go to
If you have questions about this proposed rule, contact Lieutenant Commander Rachel E. Thomas, Sector San Juan, Waterways Management Division Chief, Coast Guard; telephone (571) 613-1417, email
On August 25, 2025, the Coast Guard established a temporary final rule establishing a safety zone for the runway of Cyril E. King Airport in St.
This proposed rule would establish a safety zone because there is an immediate need to mitigate the risk of vessels transiting between private port authority managed yellow buoys & the end of the St. Thomas Cyril E. King runway because of their proximity to the low flying aircrafts. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters within 400 yards from shore directly west of the airport's runway within the two private port authority managed yellow buoys located at 18°20.288′ N-64°59.343′ W and 18°20.116′ N-64°59.343′ W. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons.
Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this regulated area. This regulation will only impact navigable waters within 400 yards from shore directly west of the airport's runway within the two private port authority managed yellow buoys. In addition, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Marines via VHF FM marine channel 16, which will allow small entities to adjust their transit plans, and the rule allows vessels to request permission to enter the regulated area from the COTP.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this proposed rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this proposed rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This proposed rule involves safety zone that will prohibit entry within 400 yards from shore directly west of the airport's runway within the two private port authority managed yellow buoys. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by telephone at (787) 289-2041, or a designated representative via VHF-FM radio on channel 16 to request authorization. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
(2) The COTP may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is extending the comment period for the proposed rule entitled “Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities; Extension of an Alternative Closure Requirement Deadline.” EPA is extending the comment period until February 6, 2026, in response to stakeholders' requests for a comment period extension.
The comment period for the proposed rule published on November 28, 2025 (90 FR 54611) was originally scheduled to close on January 7, 2026, but the comment period is being extended by 30 days. Comments must be received on or before February 6, 2026.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-2864, online at
Patrick Wise, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Waste Identification, Notice, and Generators Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, MC: 5304T, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-0520; email address:
On November 28, 2025, EPA published a proposed rule (90 FR 54611) entitled “Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities; Extension of an Alternative Closure Requirement Deadline.” The original deadline to submit comments was January 7, 2026. On December 5, 2025 and December 8, 2025, EPA received requests for the Agency to extend the comment period.
In response to the request for a comment period extension, this action extends the comment period of the proposed rule by 30 days. Written comments must now be received by February 6, 2026.
EPA previously announced that it will hold a virtual public hearing beginning at 9 a.m. Eastern Time on January 6, 2026 (90 FR 54611). This action does not affect the timing of the virtual public hearing. Nonetheless, the public is encouraged to monitor EPA's website (
To submit comments or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions provided under
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are required regarding; whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by February 6, 2026 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Since the agency is mandated to provide supervised credit, failure to collect the information, or collecting it less frequently, could result in the failure of the farm operation or loss of agency security property.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the restricted, prohibited, and controlled importation of animal and poultry products and byproducts into the United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March 9, 2026.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on prohibited, restricted, and controlled importation of animal and poultry products and byproducts into the United States, contact the following individuals: For issues concerning meat, milk, eggs, and casings, Dr. Nathaniel Koval, Senior Staff Officer, Animal Product Imports, Strategy and Policy, Veterinary Services, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 5601 Sunnyside Ave., Beltsville, MD 20705, (301) 851-3300,
For more information on the information collection reporting process, contact Ms. Sheniqua Harris, APHIS' Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, at (301) 851-2528;
Disease prevention is the most effective method for maintaining a healthy animal population and for enhancing the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS') ability to compete globally in animal and animal product and byproduct trade. In connection with this mission, APHIS enforces regulations regarding both the importation of controlled materials and the prevention of foreign animal disease incursions into the United States. These regulations are located in 9 CFR parts 94, 95, and 122.
APHIS engages in a number of information collection activities to prevent or control the spread of livestock diseases via the restricted, prohibited, and controlled importation of animal and poultry products and byproducts into the United States, including, but not limited to, certificates, applications, agreements, appeals and cancellations of agreements, placards and statements, permissions to import, notifications, government seals, and marking requirements.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years. APHIS has amended this collection in the following ways:
• APHIS has combined all uses of the VS Form 16-3 from this collection into a universal “common forms” permit package. Uses of this form were formerly spread over four different collection packages, including this one. Removing the activities using VS Form 16-3 from this collection removed 5,106 respondents, 9,896 responses, and 11,695 burden hours from this collection.
• APHIS also included the activities under 9 CFR 94.12(c) for pork-filled pasta products, which were previously in their own information collection (0579-0214), to this collection, adding ten respondents, 50 responses, and 50 burden hours to this collection.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with animal disease traceability.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March 9, 2026.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on animal disease traceability, contact Dr. Wendy Lehman, Veterinary Medical Officer, National Animal Disease Traceability and Veterinary Accreditation Center, Strategy and Policy, VS, APHIS, 5601 Sunnyside Ave., Beltsville, MD 20705; (937) 999-7874. For more information on the information collection reporting process, contact Ms. Sheniqua Harris, APHIS' Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, at (301) 851-2528; or email:
Within APHIS, Veterinary Services (VS) safeguards U.S. animal health through a variety of activities, including disease control. One important part of disease control is animal disease traceability. Animal disease traceability provides the ability to document the movement history of an animal throughout its life. Knowing where diseased and at-risk animals have been and are located, as well as when they have been there, is indispensable during an emergency response and important for ongoing disease programs.
Epidemiologists use this information to determine the potential spread of a disease. In fact, having the ability to plot locations within a radius of an infected premises helps to determine the potential magnitude of a contagious disease and the resources needed to contain it. Furthermore, as diseases are controlled or eradicated, it is important to document areas, States, or regions of the country that are free from disease. Traceability helps APHIS determine those disease-free zones, thus enhancing the marketability of U.S. livestock.
The regulations for animal disease traceability are located in 9 CFR part 86. Under the regulations, unless specifically exempted, livestock moved interstate must be officially identified and accompanied by an interstate certificate of veterinary inspection or other documentation. The regulations specify approved forms of official identification for each species but allow livestock to be moved between any two States or Tribes with another form of identification as agreed upon by animal health officials in the two jurisdictions. This identification requirement improves APHIS' ability to trace livestock if a disease is detected. Development and implementation of the animal disease traceability framework continues to be a partnership involving APHIS, States, Tribes, and industry. States and Tribes enter into cooperative agreements with APHIS to implement their traceability activities.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years. APHIS has amended this information collection due to the following:
• There is a decrease in the number of Respondents reporting, the number of Responses, and Total Burden Hours reported for the collection.
• APHIS removed the use of State figures for Approval of Official ID Devices.
• APHIS removed the use and recordkeeping of the VS Form 1-64 for State respondents.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This is a revision of a currently approved collection. This information collection is associated with State agencies' notification and data collection activities associated with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program review of major changes in program design at the State level.
Written comments must be received on or before March 9, 2026.
Comments may be sent to: Sasha Gersten-Paal, Director, Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Sasha Gersten-Paal at 703-305-2507.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
FNS is requesting to increase the burden estimates to account for increased reliance on automated systems, such as robotic process automation (RPA) or bots as a result of FNS' January 10, 2024, guidance on the use of advanced automation in SNAP. FNS is also requesting to increase burden estimates to account for State agencies implementing major changes in non-merit personnel, in response to FNS' March 20, 2024, clarification of guidance on the use of non-merit personnel in the administration of SNAP. Compared to prior collections, there is a noticeable rise in reports of major changes involving the use of non-merit personnel and automated systems, such as robotic process automation (RPA) or bots in SNAP administration. Recent patterns show an increase in the number of State agencies implementing major changes and an increase in the frequency of submissions per State agency. The frequency and timing of major changes to program operations remain with individual State agencies. State agencies make such changes in operations based upon a variety of interrelated factors.
Prior to any major change to State operations, regulations at 7 CFR 272.15(a)(3) require State agencies to provide FNS with descriptive information regarding the major change and an analysis of its projected impact on program operations. In an effort to reduce the burden of this collection, FNS provides a template for State agencies to submit notification of major changes in SNAP design electronically through the Waiver Information Management System (WIMS).
FNS reviews State notifications to determine if the described changes in program operations meet the criteria at 272.15(b). Some State notifications do not meet the major change criteria outlined in regulation. However, if FNS determines the notification meets the major change criteria, regulations at 7 CFR 272.15(b)(1)-(6) require State agencies to collect and report monthly State-level data on application processing metrics, listed at 7 CFR 272.15(b)(1)(i)-(xvii). Although the data is generally State level, it may be more targeted. 7 CFR 272.15(b)(4) in part, specifies, “while the data elements outlined in paragraph (b)(2) of this section will generally be required to be reported on a statewide basis and at a sub-state level, major changes that are limited to localized areas, such as a county or project area, may only require reporting”.
State submissions of the reports are required beginning with the quarter prior to pilot/implementation of the major change continuing for one year after full implementation. 7 CFR 272.15(b)(2) in part, necessitates “data must be reported separately for households with elderly and/or disabled members”. All required data reporting related to the implementation of the major change in program design must be disaggregated to show separate results for households that include an elderly and/or disabled member. This separation ensures that FNS can assess the impact of the program change on vulnerable households.
When a State agency implements a major change that allows households to report changes or apply or reapply for SNAP through the use of a call center, 7 CFR 272.15(b)(4)(iv) requires the collection of specific information related to customer service impacts. This information must be submitted to FNS on a quarterly basis. FNS may require pilot data and statewide impact data for one year following full implementation. State agencies meet this requirement by submitting the information electronically via WIMS. In an effort to reduce the reporting burden, FNS provides standardized templates to facilitate the collection and submission of the required information.
Regulations at 272.15(b)(4) give FNS the authority to request additional data beyond the mandatory data reporting elements outlined at 272.15(b)(1)-(3). Depending on the nature of the major change, State agencies may be required to report more specific or timely information concerning impacts on payment accuracy, which may include additional caseload data focused on households with particular characteristics. FNS will collaborate with State agencies to determine what additional information is practicable and will require only the data that is necessary to evaluate the impact of the major change. FNS uses the data reported under these provisions to provide technical assistance, as needed, monitor the impact of State agency changes, and identify compliance or performance issues early.
FNS estimates that 20 State agencies will report a total of 40 major changes. Thirty-three of the 40 will qualify as major changes in SNAP design. Based on the required quarterly reporting, FNS estimates 132 responses for major changes, an additional 32 customer service-related responses for States with call center operations, and 4 responses for States required to submit additional data, State agencies will submit a total of 208 total annual responses. Considering 2,400 hours for States to notify FNS of major changes in SNAP design, the 9,240 hours for reports required without additional data, 1,600 hours for reports that contain call center operations, and 280 hours for reports required with additional data are added, the total for the 20 State agencies is 13,520 total annual burden hours.
This information collection does not contain burden associated with record keeping and/or third-party public disclosures.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing a countervailing duty (CVD) order on hexamethylenetetramine (hexamine) from India.
Applicable January 7, 2026.
Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0410.
In accordance with sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on September 23, 2025, Commerce published its affirmative final determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of hexamine from India.
On December 22, 2025, pursuant to section 705(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final affirmative determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of hexamine from India within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act.
