Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq. ), directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging, and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities. While the United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef (carcass beef grade standards) do not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, they, along with other official Standards, are maintained by USDA and can be found at https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards. Physical copies of official United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef are also available upon request. To propose changes to the United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef, AMS does so in accordance with 7 CFR part 36, initially promulgated on August 13, 1997, in the Federal Register (62 FR 43430).

The carcass beef grade standards and the associated voluntary, fee-for-service beef grading service program are authorized under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq. ). The primary purpose of Federal grade standards, including the carcass beef grade standards, is to divide the population of a commodity into uniform groups (of similar quality, yield, value, etc. ) to facilitate marketing. In concert, the Federal voluntary, fee-for-service grading program is designed to provide an independent, objective determination whether a given product is in conformance with the applicable official Federal standard. In the case of beef, when it is voluntarily graded to the carcass beef grade standards under the beef grading service, the official grade consists of a quality grade and/or a yield grade.

The quality grades are intended to identify differences in the palatability or eating satisfaction of cooked beef, principally through the characteristics of intramuscular flecks of fat (known as marbling) and physiological maturity groupings. The principal official USDA quality grades for young (maturity groups A and B) cattle and carcasses are Prime, Choice, and Select, in descending order in terms of historic market value. USDA recognizes that the beef standards must remain relevant to be of greatest value to stakeholders and, therefore, recommendations for changes in the standards may be initiated by USDA or by interested parties at any time to achieve that goal.

For beef, USDA quality grades provide a simple, effective means of describing and differentiating product quality that is easily understood by both buyers and sellers. By identifying separate and distinct levels of quality, these grades enable buyers to obtain the kind of beef that meets their needs. For example, certain restaurants may choose to only sell officially-graded USDA Prime beef to provide their customers with a product that meets a very consistent and high level of palatability and eating satisfaction. At the same time, grades are important in transmitting information to cattle producers to help ensure informed marketing decisions are made. For example, the market preference and price paid for a particular grade of beef is communicated to cattle producers so they can adjust their production accordingly. In such cases, if the price premiums being paid for USDA Prime or Choice beef merits producers making the investments required in cattle genetics and feeding to produce more high-quality beef products, then such marketing decisions can be made with justification.

The current carcass beef grade standards define the USDA Prime grade with four degrees of marbling: Slightly Abundant, Moderately Abundant, Abundant, and Very Abundant. The number of carcasses grading as USDA Prime has increased over the past several years, increasing from 6.2% in 2017 to 12.2% in 2025. 1 Also, carcasses grading as USDA Prime are exhibiting a wider range of marbling degrees than the four degrees of marbling. 2

Advancements in beef production through genetics, feeding regimes, husbandry, and other practices have led to increases in carcass weights, marbling scores, and more high-quality beef for consumers. As a result, the American Wagyu Association has petitioned AMS to review the United States Standards for Grades of Carcass beef to explore the possibility of adding marbling degrees to the USDA Prime grade for beef.

Carcass beef grade standards use dentition or age verification to determine maturity groupings, along with skeletal and lean (physiological) maturity. The maturity groupings were never intended to be a definitive method to determine the age of cattle at the time of slaughter; instead, the intention was to use them to predict beef palatability. Historically, the maturity groupings have been roughly correlated to different age categories. Maturity grouping A was correlated with beef from cattle between 9 and 30 months of age at time of slaughter, maturity grouping B was correlated with beef from cattle between 30 and 42 months of age at time of slaughter, maturity grouping C was correlated with beef from cattle between 42 and 72 months of age at time of slaughter, maturity grouping D was correlated with beef from cattle between 72 and 96 months of age at time of slaughter, and maturity grouping E was correlated with beef from cattle more than 96 months of age at time of slaughter. However, these are rough approximations that are influenced by other factors including diet, growth promotion administration, calving, breed, and a variety of environmental factors. Therefore, cattle that are younger than 30 months of age may have a physiological maturity of B or greater due to factors such as those listed above.

Due to food safety requirements, dentition is used on all slaughtered cattle to determine whether their age at the time of slaughter was less than or greater than 30 months of age. Cattle older than 30 months of age must have specific risk materials ( e.g., vertebral column) removed from their carcasses before the sale of the resulting beef cuts. Age verification involves providing proper paperwork or other proof of an animal's actual age ( i.e., less than 30 months of age). It is also used for other purposes, including to satisfy foreign market requirements for U.S. beef from cattle under a specified age.

Data and scientific information indicate that carcasses from grain-fed steers and heifers that are deemed less than 30 months of age, based on dentition, are similar in palatability to maturity group A carcasses determined via physiological maturity. 3 Thus, these carcasses could be classified as maturity group A for grading purposes even though the physiological maturity characteristics of maturity group B or an older maturity group may be present. Revising the carcass beef grade standards to allow dentition and age verification to have priority over physiological maturity would allow for an alternate method of classifying beef carcasses into maturity groupings. Subsequently, additional carcasses would qualify for the higher USDA grades of Prime, Choice, and Select without a significant reduction in the consistency of those grades in predicting palatability.

AMS also understands that there are ongoing discussions within the beef industry regarding the effectiveness of the current yield grade calculations used to predict the yield of boneless retail cuts derived from beef carcasses. Though scientific studies have not yet reached a conclusion, AMS acknowledges that the results from those studies may lead to a future request to revise the grade standards. Therefore, respondents are not precluded from submitting comments on this subject.

AMS is soliciting comments, including data, recommendations, and other information, from stakeholders about potential changes to the United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef. Comments may include any current and/or ongoing research or industry practice that has relevance to the carcass beef grade standards. AMS also invites comments on how those changes should be implemented in the Federal voluntary, fee-for-service grading programs.

AMS will evaluate comments received and consider any next steps supported by stakeholders, including proposing revisions to the standards. If revisions are made, AMS will publish a draft of the updated United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef in the Federal Register for an additional comment period.

AMS invites comment on the United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef and is specifically interested in responses to the following questions:

1. How could the United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef be updated to better align with current and future advances in technology?

2. Are there any beef grades or marbling degrees that have become irrelevant or any new marbling degrees that should be added? If so, how many and what names should be used?

3. For the purposes of official USDA quality grading, would removing the supplemental physiological maturity requirements for under 30 months of age carcasses better suit the needs of stakeholders?

4. Is there information in general which should be added to or removed from the current United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef?

5. How could the United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef be updated to reflect the current marketing of beef?

6. How could the United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef be updated to be more useful for the spectrum of producers and processors?

7. How could the United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef be updated to be more useful to volume food buyers and those engaged in institutional purchases?

8. How could the United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef be updated to be more meaningful to end-consumers?

9. How could the United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef be updated to allow U.S. beef to be more competitively marketed in the international marketplace?

10. Are there any other recommendations, suggestions, or ideas that would be relevant for AMS to consider?

This Committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested members of the public may attend this meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make oral comments as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email csanders@usccr.gov at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the scheduled meeting. Written comments may be submitted via the following form: https://wkf.ms/4n7DKT3. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at (434) 515-0204.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website, https://usccr.box.com/s/uc7rr59hi2y8p1uapgemt6y1opr61zyv. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at csanders@usccr.gov.

Agenda: Will be available at the following link in advance of the meeting date— https://usccr.box.com/s/ra8nqvhw87dxi54awetux54vmkuym4b4.

On June 12, 2026, Commerce published in the Federal Register the final results of the 2023-2024 administrative review of the AD order on glycine from India. 1 In that notice, Commerce incorrectly listed “Paras Intermediaries Private Limited” as one of the company names in the rate table when it should have listed “Paras Intermediates Private Limited.”

In the Federal Register of June 12, 2026, in FR Doc 2026-11863, on page 35661, in the third column, correct the exporter/producer name found in the rate table to “Paras Intermediates Private Limited.”