The product covered by this order is hexamine from India. For a complete description of the scope of the order,
As stated above, based on the ITC's final determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of subsidized imports of hexamine from India,
Therefore, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, Commerce intends to direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instructions by Commerce, countervailing duties on all relevant entries of hexamine from India, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 7, 2025, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 706 of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation of hexamine from India, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the
Commerce also intends, pursuant to section 706(a)(1) of the Act, to instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amounts as indicated below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the
The estimated countervailing duty subsidy rates are as follows:
Section 703(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. Commerce published the
In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, unliquidated entries of hexamine from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after July 5, 2024, the date on which the provisional measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the
On September 20, 2021, Commerce published the
In accordance with the
Interested parties who wish to be added to the annual inquiry service list for an order must submit an entry of appearance to the annual inquiry service list segment for the order in ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of the order. For ease of administration, Commerce requests that law firms with more than one attorney representing interested parties in an order designate a lead attorney to be included on the annual inquiry service list. Commerce will finalize the annual inquiry service list within five business days thereafter. As mentioned in the
Commerce may update an annual inquiry service list at any time as needed based on interested parties' amendments to their entries of appearance to remove or otherwise modify their list of members and representatives, or to update contact information. Any changes or announcements pertaining to these procedures will be posted to the ACCESS website.
In the
This notice constitutes the CVD order with respect to hexamine from India, pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of antidumping and CVD orders currently in effect at
This order is published in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The scope of this order covers hexamine in granular form, with a particle size of 5 millimeters or less, whether stabilized or unstabilized, whether or not blended, mixed, pulverized, or grounded with other products, containing 50 percent or more hexamine by weight.
Hexamine is the common name for hexamethylene tetramine (Chemical Abstract Service #100-97-0), and is also referred to as 1,3,5,7-tetraazaadamantanemethenamine; HMT; HMTA; 1,3,5,7-tetraazatricyclo {3.3.1.13,7} decane; 1,3,5,7-tetraaza adamantane; hexamethylenamine. Hexamine has the chemical formula C6H12N4.
Granular hexamine that has been blended with other product(s) is included in this scope when the resulting mix contains 50 percent or more of hexamine by weight, regardless of whether it is blended with inert additives, co-reactants, or any additives that undergo self-condensation.
Subject merchandise includes merchandise matching the above description that has been processed in a third country, including by commingling, diluting, adding or removing additives, or performing any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of this order if performed in the subject country.
Merchandise covered by the scope of this order can be classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) of the United States under the subheading 2933.69.5000. The HTSUS subheading and Chemical Abstracts Service registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; however, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing the antidumping duty (AD) orders on hexamethylenetetramine (hexamine) from Germany, India, and Saudi Arabia. Further, the ITC determined that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to hexamine from Germany and India. In addition, Commerce is amending its final determination of sales at less than fair value (LTFV) with respect to Hexamine from Saudi Arabia to correct ministerial errors.
Applicable January 7, 2026.
Maria Papakostas (Germany) at (202) 482-0086; Dylan Hill (India) at (202) 482-1197; or Andrew Hart (Saudi Arabia) at (202) 482-1058, AD/CVD Operations, Offices II, IV, and IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On September 23, 2025, Commerce published its affirmative final determinations in the LTFV investigations of hexamine from Germany, India, and Saudi Arabia, in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
On December 22, 2025, pursuant to section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final affirmative determinations that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of dumped imports of hexamine from Germany, India, and Saudi Arabia.
The products covered by these orders are hexamine from Germany, India, and Saudi Arabia. For a complete description of the scope of the orders,
We determine that we made a ministerial error in the final determination of sales at LTFV for Saudi Arabia. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(e), and as explained further in the Saudi Arabia Ministerial Error Memorandum,
Based on the above-referenced affirmative final determinations, in accordance with sections 735(c)(2) of the Act, Commerce is issuing these AD orders. Because the ITC determined that
Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise on all relevant entries of hexamine from Germany, India, and Saudi Arabia. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of hexamine entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 6, 2025, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 736 of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation and continue the suspension of liquidation, as applicable, on all relevant entries of hexamine from Germany, India, and Saudi Arabia, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the
Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated in the tables below, adjusted by the relevant subsidy offsets. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication in the
With respect to the ITC's negative critical circumstances determination on imports of hexamine from Germany and India, we will instruct CBP to lift the suspension of liquidation and to refund all cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties with respect to entries of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 5, 2025,
The estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
Section 773(d) of the Act states that suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request that Commerce extend the four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of hexamine from Germany, Saudi Arabia, and India, Commerce extended the four-month period to six months.
In the underlying investigations, Commerce published the
On September 20, 2021, Commerce published the
In accordance with the
Interested parties who wish to be added to the annual inquiry service list for an order must submit an entry of appearance to the annual inquiry service list segment for the order in ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of the order. For ease of administration, Commerce requests that law firms with more than one attorney representing interested parties in an order designate a lead attorney to be included on the annual inquiry service list. Commerce will finalize the annual inquiry service list within five business days thereafter. As mentioned in the
Commerce may update an annual inquiry service list at any time as needed based on interested parties' amendments to their entries of appearance to remove or otherwise modify their list of members and representatives, or to update contact information. Any changes or announcements pertaining to these procedures will be posted to the ACCESS website.
In the
This notice constitutes the AD orders with respect to hexamine from Germany, India, and Saudi Arabia, pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of AD and countervailing duty orders currently in effect at
The amended Saudi Arabia final determination and these AD orders are published in accordance with sections 735(e) and 736(a) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.224(e), and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The scope covered by these orders include hexamine in granular form, with a particle size of 5 millimeters or less, whether stabilized or unstabilized, whether or not blended, mixed, pulverized, or grounded with other products, containing 50 percent or more hexamine by weight.
Hexamine is the common name for hexamethylene tetramine (Chemical Abstract Service #100-97-0), and is also referred to as 1,3,5,7-tetraazaadamantanemethenamine; HMT; HMTA; 1,3,5,7-tetraazatricyclo {3.3.1.13,7} decane; 1,3,5,7-tetraaza adamantane; hexamethylenamine. Hexamine has the chemical formula C
Granular hexamine that has been blended with other product(s) is included in this scope when the resulting mix contains 50 percent or more of hexamine by weight, regardless of whether it is blended with inert additives, co-reactants, or any additives that undergo self-condensation.
Subject merchandise includes merchandise matching the above description that has been processed in a third country, including by commingling, diluting, adding or removing additives, or performing any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of these orders if performed in the subject country.
Merchandise covered by the scope of these orders can be classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) of the United States under the subheading 2933.69.5000. The HTSUS subheading and Chemical Abstracts Service registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; however, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
Notice is hereby given of a virtual public meeting of the Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee (IMDCC). IMDCC members will discuss Federal marine debris activities, with a particular emphasis on the topics identified in the section, Matters To Be Considered.
The virtual public meeting will be held on January 29, 2026, from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST).
The meeting will be held virtually using Google Meet. You can connect to the meeting using the website or phone number provided:
Attendance will be limited to the first 500 individuals to join the virtual meeting room. Refer to the IMDCC website at
Sophia Maginnes, Communication Support Specialist, Marine Debris Program; Email
The IMDCC is a multi-agency body responsible for coordinating a comprehensive program of marine debris research and activities among Federal agencies, in cooperation and coordination with non-governmental organizations, industry, academia, States, Tribes, and other nations, as appropriate. Representatives meet to share information, assess and promote best management practices, and coordinate the Federal Government's efforts to address marine debris.
The Marine Debris Act establishes the IMDCC (33 U.S.C. 1954). The IMDCC submits biennial progress reports to Congress with updates on activities, achievements, strategies, and recommendations. NOAA serves as the Chairperson of the IMDCC.
The meeting will be open to public attendance on January 29, 2026, from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. EST. There will not be a public comment period. The meeting will not be recorded.
The open meeting will include a presentation from the NOAA Marine Debris Program on the launch of the new Abandoned and Derelict Vessel (ADV) National Database. The purpose of the database is to provide the public the opportunity to report ADVs, to help identify the scope of the problem, and track prevention and removal efforts. The agenda topics described are subject to change. The latest version of the agenda will be posted at
The meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Closed captioning will be available. Requests for other auxiliary aids should be directed to Sophia Maginnes, at
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Consumer Credit Card Market Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is issuing its seventh biennial Consumer Credit Card Market Report to Congress. The report includes analysis of data from several sources to examine many aspects of the consumer credit card market since the Bureau's most recent biennial report on the same subject in 2023.
The Bureau released the 2025 Consumer Credit Card Market Report on its website on December 30, 2025.
Daniel Martinez, Credit Card Program Manager, Division of Research, Monitoring, and Regulations at 202-435-7000 or
In May 2009, Congress passed the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act
Among the CARD Act's many provisions was a requirement that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) report every two years “within the limits of its existing resources available for reporting purposes” on the consumer credit card market, including a number of specified topics.
In addition to being delivered to Congress, the full report is available to the public on the Bureau's website at
The full 2025 report includes analysis of data from several sources to examine many aspects of the consumer credit card market as of the end of 2024. In addition to mandating the Bureau's biennial review and report on the market, the Act also requires the Bureau to “solicit comment from consumers, credit card issuers, and other interested parties” in connection with its review.
Continuing past practice, the 2025 report revisits most of the same baseline indicators as prior reports to track key market developments and trends. Below is a summary of the core findings of the report.
•
•
•
•
•
The Bureau is not proposing any new or revised regulations related to consumer credit cards at this time because the Bureau currently is focusing on deregulation and reconsideration of rulemakings, as the Bureau has noted in its public rulemaking agenda.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice; correction.
On December 15, 2025, the DoD published a notice titled Arms Sales Notification. Subsequent to publication of the notice, the DoD realized that the wrong photographed page published in the notice. This correction reprints the photographed page in its entirety to include the correct page. All other information in the original notice remains the same.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
In the
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, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:
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, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
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
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 22, 2026.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Announcement of 2026 asset-size thresholds.
Under their Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations, the Board and the FDIC (collectively, the Agencies) annually adjust the asset-size thresholds used to define “small bank” and “intermediate small bank.” As required by the CRA regulations, the adjustment to the threshold amounts is based on the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). Applying this annual inflation adjustment methodology, the Agencies are announcing that, from January 7, 2026 through December 31, 2026, “small bank” will mean a bank that, as of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years, had assets of less than $1.649 billion; and “intermediate small bank” will mean a small bank with assets of at least $412 million as of December 31 of both of the prior two calendar years and less than $1.649 billion as of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years.
These asset-size thresholds are in effect from January 7, 2026 through December 31, 2026.
Under the current CRA regulations,
The Agencies' CRA regulations establish CRA performance standards for small banks and intermediate small banks. The CRA regulations define small and intermediate small banks by reference to asset-size criteria expressed in dollar amounts, and they further require the Agencies to publish annual adjustments to these dollar figures based on the year-to-year change in the average of the CPI-W, not seasonally adjusted, for each 12-month period ending in November, with rounding to the nearest million.
During the 12-month period ending November 2025, the CPI-W increased by 2.51 percent. Because the year-to-year change in the CPI-W was non-zero, the Agencies are making this annual adjustment. Beginning January 7, 2026, banks that, as of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years, had assets of less than $1.649 billion are
The Agencies publish current and historical asset-size thresholds on the website of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, acting through the Deputy Secretary of the Board under delegated authority.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period. OMB may act on HRSA's ICR only after the 30-day comment period for this notice has closed.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than February 6, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to:
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Samantha Miller, the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, at
Grant recipients funded under RWHAP Parts A, B, C, and D (codified under Title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act) are required to report financial data to HRSA at the beginning (Allocations Report) and at the end of each grant budget period (Expenditures Report) using the designated HRSA grant submission software which is approved by OMB under the 0915-0318 control number. HRSA collects unobligated balances (UOB) of federal funds and rebate addendum information by subprogram from their grant recipients. A UOB is the cumulative amount that is available for obligation in an unexpired account. HRSA uses the UOB and rebate addendum financial information to determine formula funding as directed by the RWHAP statute. HRSA is not planning to make changes to this information collection as part of this extension request.