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

On May 27, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated a countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of imports of n-cyclohexylbenzothiazole-2-sulfenamide from the People's Republic of China. 1 Currently, the preliminary determination in this CVD investigation is due no later than July 31, 2026.

Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) the petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.

On June 30, 2026, the petitioner  2 submitted a timely request that Commerce postpone the preliminary determination in this CVD investigation. 3 The petitioner requests postponement to ensure that Commerce has sufficient time to issue supplemental questionnaires and to evaluate all relevant subsidy programs before reaching a preliminary determination. 4 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner has stated the reasons for requesting a postponement of the preliminary determination, and Commerce finds no compelling reason to deny the request. Therefore, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, Commerce is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination to no later than 130 days after the date on which this investigation was initiated, i.e., October 5, 2026. 5 Pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determination of this investigation will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

On January 5, 2026, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of this administrative review. 1 On April 24, 2026, Commerce extended the deadline for issuing the final results in this proceeding by 53 days. 2 Accordingly, the final results of this review are now due on July 1, 2026. For a complete description of the events that followed the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 3 Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The products covered by the scope of the Order are PET film from India. For a complete description of the scope, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

The sole issue raised in the case and rebuttal briefs is addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, and is listed in the appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/frnotices.

Based on a review of the record and comments received, Commerce made no changes to the Preliminary Results.

Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024:

Normally, Commerce discloses the calculations performed in connection with the final results of review within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . However, because Commerce applied total AFA to Cosmo in these final results, there are no calculations to disclose.

Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in this review, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Cosmo will be 24.14 percent; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 5.71 percent, the all-others rate established in the underlying investigation. 5 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

These final results are being issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

The ETTAC is mandated by Section 2313(c) of the Export Enhancement Act of 1988, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 4728(c), to advise the Environmental Trade Promotion Working Group of the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee on the development and administration of programs to expand U.S. exports of environmental technologies, goods, and services and products that comply with U.S. environmental, safety, and related requirements. The ETTAC's current charter term is in effect through August 6, 2026.

On Tuesday, July 14, 2026 at 11:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. EDT, the ETTAC will hold the eleventh meeting of its current charter term. During the meeting, committee members will present the recommendation letters that the ETTAC has submitted during the current charter term and hear updates from key agencies on U.S. Government activities. An agenda and any supplemental materials will be made available one week prior to the meeting at https://www.trade.gov/ettac.

The meeting will be open to the public, and time will be permitted for public comment before the close of the meeting. Members of the public seeking to attend the meeting are required to register by Tuesday, July 7, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. EDT, via the registration portal at https://www.trade.gov/ettac. This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Megan.Hyndman@trade.gov or (202) 482-1297 no less than one week prior to the meeting. Requests received after this date will be accepted, but it may not be possible to accommodate them.

Written comments concerning ETTAC affairs are welcome any time before or after the meeting. To be considered during the meeting, written comments must be received by Tuesday, July 7, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. EDT to ensure transmission to the members before the meeting. Draft minutes and other meeting materials will be available within 30 days of this meeting at https://www.trade.gov/ettac.

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on May 1, 2026. 1 The deadline for this preliminary determination is July 1, 2026.

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 2 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/frnotices.

The product covered by this investigation is wire rod from Algeria. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, 3 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage ( i.e., scope). 4 No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. Commerce is not preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice . See the complete description of the scope in Appendix I to this notice.

Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 5 For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

The President has declared that immediate action is necessary to ensure that United States farmers have a sufficient and timely supply of fertilizers during the planting and growing season to meet domestic food production needs and that producers in Morocco can supply fertilizers to the United States at this time. 3 The President directs the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to provide emergency relief under section 318 of the Act regarding imports of fertilizers from Morocco. 4 The Secretary “may use or prescribe, the importation, free of the collection of duties and deposits of estimated duties, if applicable, under sections {701, 751, and 781 of the Act} of {fertilizers} of {Morocco}, and to temporarily extend during such 8-month period or the course of the emergency, as applicable, the time therein prescribed for the performance of any act related to such imports.”  5 Accordingly, Commerce will consider written requests for the importation of fertilizers from Morocco free of countervailing duties, pursuant to section 318(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 358.103.

For a complete description of Commerce's implementation of the President's declaration, and the process by which parties may submit requests to Commerce for approval, see the Memorandum Implementing Temporary Duty Free Importation. 6 A list of topics included in the Memorandum Implementing Temporary Duty Free Importation is included as an appendix to this notice. The Memorandum Implementing Temporary Duty Free Importation is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Memorandum Implementing Temporary Duty Free Importation can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/frnotices.

The merchandise covered by the Order are phosphate fertilizers in all physical forms ( i.e., solid or liquid form), with or without coating or additives such as anti-caking agents from Morocco. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the Memorandum Implementing Temporary Duty Free Importation.

Commerce requires all exporters and/or importers of fertilizers from Morocco seeking duty free entry for a shipment under this temporary waiver to file a written request to the Secretary. 7 The specific requirements of the request can be found at Appendix I of the Memorandum Implementing Temporary Duty Free Importation. Any subject merchandise entered under 19 CFR 358.103(b) must enter the United States normally within 60 days after the date on which Commerce notifies the person who submitted the request or the merchandise will be subject to antidumping and/or countervailing duties, as applicable. 8

All requests to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS. 9 Each submission must be placed on the record of the 2026 administrative review segment of the proceeding for the Order (C-714-001). Commerce is opening the 2026 administrative review segment for the purposes of efficiently collecting and processing these written requests, but consideration regarding whether Commerce shall conduct an administrative review covering the 2026 period of review is still subject to the applicable regulations, including a request for review in response to Commerce's notice of opportunity to request review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213 and section 751 of the Act, see Appendix II of the Memorandum Implementing Temporary Duty Free Importation.

If Commerce determines to permit duty-free importation of fertilizers from Morocco, Commerce will notify the person who submitted the request, instruct CBP to allow entry of the merchandise identified in the request submitted without regard to countervailing duties, and post notification of the determination on Commerce's website ( i.e., ACCESS). 10

Interested parties that wish to file a request for duty free imports and be added to the public service list for this segment of the proceeding must file a letter of appearance in accordance with 19 CFR 351.103(d)(1). Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order (APO) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at https://www.trade.gov/administrative-protective-orders.

Authority: The CAFTA-DR; Section 203(o)(4) of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (“CAFTA-DR Implementation Act”), Public Law 109-53; the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act; and Presidential Proclamation 7987 (February 28, 2006).

Background: The CAFTA-DR provides a list in Annex 3.25 for fabrics, yarns, and fibers that the Parties to the CAFTA-DR have determined are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the territory of any Party. The CAFTA-DR provides that this list may be modified pursuant to Article 3.25.4, when the United States determines that a fabric, yarn, or fiber is not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the territory of any Party. See Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR; see also section 203(o)(4)(C) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act.

The CAFTA-DR Implementation Act requires the President to establish procedures governing the submission of a request and providing opportunity for interested entities to submit comments and supporting evidence before a commercial availability determination is made. In Presidential Proclamation 7987, the President delegated to CITA the authority under section 203(o)(4) of CAFTA-DR Implementation Act for modifying the Annex 3.25 list. Pursuant to this authority, on September 15, 2008, CITA published modified procedures it would follow in considering requests to modify the Annex 3.25 list of products determined to be not commercially available in the territory of any Party to the CAFTA-DR ( Modifications to Procedures for Considering Requests Under the Commercial Availability Provision of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement, 73 FR 53200) (“CITA's Procedures”).

On May 27, 2026, CITA received a Commercial Availability Request (“Request”) from Barnes & Thornburg on behalf of The Powers Manufacturing Company d/b/a Powers Athletic (“Powers”) for certain nylon/polyester blend dobby weave fabric, as specified below. On May 29, 2026, in accordance with CITA's Procedures, CITA notified interested parties of the Request, which was posted on the dedicated website for CAFTA-DR Commercial Availability proceedings. In its notification, CITA advised that any Response with an Offer to Supply (“Response”) must be submitted by June 10, 2026, and any Rebuttal to a Response (“Rebuttal”) must be submitted by June 16, 2026, in accordance with sections 6 and 7 of CITA's Procedures. No interested entity submitted a Response to the Request advising CITA of its objection to the Request with an offer to supply the subject product.

In accordance with section 203(o)(4)(C) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act, and section 8(c)(2) of CITA's Procedures, as no interested entity submitted a Response objecting to the Request and providing an offer to supply the subject product, CITA has determined to add the specified fabric to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR.

The subject product has been added to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement in unrestricted quantities. A revised list has been posted on the dedicated website for CAFTA-DR Commercial Availability proceedings, at https://otexaprod.trade.gov/otexacapublicsite/shortsupply/cafta.

HTS: 5407.73.2015, 5407.73.2060, 5407.53.2020, and 5407.53.2060.

Fabric Type: Dobby Weave on a Triple Beam Air Jet Loom.

Fabric Content: 78%-88% Polyester/12%-22% Nylon.

Warp Yarn 1: Polyester 170 Denier/144 Filament Full Dull Air Textured Yarn (FDATY).

Warp Yarn 2: 166D/68F Nylon.

Warp Yarn 3: Nylon 30D monofilament.

Filling Yarn 1: Polyester 75D/72F Semi Dull Texturized.

Filling Yarn 2: Polyester 170D/144F.

Filling Yarn 3: Nylon 30D monofilament + 166D/68F Cordura (Nylon 6.6).

Metric: Various.

English: Various.

Weight: 147-185 grams per sq. meter.

Finished Density: 36-46 x 53-63.

Face Side (Technical Face or Back): Technical Side.

Metric: 137 to 150 cm, 142.24 cuttable.

English: 54-60 inches, 57 cuttable.

Dye Type: Yarn Dye of Various colors.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Automated Installation Entry (AIE) System; OMB Control Number 0702-0125.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to verify the identity of an individual and determine the fitness of said individual requesting and/or requiring access to installations, and issuance of local access credentials. The information collection methodology involves the employment of technological collection of data via an electronic physical access control system (PACS) which provides the capability to rapidly and electronically authenticate credentials and validate an individual's authorization to enter an installation.

Affected Public: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit.

Annual Burden Hours: 60,441.

Number of Respondents: 1,813,240.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 1,813,240.

Average Burden per Response: 2 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

The DoW is renewing the AEAC in accordance with chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.) (commonly known as the “Federal Advisory Committee Act” or “FACA”) and 41 Code of Federal Register (CFR) 102-3.50(d), and DoW policies and procedures. The charter and contact information for the AEAC's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) are found at https://www.facadatabase.gov/FACA/apex/FACAPublicAgencyNavigation.

Consistent with 41 CFR 102-3.65(a), the DoW is publishing the AEAC's Public Interest Determination. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.60(a), to establish, renew, reestablish, or merge a discretionary (agency discretion) advisory committee, an agency must first consult with the General Services Administration's Committee Management Secretariat (the Secretariat) and, as part of the consultation, provide a written public interest determination approved by the head of the agency to the Secretariat with a copy to the Office of Management and Budget. In addition, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.35, an agency shall follow the same consultation process and document in writing the same determination of need before creating a subcommittee under a discretionary committee that is not made up entirely of members of a parent advisory committee. Information on the following factors for the AEAC is provided to the Secretariat to demonstrate that renewing the AEAC is in the public interest:

1. Annual Budget: The DoW estimates annual operating costs to support the AEAC are $393,721, which includes personnel travel, meetings, and contract support.

a. Federal personnel on a full-time equivalent (FTE) basis: The estimated annual fully burdened personnel cost to the DoW is 1.45 full-time equivalent at $190,065 which includes basic pay with cost-of-living allowance (COLA).

b. Other Federal internal costs: Other administrative costs for the AEAC are $9,906.

c. Proposed payments to members: Consistent with 10 U.S.C. 173, members of the AEAC are not compensated for their services, except for travel and per diem reimbursement for official AEAC related business. Estimated ex-officio regular government employee (RGE) cost in support of the AEAC is $33,000.

d. Proposed number of members: As authorized by the Secretary of War (SecWar), the AEAC will be composed of not more than 15 members.

e. Reimbursable costs: The estimated reimbursement costs, to include travel, for AEAC staff and members are $160,750.

2. If applicable, the total dollar value of grants expected to be recommended during the fiscal year: N/A.

3. Criteria for selecting members to ensure the committee has the necessary expertise and fairly balanced membership: As described in its proposed charter and membership balance plan, The AEAC shall be composed of no more than 15 members. The membership shall include no more than 11 individuals from either the public or private sector who are eminent authorities in the fields of academia, leadership, management, and defense, including those who are deemed to be historical scholars.

Of the 15 members, one individual shall be ex-officio regular government employee (RGE) members:

(1.) The Chief Historian of the Army, U.S. Army, Center of Military History. Additionally, the following individuals shall be members of the AEAC:

(2.) The Chairs of the Command and General Staff College (CGSC) Board of Visitors (BoV) Subcommittee, the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language (DLIFLC) BoV Subcommittee, and U.S. Army War College (USAWC) BoV Subcommittee.

In selecting members, the DoW seeks to capitalize on recognized talented, innovative private and public sector leaders to provide the broadest knowledge and expertise based on a balanced AEAC membership composition. The AEAC membership is not static, and the SecWar and Deputy Secretary of War (“the DoW Appointing Authority”) may change the membership based upon work assigned to the AEAC by the DoW Appointing Authority or the Secretary of the Army (SECARMY), as the AEAC's DoW Sponsor.

4. List of all other DoW Federal Advisory Committees: A complete listing of DoW Federal advisory committees can be located at: https://www.facadatabase.gov/FACA/s/account/001t000000DCAooAAH/department-of-defense.

5. Justification that the information or advice provided by the Federal advisory committee or subcommittee is not available from another Federal advisory committee, another Federal Government source, or any other more cost-effective and less burdensome source: The AEAC provides independent advice and recommendations focusing on matters pertaining to the educational, doctrinal, research policies, and activities of the U.S. Army's educational programs: the CGSC, the DLIFLC, and the USAWC—collectively the Army University or “ArmyU,” and includes the U.S. Army's joint professional military education (PME) programs. The AEAC assesses and provides independent advice and recommendations across the spectrum of educational policies, school curricula, educational philosophy and objectives, program effectiveness, facilities, staff and faculty, instructional methods, and other aspects of the organization and management of these programs. The AEAC also provides independent advice and recommendations on matters pertaining to the Army Historical Program and the role and mission of the U.S. Army Center of Military History, particularly as they pertain to the study and use of military history in Army schools.

The SECARMY has established four permanent subcommittees, each of which, when tasked in accordance with DoW policy and procedures, will provide advice and recommendations to the AEAC for its consideration on matters described below for each respective subcommittee:

The CGSC BoV Subcommittee provides expert and continuous advice and recommendations to the AEAC on ways to improve the CGSC educational program, especially with regard to its master's degree programs and the maintenance of regional academic accreditation by the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools' (HLC) accreditation standards and policies (as applicable to and feasible for a government institution), and achievement of institutional effectiveness and institutional sustainability. Membership shall primarily be from the civilian education community, with at least half of the members coming from other fields or professions.

The DLIFLC BoV Subcommittee provides advice and recommendations to the AEAC for input to the DLIFLC leadership on matters related to academic policies, staff and faculty development, student success indicators, curricula, educational methodology and objectives, program effectiveness, instructional methods, research, and academic administration. In addition, this subcommittee advises on the USAWC's adherence to its institutional mission, attainment of student outcomes, compliance with the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC), a regional accrediting body under the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, accreditation standards, and policies (as applicable to and feasible for a government institution), and achievement of institutional effectiveness and institutional sustainability. Members will include distinguished experts from academia, business, government, military, research, and other professionals.