Federal award expenditure data were previously collected when grant recipients submitted their annual Federal Financial Report (FFR SF-425), which HRSA then combined with the UOB and rebate addendum tables submitted by recipients using the designated HRSA grant submission software. HRSA created the currently approved instrument, which has been in use for several years now, to streamline the process for grant recipients by collecting financial information in the same location and at the same time as the FFR SF-425. Whereas grant recipients previously completed the FFR SF-425 in the HRSA Electronic Handbooks, they now complete it in the Payment Management System. Additionally, grant recipients complete the UOB and rebate addendum data tables as part of their FFR SF-425 submission in the Payment Management System.
A 60-day notice was published in the
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period. OMB may act on HRSA's ICR only after the 30-day comment period for this notice has closed.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than February 6, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Samantha Miller, the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, at
There will be one new Data Form Element, the Repayment ID, which is generated by HRSA and provided in the email giving the recipient the opportunity to report, and it will be entered by the provider in the HRSA Consolidated PRF Reporting Portal. Approximately 50 data elements will be removed from the PRF and ARP Rural Reporting Portal, including sections on personnel, patient, and facility metrics as well as survey questions on the PRF program. This is because these elements are no longer needed, since the data will be needed for more limited cases, as outlined in the “Likely Respondents” section below. In addition, fields related to PRF interest earned, nursing home infection control payment expenditures, and other PRF payment expenditures will be consolidated to overall totals. As a result, the total number of elements that can be submitted by recipients will decline from 123 to approximately 53. Furthermore, the supplemental document “Post-Payment Notice of Reporting Requirements” has been updated to reflect the removal of reporting periods 8 and 9 (including the applicable payment received period and period of availability dates), as the Public Health Emergency ended on May 11, 2023.
A 60-day notice was published in the
If the information is not collected, HRSA will not fulfill its responsibility to oversee reporting requirements that facilitate appropriate oversight of recipients' use of funds, and PRF and ARP Rural recipients will not be able to fulfill their statutory reporting requirement. HRSA will not be able to provide reports to Congress and other stakeholders on the use of more than $178 billion in PRF funds and $8.5 billion in ARP Rural funds.
While the standard reporting time periods have ended, there are still scenarios in which providers will be required to submit reporting documents to HRSA. These include:
• Providers who receive a Final Repayment Notice, based on a HRSA finding of reporting non-compliance, who submit a Decision Review request and are provided an Opportunity to Report. The Opportunity to Report allows providers another chance to submit a report to come into compliance.
• Adjudicative orders that would require HRSA to allow a Provider an opportunity to report.
• Providers who have prevailed in a dispute or have entered into a settlement with HRSA may need to submit a report.
These scenarios make it necessary to retain and extend approval of the information collection activities associated with required reporting to support compliance, validation, and enforcement actions. Providers would provide documentation through the HRSA Consolidated PRF Reporting Portal based on the reporting period in which they received the funds in question.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research.
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/or contract proposals 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 and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. The meeting will be videocast and can be accessed from
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee no later than 15 days after the meeting 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. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until March 9, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0120 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2011-0001. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, John R. Pfirrmann-Powell, Acting Deputy Chief, telephone number (240) 721-3000 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Office of Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice.
This notice announces the list of Committee Members of HUD's Tribal Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (TIAC) starting in January 2026. The committee will perform several advisory functions while it considers HUD policies that affect Indian Country. HUD will publish a subsequent notice with details of any scheduled TIAC meeting.
Hilary C. Atkin, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 4108, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-401-7914 (this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech and communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit
On November 15, 2021 (86 FR 63051), to enhance consultation and collaboration with Tribal governments, HUD published a notice in the
On April 8, 2024 (89 FR 24484), HUD published a notice in the
On May 19, 2025 (90 FR 21326), HUD published a notice in the
Today's notice announces the membership of the TIAC starting January 2026 (returning members as well as new members). The purpose of the TIAC is to further facilitate intergovernmental communication between HUD and Tribal leaders of federally recognized Tribes on all HUD programs, to make recommendations to HUD regarding current program regulations that may require revision, as well as suggest rulemaking methods to develop such changes, and to advise in the development of HUD's American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) housing priorities. The function of TIAC is not to replace Tribal consultation, but rather to serve as a tool to help supplement it.
In making the selections for membership on the TIAC, HUD's goal was to establish a committee whose membership reflects a balanced representation of small, medium, and large Indian tribes across Indian Country. In addition to the Tribal representatives on the committee, there will be several HUD representatives, each representing various program offices, on the committee.
HUD is announcing the Tribal Committee Members in this Notice. However, each Committee Member should have an eligible Alternate in queue in case the Committee Member is unable to attend a particular committee meeting. As a reminder, the Alternate must meet the same eligibility criteria required of the selected Committee Member, specifically, that they must be either a duly elected Tribal official or Tribal employee. The Alternate cannot be a Tribally Designated Housing Entity employee. In the absence of a Committee Member, the Alternate will have the same rights, responsibilities, duties, and functions as a Committee Member during meetings. Each Committee Member has the discretion to decide who will best represent them in their absence. A Committee Member unable to attend any session must inform HUD in writing with an original signature as to whom they have selected to represent them and will specify the term. HUD will review all Alternates before a meeting to confirm that they meet the eligibility criteria for Alternates specified by HUD.
The final list of members of the TIAC is as follows:
(1) Kenneth Brink, Tribal Council Vice Chairman, Karuk Tribe, Happy Camp, California.
(2) Eugene DeCora, Council Member, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, Winnebago, Nebraska.
(3) Anita Lozinto, Board of Directors At-Large Member, Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians, Santa Rosa, California.
(4) Teri Nutter, Council Member, Gulkana Village Council, Gakona, Alaska.
(5) Jacqueline Pata, 1st Vice President, Central Council of Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska.
(6) Ashley Sexton, Tribal Administrator, Catawba Indian Nation, Rock Hill, South Carolina.
(7) Genia Williams, Council Treasurer, Walker River Paiute Tribe, Schurz, Nevada.
(8) Bobby Yandell, Executive Director of Housing, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Durant, Oklahoma.
(1) Jamie Azure, Chairman, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, Belcourt, North Dakota.
(2) Kelly Cook, Executive Director, Office of Housing, Chickasaw Nation, Ada, Oklahoma.
(3) Todd Enlow, Executive Director of Housing, Cherokee Nation, Tahlequah, Oklahoma.
(4) Benjamin Herne, Tribal Sub-Chief, Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, Akwesasne, New York.
(5) Ryman LeBeau, Chairman, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Eagle Butte, South Dakota.
(6) Toby McClary, Council Member, Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, Grand Ronde, Oregon.
(7) Charles Matthew Sisneros, Lieutenant Governor, Santa Clara Pueblo, Española, New Mexico.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of application.
On June 12, 2019, the State of Alaska (State) finalized an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a Recordable Disclaimer of Interest (RDI) from the United States for the submerged lands underlying portions of the Delta River, Tangle River, Lower Tangle Lake, Long Tangle Lake, Round Tangle Lake, Tangle Lakes and Upper Tangle Lake south of Delta Junction, in Alaska. An RDI, if issued, would disclaim the United States' interest in the lands underlying the portions of the waterbodies in the RDI application. This notice is to notify the public of the pending RDI application and supporting evidence submitted by the State, and that the BLM is seeking additional information related to the waterbodies in the application.
All comments should be received on or before February 6, 2026. The BLM will issue a decision on the application on or after April 7, 2026.
The State's RDI application and its attachments may be viewed at:
Bettie Shelby, Acting Branch Chief, Lands and Realty (AK-941), at 222 West 7th Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513; 907-271-5596;
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
On June 12, 2019, the State filed a final application (AA-95490) for an RDI pursuant to section 315 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 as amended (43 U.S.C. 1745), and the regulations in 43 CFR subpart 1864, which authorize the BLM to issue an RDI. An RDI is a legal document through which the BLM would disclaim the United States' interest in or ownership of specified lands. This notice of application is to inform the public of the pending application and the State's supporting evidence, as well as to provide the opportunity to comment or provide additional information to the BLM.
The State's RDI application asserts that the waterbodies were navigable in fact on the date of Alaska Statehood, January 3, 1959. As such, the application contends that ownership of the submerged lands underlying the Delta River, Tangle River, Lower Tangle Lake, Long Tangle Lake, Round Tangle Lake, Tangle Lakes and Upper Tangle Lake automatically passed from the United States to the State on the date of Statehood under the Equal Footing Doctrine, the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, the Submerged Lands Act of 1988, Alaska Statehood Act, and other title navigability laws.
The RDI application includes approximately 14,026 acres of submerged lands for the following land descriptions: (1) The Delta River: All submerged lands between the ordinary high-water lines of the left and right banks of the Delta River beginning at the southern boundary of Fort Greely in secs. 24 and 25, T. 14 S., R. 9 E., Fairbanks Meridian (F.M.), and secs. 19 and 30, T. 14 S., R. 10 E., F.M., upstream to the Tangle River within sec. 25, T. 20 S., R. 9 E., F.M; (2) Tangle River: All submerged lands between the ordinary high water lines of the left and right banks of the Tangle River beginning within sec. 25, T. 20 S., R. 9 E., F.M, upstream to the inlet of Tangle Lake within sec. 8, T. 22 S., R. 9 E., F.M., including; (3) The Tangle Lakes: All submerged lands between the ordinary highwater lines of the Tangle Lakes; including Lower Tangle Lake, Long Tangle Lake, Round Tangle Lake, Tangle Lakes and Upper Tangle Lake.
The BLM is seeking additional information related to the waterbodies in the State's RDI application. Examples of additional information are photographs or videos capturing boats being used on the waterbodies, historical or present-day use diaries, or specific verbal knowledge, whether passed down through the region, or present-day use, information on the type of boat or watercraft used, and information on the time of year boats are, or were, used. In addition to boat use, the BLM is seeking hydrological data and/or photographs that capture waterbody characteristics such as depth, width, obstructions or obstacles, or shallow stream sections.
In previous
Copies of the State's RDI application and comments provided in response to this notice will be available for public review at the BLM Alaska State Office (see
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask the BLM in your comment to withhold your personally identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of application.
On November 2, 2017, the State of Alaska (State) finalized an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a recordable disclaimer of interest (RDI) from the United States for the submerged lands underlying portions of the Arolik River System, including the East Fork of the Arolik River, the Arolik River and Arolik Lake in western Alaska. An RDI, if issued, would disclaim the United States' interest in the lands underlying the portions of the waterbodies in the RDI application. This notice informs the public of the pending RDI application and supporting evidence submitted by the State and requests additional information related to the waterbodies in the application.
All comments should be received on or before February 6, 2026. The BLM will issue a decision on the application on or after April 7, 2026.
The State's RDI application and its attachments may be viewed at:
Bettie Shelby, Acting Branch Chief, Lands and Realty (AK-941), at 222 West 7th Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513; 907-271-5596;
On November 2, 2017, the State filed a final application (AA-93319) for an RDI pursuant to section 315 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 as amended (43 U.S.C. 1745), and the regulations in 43 CFR part 1860, subpart 1864, which authorize the BLM to issue an RDI. An RDI is a legal document through which the BLM would disclaim the United States' interest in or ownership of specified lands. This notice of application informs the public of the pending application and the State's supporting evidence and provides the public an opportunity to comment or provide additional information to the BLM.
The State's RDI application asserts that the waterbodies were navigable in fact on the date of Alaska Statehood, January 3, 1959. As such, the application contends that ownership of the submerged lands underlying the East Fork of the Arolik River, the Arolik River and Arolik Lake automatically passed from the United States to the State on the date of Statehood under the Equal Footing Doctrine, the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, the Submerged Lands Act of 1988, the Alaska Right of Way Act of 1898, Alaska Statehood Act, and other title navigability laws.
The RDI application includes eligible submerged lands for the following land descriptions: (1) the East Fork Arolik River including Arolik Lake: All submerged lands between the ordinary high-water lines of the left and right banks of the East Fork Arolik River beginning at the outlet of Arolik Lake within sec. 24, T. 8 S. R. 70 W., Seward Meridian, Alaska (S.M.), downstream to the east boundary of sec. 10, T. 8 S., R. 71 W., S.M.; and all submerged lands below the ordinary high water line of Arolik Lake within secs. 23, 24, and 25, T. 8 S., R. 70 W., S.M., and secs. 19, 30, and 31, T. 8 S., R. 69 W., S.M.; (2) Arolik River: All submerged lands between the ordinary high water lines of the left and right banks of the Arolik River, within T. 7 S., R. 71 W., S.M. The BLM is seeking additional information related to the waterbodies in the State's RDI application. Examples of additional information are photographs or videos capturing boats being used on the waterbodies, historical or present-day use diaries, or specific verbal knowledge, whether passed down through the region, or present-day use, information on the type of boat or watercraft used, and information on the time of year boats are, or were, used. In addition to boat use, the BLM is seeking hydrological data and/or photographs that capture waterbody characteristics such as depth, width, obstructions or obstacles, or shallow stream sections.
In previous
Copies of the State's RDI application and comments provided in response to this notice will be available for public review at the BLM Alaska State Office (see
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask the BLM in your comment to withhold your personally identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of application.
On December 28, 2017, the State of Alaska (State) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a recordable disclaimer of interest (RDI) from the United States for the submerged lands underlying portions of the Goodnews River System, east of Goodnews Bay in western Alaska. On December 16, 2020, the BLM received a letter from the State which amended that application to remove Slate Creek. Thus, the final application includes the submerged lands for portions of Goodnews River, Goodnews Lake, Igmiumanik River, South Fork of the Goodnews River, Tivyagik Creek, an unnamed tributary of Tivyagik Creek, the Middle Fork of the Goodnews River, Middle Fork Lake, Kukaktlik River, and Kukaktlim Lake east of Goodnews Bay, Alaska. An RDI, if issued, would disclaim the United States' interest in the lands underlying the portions of the waterbodies in the RDI application. This notice informs the public of the pending RDI application and supporting evidence submitted by the State and requests additional information related to the waterbodies in the application.
All comments should be received on or before February 6, 2026. The BLM will issue a decision on the application on or after April 7, 2026.
The State's RDI application and its attachments may be viewed at:
Bettie Shelby, Acting Branch Chief, Lands and Realty (AK-941), at 222 West 7th Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513; 907-271-5596;
On December 16, 2020, the BLM received a final amended application (AA-92956) from the State for an RDI pursuant to section 315 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 as amended (43 U.S.C. 1745), and the regulations in 43 CFR part 1860, subpart 1864, which authorize the BLM to issue an RDI. An RDI is a legal document through which the BLM would disclaim the United States' interest in or ownership of specified lands. This notice of application is to inform the public of the pending application and the State's supporting evidence, as well as to provide the opportunity to comment or provide additional information to the BLM.
The State's RDI application asserts that the waterbodies were navigable in fact on the date of Alaska Statehood, January 3, 1959. As such, the application contends that ownership of the lands underlying portions of the Goodnews River, Goodnews Lake, Igmiumanik River, South Fork of the Goodnews River, Tivyagik Creek, an unnamed tributary of Tivyagik Creek, the Middle Fork of the Goodnews River, Middle Fork Lake, Kukaktlik River, and Kukaktlim Lake automatically passed from the United States to the State on the date of Statehood under the Equal Footing Doctrine, the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, the Submerged Lands Act of 1988, the Alaska Right of Way Act of 1898, the Alaska Statehood Act, and other title navigability laws.
The RDI application includes the eligible submerged lands for the following land descriptions: (1) Goodnews River, including Goodnews Lake: All submerged lands between the lines of ordinary high water of the left and right banks of the Goodnews River, from the confluence with an unnamed creek near river mile 78 within sec. 3, T. 7 S., R. 66 W., Seward Meridian, downstream and including Goodnews Lake, to the location where the river enters T. 10 S., R. 71 W., Seward Meridian, Alaska; (2) Igmiumanik River: All submerged lands between the lines of ordinary high water of the left and right banks of the Igmiumanik River from the confluence with an unnamed creek within the NE
The BLM is seeking additional information related to the waterbodies in the State's RDI application. Examples of additional information are photographs or videos capturing boats being used on the waterbodies, historical or present-day use diaries, or specific verbal knowledge, whether passed down through the region, or present-day use, information on the type of boat or watercraft used, and information on the time of year boats are, or were, used. In addition to boat use, the BLM is seeking hydrological data and/or photographs that capture waterbody characteristics such as depth, width, obstructions or obstacles, or shallow stream sections.
In previous
Copies of the State's RDI application and comments provided in response to this notice will be available for public review at the BLM Alaska State Office (see
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask the BLM in your comment to withhold your personally identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of application.
On May 28, 2019, the State of Alaska (State) finalized an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a Recordable Disclaimer of Interest (RDI) from the United States for the submerged lands underlying portions of the West Fork Dennison Fork and the Dennison Fork of the Fortymile River, south of Chicken, Alaska. An RDI, if issued, would disclaim the United States' interest in the lands underlying the portions of the waterbodies in the RDI application. This notice is to notify the public of the pending RDI application and supporting evidence submitted by the State, and that the BLM is seeking additional information related to the waterbodies in the application.
All comments should be received on or before February 5, 2026. The BLM will issue a decision on the application on or after April 7, 2026.
The State's RDI application and its attachments may be viewed at:
Bettie Shelby, Acting Branch Chief, Lands and Realty (AK-941), at 222 West 7th Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513; 907-271-5596;
On May 28, 2019, the State filed a final application (FF-97491) for an RDI pursuant to section 315 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 as amended (43 U.S.C. 1745), and the regulations in 43 CFR subpart 1864, which authorize the BLM to issue an RDI. An RDI is a legal document through which the BLM would disclaim the United States' interest in or ownership of specified lands. This notice of application is to inform the public of the pending application and the State's supporting evidence, as well as to provide the opportunity to comment or provide additional information to the BLM.
The State's RDI application asserts that the waterbodies were navigable in fact on the date of Alaska Statehood, January 3, 1959. As such, the application contends that ownership of the submerged lands underlying the West Fork of the Dennison Fork and the Dennison Fork of the Fortymile River automatically passed from the United States to the State on the date of Statehood under the Equal Footing Doctrine, the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, the Submerged Lands Act of 1988, the Alaska Right of Way Act of 1898, Alaska Statehood Act, and other title navigability laws.
The RDI application includes approximately 425 acres of submerged lands for the following land descriptions: (1) The West Fork of the
The BLM is seeking additional information related to the waterbodies in the State's RDI application. Examples of additional information are photographs or videos capturing boats being used on the waterbodies, historical or present-day use diaries, or specific verbal knowledge, whether passed down through the region, or present-day use, information on the type of boat or watercraft used, and information on the time of year boats are, or were, used. In addition to boat use, the BLM is seeking hydrological data and/or photographs that capture waterbody characteristics such as depth, width, obstructions or obstacles, or shallow stream sections.
In previous
Copies of the State's RDI application and comments provided in response to this notice will be available for public review at the BLM Alaska State Office (see
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask the BLM in your comment to withhold your personally identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of application.
On February 20, 2019, the State of Alaska (State) finalized an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a recordable disclaimer of interest (RDI) from the United States for the submerged lands underlying portions of the Kwethluk River, adjacent to and south of Kwethluk in Alaska. An RDI, if issued, would disclaim the United States' interest in the lands underlying the portions of the waterbodies in the RDI application. This notice informs the public of the pending RDI application and supporting evidence submitted by the State and requests additional information related to the waterbodies in the application.
All comments should be received on or before February 6, 2026. The BLM will issue a decision on the application on or after April 7, 2026.
The State's RDI application and its attachments may be viewed at:
Bettie Shelby, Acting Branch Chief, Lands and Realty (AK-941), at 222 West 7th Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513; 907-271-5596;
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
On February 20, 2019, the State filed a final application (AA-95314) for an RDI pursuant to section 315 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 as amended (43 U.S.C. 1745), and the regulations in 43 CFR part 1860, subpart 1864, which authorize the BLM to issue an RDI. An RDI is a legal document through which the BLM would disclaim the United States' interest in or ownership of specified lands. This notice of application is to inform the public of the pending application and the State's supporting evidence, as well as to provide the opportunity to comment or provide additional information to the BLM.
The State's RDI application asserts that the waterbodies were navigable in fact on the date of Alaska Statehood, January 3, 1959. As such, the application contends that ownership of the submerged lands underlying the Kwethluk River automatically passed from the United States to the State on the date of Statehood under the Equal Footing Doctrine, the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, the Submerged Lands Act of 1988, the Alaska Right of Way Act of 1898, Alaska Statehood Act, and other title navigability laws.
The RDI application includes eligible submerged lands for the following land description: (1) Kwethluk River: All submerged lands between the lines of ordinary high water of the left and right banks within the following:
The BLM is seeking additional information related to the waterbodies in the State's RDI application. Examples of additional information are photographs or videos capturing boats being used on the waterbodies, historical or present-day use diaries, or specific verbal knowledge, whether passed down through the region, or present-day use, information on the type of boat or watercraft used, and information on the time of year boats are, or were, used. In addition to boat use, the BLM is seeking hydrological data and/or photographs that capture waterbody characteristics such as depth, width, obstructions or obstacles, or shallow stream sections.
In previous
Copies of the State's RDI application and comments provided in response to this notice will be available for public review at the BLM Alaska State Office (see
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask the BLM in your comment to withhold your personally identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the U.S. Department of Defense, Division of Air Force, Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB) 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 February 6, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice to Jose Cintron, Tyndall AFB, 102 Checkertail Way, Building 36234, Port Saint Joe, FL 32403-5014, 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 Tyndall AFB, 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.
The 92 associated funerary objects are Santa Rosa/Swift Creek type ceramics, Weeden Island type ceramics, Deptford type ceramics, faunal bone, and ochre. These cultural items are reasonably believed to be funerary objects associated with ancestors previously published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The Tyndall AFB has determined that:
• The 92 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 Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Poarch Band of Creek Indians; Seminole Tribe of Florida; The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town.