The Department of the Army Historical Advisory Subcommittee provides advice and recommendations to the AEAC on matters pertaining to the Army Historical Program and the roles and missions of the U.S. Army Center for Military History in specific to improve historical support to the Army, including organizational restructuring and the writing, production, teaching, and use of military history. In addition, a continuing outside assessment of the quality and objectivity of Army historical products is necessary to ensure that the history that is produced meets academic professional historical standards. Members include nine members from academia who are deemed to be historical scholars and the following six ex-officio members:

(1) Dean of the Academic Board, U.S. Military Academy;

(2) Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Army Transformation and Training Command;

(3) Deputy Commandant, U.S. Army War College;

(4) Deputy Commandant, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College;

(5) Deputy Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army; and

(6) Chief Historian of the Army, U.S. Army, Center of Military History.

The USAWC BoV Subcommittee provides expert counsel and advice and recommendations relating to the USAWC organizations and activities, curriculum development, program effectiveness, and other aspects of organization and management, any matters the Commandant, USAWC decides the BoV should consider, and retain its accreditation as a college. This subcommittee advises on the USAWC's adherence to its institutional mission, attainment of student outcomes, compliance with the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) accreditation standards, and policies (as applicable to and feasible for a government institution), and achievement of institutional effectiveness and institutional sustainability. Members shall be eminent authorities in the fields of academia, business, government, military, research, and other professions.

While ultimate authority over the AEAC resides within the DoW and Department of the Army chain of command, civilian academic accrediting bodies (such as the HLC, ACCJC, and MSCHE) require higher education institutions to maintain an independent board. The AEAC, supported by its subcommittees, fulfills academic accreditation governing board requirements under HLC, ACCJC, and MSCHE standards by acting as an independent advisory body. Without the AEAC, the CGSC, DLIFLC, and USAWC risk loss of civilian accreditation, directly threatening force recruiting, retention, and graduate credibility across the DoW.

The AEAC provides expert advice and recommendations of all new courses, degree plans, and financial management functions, ensuring that the CGSC, DLIFLC, and USAWC continue to operate rigorous educational programs that are perfectly aligned with the Army's purpose and mission, and as an extension, the DoW's Joint PME Program.

6. If the consultation is a committee renewal, a summary of the previous accomplishments of the committee and the reasons it needs to continue: AEAC 2015-2024 Accomplishments: the AEAC's advice and recommendations to the DoW and the Department of the Army resulted in the following:

• (2015) An accomplishment based on the AEAC's advice and recommendations provided to the Department of the Army was completion of the study Opening of Closed Military Occupational Specialties in the Army to Female Soldiers. Study addressed a long-standing DoD policy that declared service members were eligible to be assigned to all positions for which they were qualified, except that women were excluded from assignment to units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground. As a result of this study, Army policies were changed and gender integration training and procedures put in place to allow females to serve in front-line Combat Arms units.

• (2016) An accomplishment based on the AEAC's advice and recommendations provided to the Department of the Army was completion of an examination of ArmyU efforts to blend the best characteristics of civilian and military educational institutions to create a premier learning environment, and Talent Management, how the Army manages and assesses talent.

• (2017) An accomplishment based on the AEAC's advice and recommendations provided to the Department of the Army was completion of a review of ArmyU's individual learning profiles to help shape every Soldier's training, education and experiences that can be easily translated by civilian colleges, universities and industry.

• (2017) An accomplishment based on the AEAC's advice and recommendations provided to the Department of the Army was completion of an examination of the state of development within ArmyU of CBE and recommendation of how the Army can further incorporate these practices into a new paradigm to more fully capture learning outcomes across Army institutions, the operating force, and individual self-development in a competency-based framework.

• (2017) An accomplishment based on the AEAC's advice and recommendations provided to the Department of the Army was completion of a comprehensive study and review on implementation of Army policy on military service and training of Transgender Soldiers. Study determined and identified potential 2nd and 3rd order effects that may occur with transgender Soldiers in the training base and recommended changes to Army policy as well recommended ways the Army could mitigate any negative ramifications during implementation.

• (2018) An accomplishment based on the AEAC's advice and recommendations provided to the Department of the Army was completion of an assessment of Large-Scale Combat Operations (LSCO)/Multi-Domain Operations (MDO). Conducted a comprehensive assessment on the Army's instruction of LSCO/MDO in its curricular core. The purpose of the assessment was to evaluate the integration of LSCO/MDO into the military professional educational system as the Army transitions from a Counterinsurgency focus to a LSCO/MDO.

• (2018) An accomplishment based on the AEAC's advice and recommendations provided to the Department of the Army was to recommend reaffirmation of the academic accreditation of the DLIFLC by the ACCJC.

• (2018) An accomplishment based on the AEAC's advice and recommendations provided to the Department of the Army was completion of a study of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command's (TRADOC) Basic Combat Training (BCT) Workload. AEAC examined the execution of BCT and evaluated the effectiveness of current training strategies and manpower models to determine potential resource changes or updates. The AEAC took a holistic approach in reviewing the BCT mission execution, structure, and resourcing practices that resulted in implementing recommendations to improve BCT staffing, leadership, battalion structure, and the quality of life for drill sergeants.

• (2019) An accomplishment based on the AEAC's advice and recommendations provided to the Department of the Army was to recommend reaffirmation of the academic accreditation of the USAWC by the MSCHE.

• (2019) An accomplishment based on the AEAC's advice and recommendations provided to the Department of the Army was completion of a study of the Quality of Basic Combat Training (BCT) at Army Training Centers. As a follow-on to the BCT Workload study, AEAC evaluated the BCT Drill Sergeant (DS) and BCT Committee Group (BCTCG) execution of the BCT Program of Instruction (POI) within and across the training base. The study also assessed the quality and quantity shortfalls of instructional training equipment and supplies specified by the POI.

• (2020) The AEAC was unable to provide any advice or recommendations as all DoD FACA Committee operations were suspended by the Secretary of Defense for a Department of Defense Zero-Based Review (DoD ZBR).

• (2021) An accomplishment prior to the ZBR based on the AEAC's advice and recommendations provided to the Department of the Army was to recommend reaffirmation of the academic accreditation of the DLIFLC by the ACCJC.

• (2021) An accomplishment prior to the ZBR based on the AEAC's advice and recommendations provided to the Department of the Army was to recommend a substantive change for the BA Degree authority in the academic accreditation of the DLIFLC by the ACCJC.

• (2021) The AEAC was unable to provide any advice or recommendations for late FY21 as it did not meet in late FY21 due to the DoD ZBR.

• (2022) The AEAC was unable to provide any advice or recommendations for FY22 as it did not meet in FY22 due to the DoD ZBR.

• (2023) The AEAC did not provide any advice or recommendations for FY23 as the Army focused on resuming AEAC operations and reconstituting its membership following the DoD ZBR.

• (2024) An accomplishment based on the AEAC's advice and recommendations provided to the Department of the Army, was to recommend reaffirmation of the academic accreditation of the DLIFLC by the ACCJC.

AEAC 2025 Accomplishments: Following the Secretary of Defense's 2025 advisory committee stand-down directive, the AEAC has not convened since March 2025. DoW is actively reconstituting the AEAC in FY26, establishing updated bylaws and a revised charter that align with current Administration priorities.

7. Explanation of why the committee/subcommittee is essential to the conduct of agency business: The AEAC directly advances the Administration's core national security priorities by providing independent advice and recommendations ensuring the CGSC, DLIFLC, and USAWC's curricula, doctrine, and research align with the goal of deterring adversaries through strength—not weakness—by producing lethal, operationally ready warriors trained for successful large-scale, high kinetic, combat operations against peer adversaries who are imbued with the essential Warrior Ethos to win decisively. The AEAC advice and recommendations allow the DoW and Department of the Army to enforce a merit-based framework of academic rigor and joint/civilian accreditation that sustains the Warrior Ethos by demanding excellence at every level of PME. Through its focus on lethality-based education, the AEAC's advice and recommendations to the DoW ensure CGSC, DLIFLC, and USAWC graduates are warfighters prepared to defend the homeland and project overwhelming decisive force across all domains around the globe to crush their enemies. Additionally, the AEAC advice and recommendations assist the DoW to fulfill the governing board requirement under HLC, ACCJC, and MSCHE, maintaining the civilian accreditation that underpins recruiting, retention, and the credibility of every degree and certificate the CGSC, DLIFLC, and USAWC confers.