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 February 6, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Tyndall AFB 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 Tyndall AFB 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), Shelburne 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 February 6, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to Alexander Kikutis, Shelburne Museum, P.O. Box 10, Shelburne, VT 05482, 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 Shelburne 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 sacred object is a Cochiti Pueblo Canteen (2023-5.7). In April 2023, Shelburne Museum received a donation of Pueblo pottery. Teressa Perry, widow of Anthony Perry, donated this item. Ms. Perry inherited this item from her husband, Anthony Perry, in 2017. Mr. Perry purchased this item from Robert V. Gallegos an antiques dealer in Albuquerque, NM.
The Shelburne Museum 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 Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico.
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 February 6, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Shelburne 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. Shelburne 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 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco 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 February 6, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Ruzel Benedicto Ednalino, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, 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, San Francisco District, 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 CA-MEN-405 in Mendocino County, CA. The 25 associated funerary objects are: three bone awls, two bone matting needles, two charcoal samples, one lot of faunal remains, one nail, three pestles, two chert projectile points, two obsidian projectile points, and nine chert scrapers (one has not yet been located). Site CA-MEN-405 was first identified by Franklin Fenenga in 1948 as part of the Smithsonian Institution's River Basin Surveys in preparation for construction of the Coyote Valley Dam. Adan E. Treganza from San Francisco State University conducted a salvage excavation beginning in September of 1957. Consultation with the Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California and ethnohistoric studies completed by Samuel A. Barrett indicate that CA-MEN-405 is likely associated with the Pomo village of Chodakai.
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, San Francisco District has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• The 25 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 Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California.
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 February 6, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco 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, San Francisco District 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 Fowler Museum, University of California, Los Angeles (Fowler Museum at UCLA) 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 February 6, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Allison Fischer-Olson, Fowler Museum at UCLA, Box 951549, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1549, 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 Fowler Museum at UCLA, 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 766 lots of cultural items have been requested for repatriation.
The two lots objects of cultural patrimony are two lots of groundstone. These cultural items were removed from the surface of CA-RIV-131, located in Reche Canyon, Riverside County, CA, in Spring 1953 by Dr. Clement W. Meighan during an official UCLA expedition. They were received by the Fowler Museum at UCLA prior to June 1953 and comprise Accession 64. Treatment history of these items is unknown. In consultation with the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (also federally recognized as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians), these items were identified as culturally affiliated with the Serrano peoples and were taken from a site known to be within Serrano ancestral territory.
The 22 lots of objects of cultural patrimony are 14 lots of chipped stone, one lot of burned faunal bone, two lots of groundstone, and five lots of other stone materials. These cultural items were removed from the surface of CA-LAN-419, located in Lancaster, Los Angeles County, CA, in 1973 or 1974 by Eugene Stelzer. They were received by the Fowler Museum at UCLA in 1975 and comprise Accession 140. Treatment history of these items is unknown. In consultation with the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (also federally recognized as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) and non-federally recognized California Indian groups including the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians, these items were identified as culturally affiliated with the Serrano and Tataviam peoples based on Tribal Traditional Knowledge, genealogical information, geographical location within Serrano and Tataviam ancestral territory, and ethnographic, historical, and archaeological records. The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians also identified this site as within Chumash ancestral territory.
The 447 lots of objects of cultural patrimony are two lots of groundstone and 445 lots of chipped stone. These cultural items were excavated from CA-LAN-296 and CA-LAN-297, located in Fairmont Buttes, Los Angeles County,
In consultation with the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (also federally recognized as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) and non-federally recognized California Indian groups including the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians, these items were identified as culturally affiliated with the Serrano and Tataviam peoples based on Tribal Traditional Knowledge, genealogical information, geographical location within Serrano and Tataviam ancestral territory, and ethnographic, historical, and archaeological records. The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians also identified this site as within Chumash ancestral territory.
The two lots of objects of cultural patrimony are two lots of ceramic sherds. These cultural items were removed from the surface of sites in Yucca Valley and Coyote Hole, San Bernardino County, CA, by unknown collectors between 1959-1961. They were received by the Fowler Museum at UCLA prior to 1966 and comprise Accession 513. Treatment history of these items is unknown. In consultation with the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (also federally recognized as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians), these items were identified as culturally affiliated with the Serrano peoples and were taken from a site known to be within Serrano ancestral territory.
The one lot of objects of cultural patrimony is a crescent-shaped pendant made of pale green shale or soapstone. This cultural item, removed from CA-LAN-1252, located in Palmdale, Los Angeles County, CA, was donated by P. de Barros and G. Russell to the Fowler Museum at UCLA on January 23, 1986, and comprises Accession 712. Treatment history of this item is unknown. In consultation with the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (also federally recognized as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) and non-federally recognized California Indian groups including the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians, these items were identified as culturally affiliated with the Serrano and Tataviam peoples based on Tribal Traditional Knowledge, genealogical information, geographical location within Serrano and Tataviam ancestral territory, and ethnographic, historical, and archaeological records.
The one lot of objects of cultural patrimony is one lot of photographic negatives of petroglyphs at CA-SBR-281 in Black Canyon, San Bernardino County, CA. The collection history of these photographs is unknown but they were possibly received by the Fowler Museum at UCLA in 1986 and comprise Accession 825. Treatment history of these items is unknown. In consultation with the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (also federally recognized as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) and non-federally recognized California Indian groups including the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians, these photographs were identified as culturally affiliated with the Serrano and Tataviam peoples based on Tribal Traditional Knowledge, genealogical information, geographical location within Serrano and Tataviam ancestral territory, and ethnographic, historical, and archaeological records.
The 125 lots of objects of cultural patrimony are 94 lots of stone/lithic fragments and 31 lots of chipped stone. These cultural items were removed from CA-LAN-1340, located in Agua Dulce, Los Angeles County, CA, by Greenwood and Associates around 1987-1988 ahead of proposed development. They were received by the Fowler Museum at UCLA on an unknown date and comprise Accession 833. Treatment history of these items is unknown. In consultation with the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (also federally recognized as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) and non-federally recognized California Indian groups including the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians, these items were identified as culturally affiliated with the Serrano and Tataviam peoples based on Tribal Traditional Knowledge, genealogical information, geographical location within Serrano and Tataviam ancestral territory, and ethnographic, historical, and archaeological records.
The 10 lots of objects of cultural patrimony are one lot of faunal bone and nine lots of historic materials (glass, metal, ceramics, leather). These cultural items were removed from CA-LAN-1431H, located in Swarthout Valley, Los Angeles County, CA, from a backhoe trench excavated by Dr. Ray Weldon (geologist, University of Oregon) in October 1988. Weldon was conducting research on the San Andreas Fault when he encountered this cultural deposit. The items were received by the Fowler Museum at UCLA sometime after October 1988 and comprise Accession 837. Treatment history of these items is unknown. In consultation with the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (also federally recognized as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians), these items were identified as culturally affiliated with the Serrano peoples and were taken from a site known to be within Serrano ancestral territory.
The 156 lots of objects of cultural patrimony are five lots of groundstone and 151 lots of chipped stone. These cultural items were removed from CA-LAN-1252A, located in Palmdale, Los Angeles County, CA, by Chambers Group, Inc., in February 1990. They were received by the Fowler Museum at UCLA on April 12, 1990, and comprise Accession 866. Treatment history of these items is unknown. In consultation with the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (also federally recognized as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) and non-federally recognized California Indian groups including the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians, these items were identified as culturally affiliated with the Serrano and Tataviam peoples based on Tribal Traditional Knowledge, genealogical information, geographical location within Serrano and Tataviam ancestral territory, and ethnographic, historical, and archaeological records.
The Fowler Museum at UCLA has determined that:
• The 766 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 Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel 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 February 6, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Fowler Museum at UCLA must determine the most appropriate
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Field Museum intends to repatriate a certain cultural item that meets the definition of an unassociated funerary 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 February 6, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to June Carpenter, Field Museum, 1400 S Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605, 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 Field 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 items has been requested for repatriation. The one unassociated funerary object is a shell gorget. The associated funerary object was excavated from Will County, Illinois at some time prior to December 7, 1948. The University of Chicago's Department of Anthropology donated the associated funerary object to the Field Museum on December 7, 1948. Based on the information available and the results of consultation, a relationship of shared group identity can be clearly and reasonable traced between the cultural item and the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Fond du Lac Band; Mille Lacs Band); Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan; Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Shawnee Tribe; and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska. There is no known presence of any potentially hazardous substances.
The Field Museum has determined that:
• The one unassociated funerary object described in this notice is 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 connection between the cultural item described in this notice and the Miami Tribe 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 February 6, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Field 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 Field 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), Case Western Reserve 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
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Jennifer Kangas Berendt, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106, 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 Case Western Reserve 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 29 individuals have been identified. The five associated funerary objects are footbones of Lynx canadensis. All remains were donated to the Haman-Todd Human Collection in the early Twentieth Century. Twenty-three individuals are notated as salvage archeology from Kelley's Island Lime and Transport Company in Erie County by Dr. T.W. Todd in 1915. Three individuals are notated as salvage archaeology from Cuyahoga County by Dr. T.W. Todd. Three individuals have no identifying documentation. The identity of the individuals is unknown. No known presence of potentially hazardous materials.
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 Case Western Reserve University has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 29 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• 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 human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Shawnee Tribe; and the Wyandotte 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 February 6, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Case Western Reserve 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 Case Western Reserve 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 Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History 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 February 6, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Rachel M. Miller, Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History, 165 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA 93950, 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 Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History 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. The 12 sacred objects are one buffalo horn powder horn, one buckskin dress, three pairs of moccasins, one beaded bag, one object with two buffalo horns and beaded fringe, one pair of leggings, one dance club, one awl case, one leather tassel and one beaded doll bonnet. According to available documentation these items were collected by individuals including William Chapman, Mrs. M.L. Reynolds, Almira Olmstead, Edgar Gross, Lydia Goodale Fogg, Joseph Shebl and George Higgins in South Dakota, Montana and Wisconsin in the first half of the twentieth century. There are no available records indicating whether or not any potentially hazardous substances were used to treat any of these cultural items.
The Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History has determined that:
• The 12 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 Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of
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 February 6, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History 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 Pacific Grove 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 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 the Cherokee People (MotCP) 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 February 6, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Evan Mathis, Museum of the Cherokee People, P.O. Box 1599, 589 Tsali Blvd., Cherokee, NC 28719, 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 the Cherokee People, 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 ancestral remains representing, at least, one individual has been identified from an unknown archaeological site, accessioned as 2011.283. Four lots of funerary objects are present, including one lot of animal bones/bone fragments, one lot of ceramic pot sherds, one lot of charcoal, and one lot of lithics. After completing the consultation process with federally recognized Tribal Nations, this site is culturally affiliated with the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the Seminole Tribe of Florida (based on Southeastern iconography found on pottery sherds), and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. It is unknown when or by whom the individuals were removed, but the accession number indicates they were likely transferred to the Museum of the Cherokee People in 2011, where they have been housed since that time. To our knowledge, no hazardous substances were used to treat any of the human ancestral remains.
Human ancestral remains representing, at least, one individual has been identified from an unknown archaeological site, accessioned as 2011.392. Three lots of funerary objects were commingled with this individual, including one lot of ceramic pot sherds, one lot of lithics, and one lot of soil. After completing the consultation process with federally recognized Tribal Nations, this site is culturally affiliated with the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the Seminole Tribe of Florida (based on Southeastern iconography found on pottery sherds), and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. It is unknown when or by whom the individuals were removed, but the accession number indicates they were likely transferred to the Museum of the Cherokee People in 2011, where they have been housed since that time. To our knowledge, no hazardous substances were used to treat any of the human ancestral remains.
Human ancestral remains representing, at least, one individual has been identified from an unknown archaeological site, accessioned as 2011.360. One lot of funerary objects was commingled with this individual consisting of ceramic pot sherds. After completing the consultation process with federally recognized Tribal Nations, this site is culturally affiliated with the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the Seminole Tribe of Florida (based on Southeastern iconography found on pottery sherds), and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. It is unknown when or by whom the individuals were removed, but the accession number indicates they were likely transferred to the Museum of the Cherokee People in 2011, where they have been housed since that time. To our knowledge, no hazardous substances were used to treat any of the human ancestral remains.
Human ancestral remains representing, at least, one individual has been identified from an unknown archaeological site, accessioned as 2011.391. Four lots of funerary objects were commingled with this individual, including one lot of ceramic pot sherds, one lot of lithics, one lot of animal bones/bones fragments, and one lot of historic material. After completing the consultation process with federally recognized Tribal Nations, this site is culturally affiliated with the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the Seminole Tribe of Florida (based on Southeastern iconography found on pottery sherds), and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. It is unknown when or by whom the individuals were removed, but the accession number indicates they were likely transferred to the Museum of the Cherokee People in 2011, where they have been housed since that time. To our knowledge, no hazardous substances were used to treat any of the human ancestral remains.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human
The Museum of the Cherokee People has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of four individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 12 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 Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Seminole Tribe of Florida; 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 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 February 6, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Museum of the Cherokee People 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 Museum of the Cherokee People 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 California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 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 February 6, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice to Lisa Bright, Cultural Resources (South), California State Department of Transportation, 703 B Street, Marysville, CA 95901, 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 Caltrans, 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.
The 28,879 associated funerary objects are stone artifacts (mortars, pestles, milling slabs, hand stones and anvils), flaked stone (bifaces, projectile points, cores, scrapers, edge modified flakes and debitage), faunal bone, including bone ornaments and awls, shell beads, stone pendants, perforated stone discs, tabular sandstone artifacts, worked pieces of red ochre, quartz crystals and charmstones. The associated funerary objects were recovered during archaeological investigations in support of Caltrans YOL 16 Safety Improvements Project from CA-YOL-125, in Yolo County, California, between the community of Brooks and Interstate 505. Accession 507 was created during Phase II investigations (December 2003-February 2005), and Accession 508 was created during the PHIII data recovery. No potentially hazardous substances were used to treat any of the associated funerary objects.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The California Department of Transportation has determined that:
• The 28,879 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 Colusa 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 February 6, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the California Department of Transportation 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 California Department of Transportation 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; amendment.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the S'edav Va'aki Museum (formerly Pueblo Grande Museum), City of Phoenix has amended a notice of inventory completion published in the
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects may occur on or after February 6, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects to Lindsey Vogel-Teeter, S'edav Va'aki Museum, 4619 East Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034, 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 S'edav Va'aki Museum, City of Phoenix, 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.
This notice amends the determination of cultural affiliation published in a notice of inventory completion in the
The S'edav Va'aki Museum has determined that:
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in the original notice and the Ak-Chin Indian Community; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'Odham Nation of Arizona; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in the original 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 the original notice to a requestor may occur on or after February 6, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the S'edav Va'aki Museum, City of Phoenix 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 S'edav Va'aki Museum, City of Phoenix 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. The human remains were collected at the Sherman Institute, Riverside County, CA.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after February 6, 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 information available, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual was collected at the Sherman Institute, Riverside County, CA. The human remains are hair clippings collected from one individual who was recorded as being 22 years old and identified as “Mission.” Samuel H. Gilliam took the hair clippings at the Sherman Institute between 1930 and 1933. Gilliam sent the hair clippings to George Woodbury, who donated the hair clippings to the PMAE in 1935. No associated funerary objects are present.
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 one individual of Native American ancestry.
• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Mesa Grande Reservation, California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
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 February 6, 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 Tribe identified in this notice.
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 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 February 6, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Abby Dunham, Wilson Museum, PO Box 196, 120 Perkins Street, 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 eight cultural items has been requested for repatriation consisting of eight sacred objects.
One sacred object is a pair of beaded moccasins acquired by Helen Bemis Hovey in Arizona ca. 1910-1920, donated to the museum by Nancy Angers in 1985.
One sacred object is a pair of beaded and quilled hide medicine bags acquired by Helen Bemis Hovey in Arizona ca. 1910-1920, donated by Nancy Angers in 1985.
One sacred object is a quilled and beaded cradle hood acquired by Helen Bemis Hovey in Arizona ca. 1910-1920, donated by Nancy Angers in 1985.
Two sacred objects are beaded cradleboard covers, possibly acquired by Dr. Carlotta Maury ca. 1893 at an unknown location in the Plains region.
One sacred object is a hide and horsehair rattle, collected by an unknown individual at an unknown date and location, identified in museum records as “Plains Indian (Sioux).”
One sacred object is a beaded and quilled hide pipe bag, collected by an unknown individual at an unknown date and location.
One sacred object is a beaded and quilled knife sheath acquired by Helen Bemis Hovey in Arizona ca. 1910-1920, donated by Nancy Angers in 1985.
The Wilson Museum has determined that:
• The eight 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 Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana.
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 February 6, 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 Sinclair Community College 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 February 6, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to Rena Sebor and Amanda Darrah, Sinclair Community College, 444 West Third Street, Dayton, OH 45402, 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 Sinclair Community 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 one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one sacred object is a Medicine Face of the Haudenosaunee, a wooden mask with long horsehair. The side of the face is etched with a number: 2865-17-40. A collection of indigenous works was donated to Sinclair Community College by Citizens Federal Savings & Loan in 1987 including the mask. The works were displayed in the bank's lobby prior to the donation. Additional provenance is unknown.
The Sinclair Community College 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 Onondaga Nation.
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 February 6, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Sinclair Community College 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 Sinclair Community 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 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District 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 February 6, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Ruzel Benedicto Ednalino, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, 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, San Francisco District, 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 182 cultural items from site CA-MEN-545 in Mendocino County, CA have been requested for repatriation. The 182 unassociated funerary objects are: one chert biface, one chert blade, one chert chopper, two chert cores, three basalt flakes, 100 chert flakes, 38 lithic flakes, 15 obsidian flakes, three handstones, two chert projectile points, eight obsidian projectile points, one piece of rubber, five chert scrapers, and two stones. These cultural items are currently located at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park, CA.
A total of 372 cultural items from site CA-MEN-546 in Mendocino County, CA have been requested for repatriation. The 372 unassociated funerary objects are: nine charcoal samples (six have not yet been located), four chert cobbles, two chert cores, two pieces of basalt debitage, 195 pieces of chert debitage, two pieces of obsidian debitage, 56 chert flakes, five obsidian flakes (four have not yet been located), two pieces of glass, nine pieces of groundstone, 62 pieces of basalt groundstone, 17 pieces
A total of 11 cultural items from site CA-MEN-551 in Mendocino County, CA have been requested for repatriation. The 11 unassociated funerary objects are: one charcoal sample, one piece of groundstone, one piece of basalt groundstone, three pieces of leather, three shell fragments, and two pieces of burned wood. These cultural items are currently located at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park, CA.
A total of 39 cultural items from site CA-MEN-553 in Mendocino County, CA have been requested for repatriation. The 39 unassociated funerary objects are: one obsidian biface, 24 chert flakes, three obsidian flakes, one handstone, two chert projectile points, seven obsidian projectile points, and one chert scraper. These cultural items are currently located at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park, CA.
A total of 477 cultural items from site CA-MEN-555 in Mendocino County, CA have been requested for repatriation. The 477 sacred objects are: one chert biface, 63 pieces of charcoal, one chert core, 170 pieces of chert debitage (143 have not yet been located), 14 faunal remains (two have not yet been located), 95 chert flakes (41 have not yet been located), one obsidian flake, seven flotation samples, 103 pieces of groundstone (23 have not yet been located), one chert projectile point, one obsidian projectile point, 17 pieces of fire cracked rock (17 have not yet been located), one shell fragment, and two fragments of wood. These cultural items are currently located at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park, CA.
A total of one cultural item from site CA-MEN-588 or CA-MEN-589 in Mendocino County, CA has been requested for repatriation. The one unassociated funerary object is an obsidian projectile point. This cultural item is currently located at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park, CA.
A total of 20 cultural items from site CA-MEN-1137 in Mendocino County, CA have been requested for repatriation. The 20 unassociated funerary objects are two abalone shell fragments and 18 faunal remains. The cultural items were likely removed during archaeological survey and excavations in the 1960s. These cultural items are currently located at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park, CA.
A total of 47 cultural items from unknown sites in Mendocino County, CA that are currently housed at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park, CA have been requested for repatriation. The unassociated funerary objects are: one chert biface, 15 pieces of charcoal, 11 pieces of chert debitage, 12 faunal remains, one chert flake, five pieces of groundstone (have not yet been located), one stone mortar, and one obsidian projectile point.
A total of seven cultural items from unknown sites in Mendocino County, CA that are currently housed at San Francisco State University in San Francisco, CA have been requested for repatriation. The seven unassociated funerary objects are: one obsidian biface, one obsidian chopper, three obsidian projectile points, and two chert unifaces. These cultural items were likely removed during archaeological survey at the Coyote Valley Dam and Lake Mendocino in the mid-to-late 1950s.
To our knowledge, the cultural items described herein have not been treated with any known hazardous substances.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District has determined that:
• The 679 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 477 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 Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians 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 February 6, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District 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 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District 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 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 February 6, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural
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 approximately 144 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The 144 unassociated funerary objects (83-13; A19949) include faceted glass beads in red, orange, blue, yellow and green of approximately 3.8x4mm in diameter, round purple and clear beads in 4x4mm, and opaque 4x5mm beads. The catalog records indicate that these beads were removed from a “modern Seminole burial around 1950” somewhere along Loop Road of Monroe County, although the exact location of the burial is unknown. They were transferred to the FLMNH from the University of Florida Department of Anthropology in 1977. There are no known hazardous or potentially hazardous substances. Through the process of consultation, the site has been determined to be culturally affiliated with the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, the Seminole Nation of Florida, and the Seminole Tribe of Florida.
The FLMNH has determined that:
• The approximately 144 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 connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Seminole Tribe of Florida.
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 February 6, 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 items 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 Hood Museum of Art 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 February 6, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice to Jami C. Powell, Hood Museum of Art, 6 East Wheelock Street, Hanover, NH 03755, 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 Hood Museum of Art, 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.
An associated funerary object has been identified. The one associated funerary object is a lot of wampum beads. The beads entered the collection with an ancestor prior to 1913 from an unknown source. The associated ancestor was published in a notice of inventory completion in the
Associated funerary objects have been identified. The 43 associated funerary objects are pottery sherds, shells, and limestone. The funerary objects entered the Dartmouth College collection with an ancestor from an unknown source in 1927. The associated ancestor was published in a notice of inventory completion in the
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural
The Hood Museum of Art has determined that:
• The 44 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 Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Poarch Band of Creek Indians; Seminole Tribe of Florida; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; and The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.
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 February 6, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Hood Museum of Art 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 Hood Museum of Art 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 Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) 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 February 6, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to William B. Turner, Alabama Department of Transportation, 1409 Coliseum Blvd., Montgomery, AL 36110, 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 ALDOT, 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, 10 individuals have been identified.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location of the human remains described in this notice.