The AEAC advances the DoW's core business of building lethal, merit-based joint airpower warriors across the full spectrum of the force through career-long PME. The AEAC advice and recommendations assist the DoW in ensuring that CGSC, DLIFLC, and USAWC trains Soldiers and other military service members to seamlessly leverage multi-domain power in large-scale combat operations. The AEAC supports CGSC, DLIFLC, and USAWC's role as premier research institutions, ensuring operationally relevant research reaches sponsors across the joint force in direct support of the 2026 National Defense Strategy and Joint Warfighting Concepts.

The public or interested organizations may submit written statements about the AEAC's mission and functions. All written statements shall be submitted to the DFO for the AEAC.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General Corps Career Programs Applications and Interviews; OPNAV Form 1070/3; OMB Control Number 0703-0074.

Type of Request: Reinstatement.

Number of Respondents: 300.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 300.

Average Burden per Response: 2 hours.

Annual Burden Hours: 600.

Number of Respondents: 100.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 100.

Average Burden per Response: 1 hour.

Annual Burden Hours: 100.

Number of Respondents: 300.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 300.

Average Burden per Response: 1.5 hours.

Annual Burden Hours: 450.

Number of Respondents: 700.

Annual Responses: 700.

Annual Burden Hours: 1,150.

Needs and Uses: Information collection is necessary to determine the eligibility, competitive standing, and scholastic and leadership potential of students and lawyers interested in the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAGC) Internship/Externship Program, Student Program, or Direct Appointment Program.

Respondents are law students or practicing attorneys. The internship program offers law students the opportunity to intern with the JAGC while in law school, the Student Program offers law students the opportunity to apply for a commission to the JAGC, and the Direct Appointment Program offers practicing attorneys the opportunity to apply for a commission to the JAGC.

All applications are completed and submitted online via the JAGC online application system. Applicants to the Direct Appointment or Student Programs must also request a separate in-person interview from the responsible JAGC recruiting officer in the local area of responsibility.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Reginald Lucas.

The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Income Driven Repayment Plan Request for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loans and Federal Family Education Loan Programs.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0102.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved ICR.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 9,500,000.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 3,135,000.

Abstract: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) signed into law on July 4, 2025, made statutory changes to Sections 455(a), 455(d), 455(e), 455(g), and 455(q) that impact borrower eligibility, terms and conditions, and borrowers' rights and responsibilities for Direct Loans received on or after July 1, 2026. Additionally, previous provisions regulated in 34 CFR 685.209 effective July 1, 2024, were invalidated as a result of court actions on March 10, 2026.

Section 493C of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (the HEA), authorizes the Income-Based Repayment (IBR) Plan for borrowers who obtain student loans through the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program. Section 455(e) of the HEA describes income-contingent repayment plans for borrowers who obtain student loans through the Direct Loan Program. Section 455(q) of the HEA describes the Repayment Assistance Plan for borrowers who obtain student loans through the Direct Loan Program. These plans are collectively referred to as income driven repayment (IDR) plans and the regulations that govern them are in 34 CFR 682.215 (for FFEL Program loans) and 685.209 (for Direct Loans). There are three income-contingent repayment plans: the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan (formerly REPAYE), Pay As You Earn (PAYE) Plan, and the Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR) Plan. The court action effective March 10, 2026 invalidates the SAVE Plan and the OBBBA requires the remaining income-contingent plans be sunset by July 1, 2028.

The Department is updating the currently approved IDR Request Form that is used by a borrower to enroll, recertify, or change their IDR plan to support the provisions identified by the OBBBA and court action. Specifically, the form is being updated to add the Repayment Assistance Plan as an option for borrowers to select and revising the questions related to family size to accurately gather the borrower's number of dependents—a component unique to the Repayment Assistance Plan. Additionally, the form explains the terms of the Repayment Assistance Plan and provides notice that the PAYE and ICR plans will be sunset in 2028 (the SAVE Plan was removed in a previous version of the form as a result of a court injunction). Additional updates to improve clarity and the borrower experience as a result of these changes have also been made.

The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”

OMB Control No.: 3060-0850.

Title: Quick-Form Application for Authorization in the Ship, Aircraft, Amateur, Restricted and Commercial Operator, and General Mobile Radio Services.

Form No.: FCC Form 605.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households; business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; State, local or Tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 130,000 respondents, 130,000 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.17 hours-0.44 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; third party disclosure requirement, recordkeeping & other (5 & 10 yrs).

Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 4 and 301.

Total Annual Burden: 57,218 hours.

Total Respondent Cost: $4,550,000.

Needs and Uses: FCC 605 application is a consolidated application form for Ship, Aircraft, Amateur, Restricted and Commercial Radio Operators, and General Mobile Radio Services and is used to collect licensing data for the Universal Licensing System.

The data collected on this form includes the Date of Birth for Commercial Operator licensees however this information will be redacted from public view.

The FCC uses the information in FCC Form 605 to determine whether the applicant is legally, technically, and financially qualified to obtain a license. Without such information, the Commission cannot determine whether to issue the licenses to the applicants that provide telecommunication services to the public, and therefore, to fulfill its statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Information provided on this form will also be used to update the database and to provide for proper use of the frequency spectrum as well as enforcement purposes.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0920.

Title: Form 2100, Schedule 318—Low Power FM Station Construction Permit Application; Report and Order in MM Docket No. 99-25 Creation of Low Power Radio Service; §§ 73.801, 73.807, 73.809, 73.810, 73.816, 73.827, 73.850, 73.865, 73.870, 73.871, 73.872, 73.877, 73.878, 73.318, 73.1030, 73.1207, 73.1212, 73.1300, 73.1350, 73.1610, 73.1620, 73.1750, 73.1943, 73.3525, 73.3550, 73.3598, 11.61(ii).

Form No.: Form 2100, Schedule 318.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions; State, local or Tribal governments.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 24,606 respondents with multiple responses; 31,324 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: .0025-12 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; On occasion reporting requirement; Monthly reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, 308 and 325(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 52,889 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $1,229,370.

Needs and Uses: The Commission is requesting an extension of this information collection in order to receive approval/clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for three years.

Form 2100, Schedule 318, Low Power FM (LPFM) Station Construction Permit Application (Schedule 318), is used to: (1) apply to construct a new Low Power FM (LPFM) broadcast station; (2) make changes to an authorized LPFM broadcast station; (3) amend a pending LPFM construction permit application; or (4) propose mandatory time-sharing.

Schedule 318's Online Notice (third party disclosure) Requirement: 47 CFR 73.3580, as amended in the Commission's 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order, requires local public notice of the filing of all applications to construct a new LPFM broadcast station. Notice is given by an applicant by posting notice of the application filing on its station website, its licensee website, its parent entity website, or on a publicly accessible, locally targeted website, for 30 consecutive days beginning within five business days of acceptance of the application for filing. The online notice must link to a copy of the application, as filed in the Commission's LMS licensing database. In the 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order, the Commission also clarified LPFM stations' obligations to provide local public notice, and amended § 73.801 of the rules to indicate that the local public notice rule, 47 CFR 73.3580, applies to the LPFM service.

FCC staff uses the data to determine whether an applicant meets basic statutory and regulatory requirements to become a Commission licensee and to ensure that the public interest would be served by grant of the application. In addition, the information contained within this information collection ensures that (1) the integrity of the FM spectrum is not compromised, (2) unacceptable interference will not be caused to existing radio services, (3) statutory requirements are met, and (4) the stations operate in the public interest.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1204.