The ALDOT has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 10 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and The Choctaw 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 February 6, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the ALDOT 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 ALDOT 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 U.S Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Northern Arizona University intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and/or objects of cultural
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after February 6, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Tamara Billie, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1001 Indian School Road NW, Mailbox 44, Albuquerque, NM 87104, 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 Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 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 one unassociated funerary object is a Cibola White Ware, Escavada Black-on-white, pottery pitcher. The pottery was transferred to Northern Arizona University by a citizen who purchased it at an estate sale in Lynchburg, Virginia. An associated note states that it came from the Dean Kinto Trading Post in Manuelito, New Mexico, and identified it as a “burial jug, Anasazi.” The note further states, “This is a burial jug (never used) which was washed out of an Indian grave and collected by a modern Indian to sell.” Manuelito, New Mexico, and nearby Chaco culture sites lie on Navajo Tribal Trust land. There is no evidence or record of the presence of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat this cultural item.
The one sacred object/object of cultural patrimony is a Navajo wooden re-making doll or figurine. The item was removed from Site AZ D-16-71 (NAU)/JUA 78.138 on Navajo Tribal Trust lands in 1978 by Northern Arizona University archaeologists conducting a fence line survey for the Navajo Hopi Joint Use Area, under contract to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. There is no evidence or record of the presence of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat this cultural item.
The U.S Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, has determined that:
• The one unassociated funerary object described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and is 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 one sacred object/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 items described in this notice and the Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico, & Utah.
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 February 6, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the U.S Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs 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 U.S Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 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 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 February 6, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects 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, one individual have been identified. The two associated funerary objects are a possible hive (soil, OH-HO-AFO-TIN-0001) and a lot of soil (OH-HO-AFO-TIN-0002). The individual (OH-HO-TIN-0001) was removed by Robert Goslin or Orlando Lehman in 1935 from Lehman Mound located in Hocking County, Ohio. On an unknown date, the individual was obtained by Raymond C. Vietzen (1907-1995). 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).
While there is no record regarding potentially hazardous substances having been used to treat the human remains, an unidentified adhesive is present. It is unknown when the adhesive was applied. The human remains may have been treated with an unidentified preservative coating, consolidant, or sealant. It is unknown when this unidentified substance may have been applied.
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.
Mercyhurst University has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• The two 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 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; 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; 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; The Osage Nation; 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 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 February 6, 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 and associated funerary objects 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
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after February 6, 2026.
Send additional written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Joe Leduc or María Fernanda Mancera, Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design, 20 North Main Street, Providence, RI 02903, 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 RISD 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 two cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The objects of cultural patrimony are a cooking basket and a necked jar. The first one features abstract banded designs, while the second exhibits a diamond rattlesnake pattern. The cooking basket entered the RISD Museum's collection as a gift from Mrs. Gustav Radeke from Providence, RI, in 1920, and was identified as being of Yokut origin. The necked jar was a gift from Mrs. Kenneth F. Wood of Barrington, RI, and was entered into the collection in 1943. It was catalogued as Tulare. There is no known presence of potentially hazardous substances in either of the objects of cultural patrimony.
The RISD Museum 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 February 6, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the RISD 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 RISD 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.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these investigations effective October 8, 2024, following receipt of petitions filed with the Commission and Commerce by American Molded Fiber Coalition, which is comprised of Genera Inc. (“Genera”), Vonore, Tennessee; Tellus Products, LLC (“Tellus”), Belle Glade, Florida; and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO (“USW”). The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of TMFPs from China and Vietnam were subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)) and sold at LTFV within the meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to §§ 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on January 5, 2025. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5964
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on December 2, 2025, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Doosan Bobcat North America, Inc. of West Fargo, North Dakota. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain skid-steer loaders, compact track loaders, excavators, wheel loaders, dozers, and components thereof by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,831,364 (“the '364 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,047,760 (“the '760 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,364,356 (“the '356 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 10,934,684 (“the '684 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Susan Orndoff, The Office of the Secretary, Docket Services Division, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone or (202) 205-1802.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-9, 11-15, and 17-20 of the '364 patent; claims 1-13 of the '760 patent; claims 1-12 of the '356 patent; and claims 1-13 and 15-19 of the '684 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “skid-steer loaders, compact track loaders, excavators, wheel loaders, dozers, and components thereof”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: Doosan Bobcat North America, Inc., 250 East Beaton Dr., West Fargo, ND 58078.
(b) The respondent is the following entity alleged to be in violation of section 337, and is the party upon which the complaint is to be served: Caterpillar, Inc., 5205 N O'Connor Blvd., Suite 100, Irving, TX 75039.
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondent in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of the respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of expedited reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on utility scale wind towers from Canada,
November 24, 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 (
Background—On November 24, 2025, the Commission determined that the domestic party group response to its notice of institution (90 FR 28764, July 1, 2025) of the subject five-year reviews was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting full reviews.
For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
Staff report—A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the reviews has been placed in the nonpublic record, and will be made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for these reviews on March 12, 2026. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to § 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission's rules.
Written submissions—As provided in § 207.62(d) of the Commission's rules, interested parties that are parties to the reviews and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution,
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
Determination—The Commission has determined these reviews are extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on December 3, 2025, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Superior Communications Inc. of Irwindale, California. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain screen protectors, screen protector systems, and components thereof by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,931,823 (“the '823 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,021,818 (“the '818 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,399,315 (“the '315 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 11,155,067 (“the '067 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by the applicable Federal Statute.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Susan Orndoff, The Office of Docket Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-12 and 14-19 of the '823 patent; claims 1-8 and 11-20 of the '818 patent; claims 1-20 of the '315 patent; and claims 1-10 of the '067 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “screen protector applicator systems,
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: Superior Communications Inc., 5027 Irwindale Avenue, Suite 900, Irwindale, California 91706.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
Belkin International, Inc., 555 South Aviation Boulevard, Suite 180, El Segundo, California 90245-4852.
Belkin Inc., 555 South Aviation Boulevard, Suite 180, El Segundo, California 90245-4852.
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on December 3, 2025, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Wahoo Fitness L.L.C. of Atlanta, Georgia. A supplement to the complaint was filed on December 17, 2025. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain bicycle trainers and components thereof by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,933,290 (“the '290 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 11,090,542 (“the '542 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 11,559,732 (“the '732 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 12,330,036 (“the '036 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Susan Orndoff, The Office of the Secretary, Docket Services Division, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 14-16 of the '290 patent; claim 16 of the '542 patent; claims 1-4, 8-11, and 13-18 of the '732 patent; and claims 1-3 and 5-9 of the
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “fitness equipment known as bicycle trainers”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: Wahoo Fitness L.L.C., 90 W. Wieuca Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30342.
(b) The respondent is the following entity alleged to be in violation of section 337, and is the party upon which the complaint is to be served:
JetBlack Cycling Pty Ltd., 31 Walker Street, South Windsor, NSW, Australia.
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondent in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of the respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Labor.
Notice; request for public comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance request for comment to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). This request helps to ensure that: requested data can be provided in the desired format; reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized; collection instruments are clearly understood; and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) is soliciting comments concerning its proposal to obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to renew the following information collection: “Recordkeeping Requirements—38 U.S.C. 4212 Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, As Amended” (OMB Control No. 1250-0004). The current OMB approval for this information collection expires on April 30, 2026.
All comments must be received on or before March 9, 2026.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered.
•
• If your comment includes confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission.
•
• OFCCP will post your comment as well as any attachments, except for information submitted and marked as confidential, in the docket at
Ashley Romanias, Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: (202) 693-0101 or toll free at 1-800-397-6251. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services. Copies of this notice may be obtained in alternative formats (large print, braille, audio recording) upon request by calling the numbers listed above.
OFCCP administers and enforces the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as amended (VEVRAA). Under VEVRAA, as applied by regulation, a business with a federal contract of $200,000 or more is required to treat qualified individuals without discrimination based on their status as a protected veteran in all employment practices. Covered contractors are also required to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified protected veterans.
OFCCP is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection. OFCCP is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of OFCCP's estimate of the burden related to the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used in the estimate;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Background documents related to this information collection request are available at
OFCCP seeks the approval of the extension of this information collection in order to carry out its responsibility to enforce VEVRAA. OFCCP has updated the number of respondents, responses, forms, and burden hours from the previous information collection request.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection request; they will become a matter of public record and will be available at
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; receipt.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing public notice of receipt and availability of an application for an early site permit (ESP) from Duke Energy Corporation for the Belews Creek site located in Stokes County, North Carolina.
The application for the ESP was received on December 30, 2025.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-2161 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:
•
•
•
Emmanuel Sayoc, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-4084; email:
On December 30, 2025, Duke Energy Corporation filed with the NRC, pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act and part 52 of title 10 of the
In accordance with subpart A of 10 CFR part 52, an applicant may seek an ESP separate from the filing of an application for a construction permit (CP) or combined license (COL). The ESP process allows resolution of issues relating to siting. At any time during the period of an ESP, the ESP holder may reference the ESP in an application for a CP or COL.
The NRC will publish subsequent
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (“BDCs”) and closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment entities.
Source Capital/DE/, First Pacific Advisors, LP, and certain of their affiliated entities as described in Schedule A to the application.
The application was filed on August 21, 2025.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
Adam Large, Senior Special Counsel or Thomas Ahmadifar, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' application, filed August 21, 2025, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) proposes to amend its fee schedule as it relates to Cboe One Summary and Cboe One Premium External Distribution Fees. 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 fee schedule to clarify how User
Two versions of the Cboe One Feed are offered—Cboe One Summary and Cboe One Premium—allowing subscribers to select their preferred level of depth. Both versions provide subscribers with aggregated quote and trade updates for the Cboe Equities Exchanges. In addition to aggregated
Currently, the Exchange charges External Distributors a monthly fee of $5,000
However, as currently codified, it is unclear to subscribers and potential subscribers that their Cboe One Summary User Fees can be applied to either their Cboe One Summary or Cboe One Premium External Distribution Fees. Accordingly, in order clarify the fee schedule the Exchange now wishes to amend the fee schedule to provide that: (i) Cboe One User Summary Fees can be applied to both Cboe One Summary and Cboe One Premium External Distribution Fees; and (ii) Cboe One Premium User Fees can only be applied to Cboe One Premium External Distribution Fees. By way of illustration, an External Distributor of Cboe One Summary who has $4,500 in Cboe One Summary User Fees would be able to credit those User Fees against their Cboe One Summary External Distribution Fee, and pay a net fee of $500—
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (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 these proposed amendments to its fee schedule are reasonable because it will now be clearer to subscribers of a Cboe One Feed how their User Fees may be applied to their External Distribution Fees. As noted above, External Distributors of Cboe One Summary could end up paying reduced costs, or no costs at all, by applying their Cboe One Summary User Fees to their Cboe One Summary External Distribution Fees. Similarly, a Distributor that receives the Cboe One Premium Feed for External Distribution could end up paying reduced fees, or no fee at all, by applying their Cboe One Premium User Fees, or Cboe One Summary User Fees, to their Cboe One Premium External Distribution Fees. As such, subscribers to Cboe One Summary may now be further incentivized to upgrade their Cboe One Summary subscriptions to Cboe One Premium, thereby benefiting their Users with the provision of not just aggregated trade and quotation information, but aggregated depth. Overall, the Exchange believes this clarifying change to its fee schedule will help to make high quality market data for the Cboe Equities Exchanges more readily available to a wider range of market participants.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes it is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to apply the credit to External Distributors only because, like the free 3-month credit, it is also intended to incentivize new External Distributors to enlist Users, including Non-Professional Users
While this incentive is not available for Internal Distribution
Moreover, the proposed External Distribution Fee credit would not permit unfair discrimination because all of the Exchange's subscribers and market data vendors are eligible to qualify for such credit. Further, the Cboe One Feeds are distributed and purchased on a voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data distributors are required by any rule or regulation to make these data products available. Accordingly, Distributors (including vendors) and Users can discontinue use at any time and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. Further, the Exchange is not required to make any proprietary data products available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any customers.