Title: Deployment of Text-to-911.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, and State, Local, or Tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,520 respondents; 55,094 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1-8 hours.

Frequency of Response: One-time; annual reporting requirements and third-party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for these collections is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 154(o), 251(e), 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 316, and 403, and Section 4 of the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Public Law 106-81, Sections 101 and 201 of the New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-283, and Section 106 of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law 111-260, as amended 47 U.S.C. 615a, 615a-1, 615b, 615c.

Total Annual Burden: 91,260 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Needs and Uses: Deployment of Text-to-911. In a Second Report and Order released on August 13, 2014, FCC 14-118, published at 79 FR 55367, September 16, 2014, the Commission adopted final rules—containing information collection requirements—to enable the Commission to implement text-to-911 service. The text-to-911 rules provide enhanced access to emergency services for people with disabilities and fulfilling a crucial role as an alternative means of emergency communication for the general public in situations where sending a text message to 911 as opposed to placing a voice call could be vital to the caller's safety. The Second Report and Order adopted rules to commence the implementation of text- to-911 service with an initial deadline of December 31, 2014 for all covered text providers to be capable of supporting text-to-911 service. The Second Report and Order also provided that covered text providers would then have a six-month implementation period. They must begin routing all 911 text messages to a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) by June 30, 2015 or within six months of a valid PSAP request for text-to-911 service, whichever is later. To implement these requirements, the Commission seeks to collect information primarily for a database in which PSAPs voluntarily register that they are technically ready to receive text messages to 911. As PSAPs become text-ready, they may either register in the PSAP database (or submit a notification to PS Docket Nos. 10-255 and 11-153), or provide other written notification reasonably acceptable to a covered text messaging provider. Either measure taken by the PSAP constitutes sufficient notification pursuant to the rules in the Second Report and Order. PSAPs and covered text providers may also agree to an alternative implementation timeframe (other than six months). Covered text providers must notify the FCC of the dates and terms of any such alternate timeframe within 30 days of the parties' agreement. Additionally, the rules adopted by the Second Report and Order include other information collections for third party notifications necessary for the implementation of text-to-911, including notifications to consumers, covered text providers, and the Commission. These notifications are essential to ensure that all affected parties are aware of the limitations, capabilities, and status of text-to-911 services. These information collections enable the Commission to meet the objectives for implementation of text-to-911 service and for compliance by covered text providers with the six-month implementation period in furtherance of the Commission's core mission to ensure the public's safety. These rules are codified at 47 CFR 9.10(q).

Real Time Text. In a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, released on December 16, 2016, in CG Docket No. 16-145 and GN Docket No. 15-178, the Commission amended its rules to facilitate a transition from text telephone (TTY) technology to RTT as a reliable and interoperable universal text solution over wireless internet protocol (IP) enabled networks for people who are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or have a speech disability. Section 9.10(c) of the rules requires Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers to be “capable of transmitting 911 calls from individuals with speech or hearing disabilities through means other than mobile radio handsets, e.g., through the use of [TTY devices].” Additionally, “CMRS providers that provide voice communications over IP facilities are not required to support 911 access via TTYs if they provide 911 access via [RTT] communications, in accordance with 47 CFR part 67, except that RTT support is not required to the extent that it is not achievable for a particular manufacturer to support RTT on the provider's network.” See 47 CFR 9.10(c). The Commission's Report and Order provides that once a PSAP is so capable, the requested service provider must begin delivering RTT communications in an RTT format within six months after a valid request is made—to the extent the provider has selected RTT as its accessible text communication method.

The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) is required by section 1833(t)(9)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act) and is allowed by section 222 of the Public Health Service Act to consult with an expert outside panel, such as the Advisory Panel on Hospital Outpatient Payment (the Panel), regarding the clinical integrity of the Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) groups and relative payment weights. The Panel is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended (5 U.S.C. Chapter 10), to set forth standards for the formation and use of advisory panels. We consider the technical advice provided by the Panel as we prepare the final rule and the following calendar year's proposed rule to update the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS).

The agenda for the August 24, 2026, virtual Panel meeting will provide for discussion and comment on the following topics as designated in the Panel's Charter:

• Addressing whether procedures within an APC group are similar both clinically and in terms of resource use.

• Reconfiguring APCs.

• Evaluating APC group weights.

• Reviewing packaging costs of items and services, including drugs and devices, into procedures and services, including the methodology for packaging and the impact of packaging the cost of those items and services on APC group structure and payment.

• Removing procedures from the Inpatient Only list for payment under the OPPS.

• Using claims and cost report data for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) determination of APC group costs.

• Addressing other technical issues concerning APC group structure.

• Evaluating the required level of supervision for hospital outpatient services.

• Evaluating OPPS APC rates for covered Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) procedures.

The agenda will be posted on our website at https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/FACA/AdvisoryPanelonAmbulatoryPaymentClassificationGroups approximately 1 week before the meeting.

Virtual Meeting Information Updates: The actual meeting hours and days will be posted in the agenda. As information and updates regarding this webinar and listen-only teleconference, including the agenda, become available, they will be posted to our website at https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/FACA/AdvisoryPanelonAmbulatoryPaymentClassificationGroups.

The subject matter of any presentation and comment letter must be within the scope of the Panel as designated in the Charter. Any presentations or comments outside of the scope of the Panel will be returned or requested for amendment. Unrelated topics include, but are not limited to: the conversion factor; charge compression; revisions to the cost report; pass-through payments; correct coding; new technology applications (including supporting information/documentation); provider payment adjustments; supervision of hospital outpatient diagnostic services; and the types of practitioners that are permitted to supervise hospital outpatient services. The Panel may not recommend that services be designated as nonsurgical extended duration therapeutic services. Presentations or comment letters that address OPPS APC rates as they relate to covered ASC procedures are within the scope of the Panel; however, ASC payment rates, ASC payment indicators, the ASC covered procedures list, or other ASC payment system matters will be considered out of scope. The Panel may use data collected or developed by entities and organizations other than the Department of Health and Human Services or CMS in conducting its review. We recommend organizations submit data for CMS staff and the Panel's review. All presentations are limited to 5 minutes, regardless of the number of individuals or organizations represented by a single presentation. Presenters may use their 5 minutes to present either one or more agenda items.

For this meeting, we are aiming to have all presentations and comment letters available on our website. Materials on our website must be section 508 compliant to ensure access to Federal employees and members of the public. Presenters and commenters should reference the guidance on making documents section 508 compliant as they draft their submissions, and, whenever possible, submit their presentations and comment letters in a 508 compliant form. The section 508 guidance is available at https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/cms-information-technology/section508. Presentations and comment letters should limit the use of graphs or pictures. Any use of these visual depictions must include alternate text that verbally describes what these visuals convey.

We will review presentations and comment letters for section 508 compliance and place compliant materials on our website. As resources permit, we will also convert non-compliant submissions to section 508-compliant forms and offer assistance to submitters who are making their submissions section 508-compliant. All section 508-compliant presentations and comment letters will be made available on the CMS website. If difficulties are encountered accessing the materials, please contact the Designated Federal Official in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

In addition to formal presentations (limited to 5 minutes total per presentation), there will be an opportunity during the meeting for public comments as time permits (limited to 1 minute for each individual and a total of 3 minutes per organization).

The Panel's recommendations at any Panel meeting generally are not final until they have been reviewed and approved by the Panel on the last day of the meeting, prior to the final adjournment. These recommendations will be posted to our website after the meeting.

The Panel Charter provides that the Panel shall meet up to 3 times annually. We consider the technical advice provided by the Panel as we prepare the OPPS proposed and final rules to update the OPPS for the following calendar year. The Panel shall consist of a chair and up to 15 members who are full-time employees of hospitals, hospital systems, or other Medicare providers that are subject to the OPPS. The Panel may also include a representative of a provider with ASC expertise, who advises CMS only on OPPS APC rates, as appropriate, impacting ASC covered procedures within the context and purview of the Panel's scope. The Secretary or a designee selects the Panel membership based upon either self-nominations or nominations submitted by Medicare providers and other interested organizations of candidates determined to have the required expertise. For supervision deliberations, the Panel may include members that represent the interests of critical access hospitals, who advise CMS only regarding the level of supervision for hospital outpatient therapeutic services. New appointments are made in a manner that ensures a balanced membership under the Federal Advisory Committee Act guidelines. The Secretary rechartered the Panel in 2024 for a 2-year period effective through November 20, 2026. The current charter is available on the CMS website at https://www.cms.gov/files/document/2024-hop-panel-charter.pdf. The Panel consists of the following current members and a Chair:

• E.L. Hambrick, MD, JD, CMS Chairperson.

• Jennifer Artigue, RHIT, CCS.

• Becky Bean, BS, MHA/MBA, PharmD.

• Nancy Dawson, MD, FACP.

• Blake Dirksen, MS, DABR.

• Brandon Fazio, BS.

• Scott Manaker, MD, Ph.D.

• Rahul Seth, DO, FASCO.

• Wendi Smith Lloyd, CPC, COC, CPMA, COSC.

• William Tettelbach, MD, FACP, FIDSA, FUHM, MAPWCA, CWSP.

• Caroline Zeller, DDS, MPH.

New members of the Panel and their terms are as follows:

• Adam Levin, MD, MBA. Term: June 1, 2026 through May 31, 2030.

• Douglas O'Brien. Term: June 1, 2026 through May 31, 2030.

We currently accept nominations on a continuous basis to fill upcoming panel vacancies. We encourage additional submissions. Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals. Self-nominations from qualified individuals are also accepted. Nominations must be submitted through the “Hospital Outpatient Payment (HOP) Panel Member Nomination” module on MEARIS TM . To access the module, visit https://mearis.cms.gov to register, log in, and submit your nomination. We can only accept HOP Panel Member nominations that are submitted via MEARIS TM .

This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Dr. Mehmet Oz, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Vanessa Garcia, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

FDA is announcing a hybrid public meeting to discuss proposed recommendations for the reauthorization of MDUFA, which authorizes FDA to collect user fees to support the process for the review of device applications, which reaches various components in FDA, including the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), the Office of the Commissioner (OC), and the Office of Inspections and Investigations (OII). The current authorization of the program (MDUFA V) expires September 30, 2027. At that time, new legislation will be required for FDA to continue collecting device user fees for future fiscal years to provide funds for the process for the review of device applications. As required by section 738A(b)(1), (2), (3), and (7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 379j-1(b)(2), (3), and (7)), FDA obtained prior public input and negotiated an agreement with regulated industry while periodically consulting with scientific and academic experts, health care professionals, and representatives of patient and consumer advocacy groups, and making minutes of negotiation and stakeholder consultation meetings publicly available. Section 738A(b)(5) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j-1(b)(5)) requires that, after holding negotiations with regulated industry, FDA take the following actions: (1) present the recommendations to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the U.S. Senate; (2) publish the recommendations in the Federal Register ; (3) provide a period of 30 days for the public to submit written comments on the recommendations; (4) hold a meeting at which the public may present its views on the recommendations; and (5) after consideration of public views and comments, revise the recommendations as necessary. This notice, the 30-day comment period, and the public meeting will satisfy parts of these requirements. After the public meeting and 30-day comment period, FDA will revise the recommendations as necessary. In addition, the Agency will present the recommendations to the Congressional committees.

The purpose of the meeting is for the public to present its views on the proposed recommendations for the reauthorized program (MDUFA VI). In general, the meeting format will include a brief presentation by FDA, but will focus on hearing from different stakeholder interest groups (such as patient advocates, consumer advocates, industry, health care professionals, and scientific and academic experts). The Agency will also provide an opportunity for individuals to make presentations at the meeting and for organizations and individuals to submit written comments to the docket before and after the meeting. The following information is provided to help potential meeting participants better understand the history and evolution of the medical device user fee program and the current status of the proposed MDUFA VI recommendations.

The MDUFA V agreement enabled FDA to continue making progress on reducing review times and bringing devices to patients more quickly, while also enabling FDA to move forward in critical areas. FDA's performance was strong during the first year of MDUFA V (FY 2023), meeting almost all MDUFA V commitment letter goals and working to reduce the time for patients to have access to safe, new, innovative devices. During this time, FDA achieved all 14 of our submission review goals for which sufficient submissions were received to calculate performance, met 15 of 16 performance enhancement goals, and FDA and industry met one of two shared outcome goals.

FDA's performance continues to be strong during the second and third year of MDUFA V (FY 2024 and FY 2025). Preliminary performance data through September 30, 2025, including completed and pending reviews, indicate that FDA has met, or has the potential to meet, all 15 of the FDA's submission review goals for FY 2024 and all 13 of the FDA's submission review goals for FY 2025 for which FDA received sufficient submissions to calculate performance. FDA and industry missed one shared outcome goal for FY 2024; the remaining FY 2024 goal and both FY 2025 shared outcome goals are not yet sufficiently complete to determine the outcome. In addition, FDA had 16 performance enhancement goals due in FY 2024, of which 15 were completed on time and one was completed late. In FY 2025, FDA had 18 performance enhancement goals, of which 14 were completed on time, and four were missed.

Information about FDA's performance is available in the yearly and quarterly MDUFA performance reports, which are online at: http://www.fda.gov/about-fda/user-fee-performance-reports/mdufa-performance-reports and http://www.fda.gov/industry/medical-device-user-fee-amendments-mdufa/mdufa-reports.

User fees and related performance goals have played an important role in providing resources and supporting the management systems to ensure that safe and effective medical devices are available to patients in a timely manner.

In preparing the proposed recommendations to Congress for MDUFA reauthorization, FDA conducted discussions with the device industry and consulted with stakeholders, as required by the FD&C Act. The Agency began the MDUFA reauthorization process by publishing a notice in the Federal Register requesting public input on the reauthorization and announcing a public meeting that was held on August 4, 2025. The meeting included presentations by FDA, and a series of panels with representatives of different stakeholder groups, including patient and consumer advocacy groups, regulated industry, and health care professionals. The materials from the meeting, including presentation slides and a transcript, can be found at: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/medical-devices-news-and-events/register-fdas-public-meeting-reauthorization-medical-device-user-fee-amendments-08042025.

From October 2025 through March 2026, FDA conducted negotiations with representatives of the device industry: the Advanced Medical Technology Association and the Medical Device Manufacturers Association. During negotiations with regulated industry, FDA also held monthly consultations with representatives of patient and consumer advocacy groups, health care professionals, and scientific and academic experts. Minutes of these meetings are posted on FDA's website at: https://www.fda.gov/industry/medical-device-user-fee-amendments-mdufa-fees/medical-device-user-fee-amendments-2028-mdufa-vi.

The proposed recommendations for MDUFA VI address many priorities identified by stakeholders and generally build on successful enhancements or refine elements from the existing program. Significant recommendations are briefly described below with reference to the applicable section of the draft commitment letter. FDA notes that until the final commitment letter is published the recommendations remain subject to change.

FDA proposes to continue reporting, on an annual basis, the average Total Time to Decision for premarket approval applications (PMAs) and 510(k) submissions, with a shared outcome goal of 285 calendar days for original PMA and panel-track supplement submissions throughout FYs 2028 through 2032, and a 510(k) shared outcome goal that ramps down from 128 calendar days in FY 2028 to 112 calendar days by FY 2032. Additional details regarding the shared outcome goals can be found in Section I of the draft commitment letter.

The draft MDUFA VI commitment letter largely maintains the review performance goals established by the end of MDUFA V, reflecting FDA's commitment to sustaining the high level of review performance achieved over the course of the prior agreement. The core decision and interaction goals for the majority of submission types—including Original PMAs, 180-Day and Real-Time PMA Supplements, 510(k)s, CLIA Waiver by Application submissions, and all biologics license application-related submission types—remain unchanged from MDUFA V.