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. Rather, the Exchange believes that the External Distribution Fee credit will enhance competition because doing so will better enable the Exchange to not incentivize subscriptions to equities data that is competitive with similar products offered by other exchanges, but will also provide pricing that is competitive as well. Namely, the Cboe One Feeds provide investors with an alternative for receiving market data that competes directly with similar market data products currently offered by the New York Stock Exchange
Although the Cboe Equities Exchanges are the exclusive distributors of the individual data feeds from which certain data elements would be taken to create the Cboe One Feeds, the Exchange would not be the exclusive distributor of the aggregated and consolidated information that comprise the Cboe One Feed. Any entity that receives, or elects to receive, the underlying data feeds would be able to, if it so chooses, to create a data feed with the same information included in the Cboe One Feed and sell and distribute it to its clients so that it could be received by those clients as quickly as the Cboe One Feed. Moreover, the current Distribution Fees that the Exchanges charges for the Cboe One Feed are not less than the combined fee of subscribing to each individual data feed. In this regard, by enabling a vendor to apply their Cboe One Summary User Fees to their External Distribution Fees for their Cboe One Summary or Cboe One Premium subscription, the Exchange will be better positioned to make its Cboe One Feed more attractive to market participants that have available to them a variety of similar, and competitively priced products.
Moreover, the proposed External Distributor Fee credit will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As noted above, all of the Exchange's subscribers and market data vendors are eligible to qualify for such credit, and the Cboe One Feeds are distributed and purchased on a voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data distributors are required by any rule or regulation to make these data products available. Distributors (including vendors) and Users can discontinue use at any time. Additionally, as also noted, while the credit applies only to External Distributors, the Exchange believes such distinction is appropriate because this pricing mechanism is designed to help incentivize and broaden external usage, and Internal Distributors only have internal users.
Overall, the Exchange considered the competitiveness of the. market for proprietary data and all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that it has considered all relevant factors and has not considered irrelevant factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees among all users. The existence of alternatives to the Cboe One Feed, including the existing underlying feeds, consolidated data, and proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary data product if its cost to purchase is not justified by the returns any particular vendor or subscriber would achieve through the purchase.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received 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 (“Act”)
Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BYX”) proposes to amend its fee schedule as it relates to Cboe One Summary and Cboe One Premium External Distribution Fees. 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 fee schedule to clarify how User
Two versions of the Cboe One Feed are offered—Cboe One Summary and Cboe One Premium—allowing subscribers to select their preferred level of depth. Both versions provide subscribers with aggregated quote and trade updates for the Cboe Equities Exchanges. In addition to aggregated quote and trade data, the Cboe One Premium Feed also includes five levels of aggregate depth information for all four exchanges.
Currently, the Exchange charges External Distributors a monthly fee of $5,000
However, as currently codified, it is unclear to subscribers and potential subscribers that their Cboe One Summary User Fees can be applied to either their Cboe One Summary or Cboe One Premium External Distribution Fees. Accordingly, in order clarify the fee schedule the Exchange now wishes to amend the fee schedule to provide that: (i) Cboe One User Summary Fees can be applied to both Cboe One Summary and Cboe One Premium External Distribution Fees; and (ii) Cboe One Premium User Fees can only be applied to Cboe One Premium External Distribution Fees. By way of illustration, an External Distributor of Cboe One Summary who has $4,500 in Cboe One Summary User Fees would be able to credit those User Fees against their Cboe One Summary External Distribution Fee, and pay a net fee of $500—
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (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 these proposed amendments to its fee schedule are reasonable because it will now be clearer to subscribers of a Cboe One Feed how their User Fees may be applied to their External Distribution Fees. As noted above, External Distributors of Cboe One Summary could end up paying reduced costs, or no costs at all, by applying their Cboe One Summary User Fees to their Cboe One Summary External Distribution Fees. Similarly, a Distributor that receives the Cboe One Premium Feed for External Distribution could end up paying reduced fees, or no fee at all, by applying their Cboe One Premium User Fees, or their Cboe One Summary Fees to their Cboe One Premium External Distribution Fees. As such, subscribers to Cboe One Summary may now be further incentivized to upgrade their Cboe One Summary subscriptions to Cboe One Premium, thereby benefiting their Users with the provision of not just aggregated trade and quotation information, but aggregated depth. Overall, the Exchange believes this clarifying change to its fee schedule will help to make high quality market data for the Cboe Equities Exchanges more readily available to a wider range of market participants.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes it is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to apply the credit to External Distributors only because, like the free 3-month credit, it is also intended to incentivize new External Distributors to enlist Users, including Non-Professional Users
Moreover, the proposed External Distribution Fee credit would not permit unfair discrimination because all of the Exchange's subscribers and market data vendors are eligible to qualify for such credit. Further, the Cboe One Feeds are distributed and purchased on a voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data distributors are required by any rule or regulation to make these data products available. Accordingly, Distributors (including vendors) and Users can discontinue use at any time and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. Further, the Exchange is not required to make any proprietary data products available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any customers.
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. Rather, the Exchange believes that the External Distribution Fee credit will enhance competition because doing so will better enable the Exchange to not incentivize subscriptions to equities data that is competitive with similar products offered by other exchanges, but will also provide pricing that is competitive as well. Namely, the Cboe One Feeds provide investors with an alternative for receiving market data that competes directly with similar market data products currently offered by the New York Stock Exchange
Although the Cboe Equities Exchanges are the exclusive distributors of the individual data feeds from which certain data elements would be taken to create the Cboe One Feeds, the Exchange would not be the exclusive distributor of the aggregated and consolidated information that comprise the Cboe One Feed. Any entity that receives, or elects to receive, the underlying data feeds would be able to,
Moreover, the proposed External Distributor Fee credit will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As noted above, all of the Exchange's subscribers and market data vendors are eligible to qualify for such credit, and the Cboe One Feeds are distributed and purchased on a voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data distributors are required by any rule or regulation to make these data products available. Distributors (including vendors) and Users can discontinue use at any time. Additionally, as also noted, while the credit applies only to External Distributors, the Exchange believes such distinction is appropriate because this pricing mechanism is designed to help incentivize and broaden external usage, and Internal Distributors only have internal users.
Overall, the Exchange considered the competitiveness of the. market for proprietary data and all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that it has considered all relevant factors and has not considered irrelevant factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees among all users. The existence of alternatives to the Cboe One Feed, including the existing underlying feeds, consolidated data, and proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary data product if its cost to purchase is not justified by the returns any particular vendor or subscriber would achieve through the purchase.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received 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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice of Applications for Deregistration under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.
The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of November 2025. A copy of each application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the applicable file number listed below, or for an applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
The Commission:
Shawn Davis, Assistant Director, at (202) 551-6413 or Chief Counsel's Office at (202) 551-6821; SEC, Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-8010.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Maritime Administration (MARAD), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by MARAD, is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before February 6, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-1192 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if MARAD, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT Docket Number listed in the
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration (MARAD), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by MARAD, is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before February 6, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-1191 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include the DOT Docket Number, your name and a
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if MARAD, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT Docket Number listed in the
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing updates to the identifying information of one or more persons currently included in OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List).
This action was issued on January 2, 2026. See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490; or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On January 2, 2026, OFAC updated the entry on the SDN List for the following person, whose property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction continue to be blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. DIANA, Cristian, Isernia, Italy; DOB 03 Oct 1974; POB Isernia, Italy; nationality Italy; Gender Male; Passport E619547 (Italy) (individual) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: STILE ITALIANO S.R.L.; Linked To: WINDROSE TACTICAL SOLUTIONS S.R.L.S.).
The listing for the individual now appears as follows:
DIANA, Cristian, Pordenone, Italy; DOB 24 Nov 1971; POB Pordenone, Italy; nationality Italy; Gender Male; Passport YB8215970 (Italy); Tax ID No. DNICST71S24G888J (Italy) (individual) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: STILE ITALIANO S.R.L.; Linked To: WINDROSE TACTICAL SOLUTIONS S.R.L.S.).
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Ch. 10, that Cooperative Studies Scientific Evaluation Committee (Committee) will hold its virtual meeting on January 23, 2026, via Microsoft Teams, from 1:00 p.m.-3:45 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
The Committee provides expert advice on VA cooperative studies, multi-site clinical research activities, and policies related to conducting and managing these efforts. The first 30 minutes of the meeting (approximately) will be open to the public as the Committee discusses administrative matters and the general status of the program. The remaining portion of the meeting will be closed to the public as the Committee reviews, discusses, and evaluates research and development applications.
During the closed portion of the meeting, the Committee's discussions and recommendations will address the qualifications of the personnel conducting the studies; staff and consultant critiques of research proposals and similar documents; and the medical records of study subjects, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Additionally, premature disclosure of research information to the public could significantly obstruct implementation of approved research activities. Therefore, portions of the Committee meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4)(6) and (9)(B).
The Committee will not accept oral comments from the public for the open portion of the meeting. Members of the public who wish to attend the open teleconference should call 872-701-0185, conference ID 593 392 899#. Those who plan to attend, would like additional information, or would like to submit written comments should contact David Burnaska, Program Manager, Cooperative Studies Program (14RD), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, at
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Ch. 10, that a meeting of the Joint Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development (BLR&D) and Clinical Science Research and Development (CSR&D) Services Scientific Merit Review Board (Board) will be held January 13, 2026, from 3:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), via Microsoft Teams. The meeting will be open to the public from 3:00 p.m.-3:30 p.m. EST. The remained of the meeting, from 3:30 p.m.-5:00 p.m. EST, will be closed to the public and used for scientific review and discussion, examination of, and reference to the research applications. Discussions will involve staff and consultant critiques of research proposals. Discussions will also cover the scientific merit of each proposal and the qualifications of the personnel conducting the studies, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Additionally, premature disclosure of research information could significantly obstruct implementation of proposed agency action regarding the research proposals. Therefore, portions of the Board meeting will be closed is in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (6) and (9)(B).
The objective of the Board is to provide for the fair and equitable selection of the most meritorious research projects for support by VA research funds and to offer advice for research program officials on program priorities and policies. The ultimate objective of the Board is to ensure the high quality and mission relevance of VA's BL/CS Research and Development programs.
Board members will advise the Directors of the BL/CS Research Services, as well as the Acting Chief Research and Development Officer, on the scientific and technical merit, mission relevance, and protection of human subjects of the proposals submitted to BL/CS. The Board does not consider grants, contracts, or other forms of extramural research.
Members of the public may attend the open portion of the meeting from 3:00 p.m.-3:30 p.m. EST, via Microsoft Teams (in listen-only mode, as the time-limited agenda does not allow for public comment or presentations). To attend the open portion of the meeting, the public may dial the Microsoft Teams phone number 1-872-701-0185 and enter the meeting access code 354 407 531#.
Written comments from members of the public should be sent to Michael R. Burgio, Ph.D., Designated Federal Officer, Office of Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs (14RD), 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, or to