FDA proposes to continue the Pre-Submission program under MDUFA VI to address increasing submission volume, maintaining a performance goal of providing written feedback on at least 90 percent of Pre-Submissions within 70 days or 5 calendar days prior to the scheduled meeting, whichever comes sooner, for up to 5,000 submissions per fiscal year. A significant new feature of MDUFA VI is the introduction of Focused Follow-Up Pre-Submissions—a new, faster-turnaround submission type intended to address targeted follow-up questions related to a prior Pre-Submission, with a written response provided within 45 calendar days of receipt. In conjunction with the proposed enhancements and performance goals outlined in the draft commitment letter, FDA and industry agreed to proposed changes to the FD&C Act to include a fee for initial Pre-Submissions, to promote efficient use of the program, and for which sponsors will later receive a corresponding credit on certain related subsequent marketing submission fees. Additional details regarding Pre-Submissions can be found in Section II.A of the draft commitment letter.

FDA proposes to maintain a De Novo decision goal of 90 percent of De Novo requests receiving a MDUFA decision within 150 FDA days. MDUFA VI introduces a structured Introduction Meeting between FDA and the applicant within the first 30 FDA days of review, intended to promote early alignment and review efficiency, and recognizes the possibility of issuance of a “Not Grantable” letter, with a final determination to decline or grant the submission within 75 calendar days but no longer than 90 calendar days after receipt of the response to the not grantable letter. Additional details regarding De Novo requests can be found in Section II.E of the draft commitment letter.

FDA proposes several infrastructure enhancements under MDUFA VI to support the process for the review of device applications. FDA will continue to recruit, hire, and retain sufficient technical and scientific staff and will leverage contractual support. MDUFA VI also facilitates significant enhancements to IT infrastructure, including improvements to the Customer Collaboration Portal, development of an interactive Navigator tool to guide stakeholders to appropriate communication channels, and a new online mechanism for direct engagement between FDA and applicants. A key element of MDUFA VI is the establishment of a Resource Capacity Planning and Management capability to support data-driven resource management decisions, with an Implementation Plan to be published by March 31, 2029. FDA also proposes changes to optimize MDUFA's statutory appropriation and spending trigger provisions. Additional details regarding infrastructure can be found in Section III of the draft commitment letter.

To support improved communication in letters requesting additional information, FDA will continue to train staff and managers on applicable guidance and best practices for clear and least burdensome deficiency communication, and will maintain a performance goal of providing a statement of the basis for the deficiency in 95 percent of deficiency letters each fiscal year for Original PMA, Panel-Track Supplement, 510(k) and De Novo request submissions. A new feature of MDUFA VI is the development of a survey for recipients of deficiency letters to gather feedback on deficiency communication quality, with results used to inform improvement activities. Additional details can be found in Section IV.B of the draft commitment letter.

A new commitment under MDUFA VI, FDA proposes to advance efforts to improve review consistency to facilitate efficient, effective, and appropriately consistent submission review practices across and within Offices of Health Technology (OHTs). FDA proposes to make improvements in at least one specific, high-impact topic area each fiscal year, with a minimum of eight topics addressed across the five-year period. Each fiscal year, industry will provide FDA with a prioritized list of topic areas for consideration, and FDA will report annually to industry on the actions taken and their effectiveness. Additional details regarding review consistency can be found in Section IV.C of the draft commitment letter.

FDA proposes to further mature the Accreditation Scheme for Conformity Assessment (ASCA) program by expanding the range of standards and device categories covered, enhancing training for staff and accredited testing laboratories, and working with stakeholders on programmatic improvements. FDA also proposes to advance the development and recognition of regulatory-ready consensus standards, including through enhanced reviewer training, improvements to review tools and templates, and continued development of regulatory science tools. The draft MDUFA VI commitment letter emphasizes public-private collaboration in the development and optimization of consensus standards, committing FDA to attend industry meetings at least twice annually to discuss standards of mutual interest, work with industry and testing laboratory representatives to improve the reproducibility and repeatability of analytical methods, and engage with stakeholders to identify opportunities to ensure standards are regulatory-ready and optimized for regulatory use. Additional details regarding the enhanced use of consensus standards can be found in Section IV.D of the draft commitment letter.

FDA proposes to continue to support the Third Party Review program with the objective of eliminating routine re-review by FDA. FDA will continue to provide training for Third Parties seeking accreditation, audit and provide tailored re-training to accredited Third Parties, and publish performance of individual accredited Third Parties on FDA's website. Additional details regarding the Third Party Review program can be found in Section IV.E of the draft commitment letter.

FDA proposes to continue to advance the Patient Science and Engagement program by expanding scientific expertise and staff capacity to respond to growing submission volume and complexity of patient science data, expanding training internally and externally on clinical outcome assessments and patient engagement in device clinical studies, supporting the use of innovative technologies to capture patient perspectives and reduce patient burden, and developing case examples of the use and impact of patient-generated health data (PGHD) in device development. Additional details regarding patient science and engagement can be found in Section IV.F of the draft commitment letter.

FDA proposes to continue to advance the development of Real-World Data (RWD) and RWE methods and approaches to support regulatory acceptance for premarket submissions, with user fee revenue devoted solely to premarket RWE activities. FDA will continue to advance CDRH's RWD/RWE training program, update stakeholders on RWE program activities at two or more open public meetings during the course of MDUFA VI, and annually publish examples of market authorization decisions that relied on RWD/RWE. FDA will continue to invest in National Evaluation System for Health Technology activity and hire internal RWE experts across OHTs to support consistent and coordinated review of RWD/RWE-related submissions. Additional details regarding RWE can be found in Section IV.G of the draft commitment letter.

FDA proposes to continue building its digital health expertise and working to streamline and align FDA review processes with software lifecycles for digital health products, principally through the Digital Health Center of Excellence. Key proposed actions include expanding technical expertise to address rapidly evolving digital health technologies; strengthening reviewer training for consistent, high-quality reviews; and engaging with stakeholders through formal and informal mechanisms to explore regulatory approaches to emerging digital health technologies. Additional details regarding digital health can be found in Section IV.H of the draft commitment letter.

A significant new feature of MDUFA VI is a proposed pilot in which the same device with the same intended use is submitted simultaneously to FDA and at least two other medical device regulatory authorities to support coordinated premarket review, with results to be evaluated and published by September 30, 2030. FDA proposes to advance efforts to promote appropriate reliance on scientific assessments performed by trusted regulatory authorities and to publish an Implementation Plan for international harmonization activities by the end of FY 2028. FDA also proposes to enhance international harmonization activities by expanding attendance, support, and leadership of international organizations of global importance, including the International Medical Device Regulators Forum. Additional details regarding international harmonization can be found in Section IV.I of the draft commitment letter.

Building on lessons learned from the TAP Pilot established under MDUFA V, FDA proposes to transition to a sustainable, full TAP program covering all product areas, with voluntary enrollment targeted to eligible devices across all OHTs no later than October 1, 2027. TAP will continue to focus on enhancing the Breakthrough Device review experience by providing more timely and robust premarket interactions, facilitating improved strategic decision-making during device development, and collaborating to align expectations regarding evidence generation and submission quality. A new feature of MDUFA VI is focused engagement and collaboration between FDA and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for technologies for which a new coverage determination would be beneficial. Additional details regarding TAP can be found in Section IV.J of the draft commitment letter.

FDA proposes to continue to report quarterly and annually on performance against commitments, including submission review metrics at the OHT and Center level, staffing and hiring data, guidance document status, fee collections, and progress on key program areas including TAP, RWE, international harmonization, ASCA, and review consistency. Additional details regarding performance reporting can be found in Section V of the draft commitment letter.

Additional commitments not summarized above are described in the full MDUFA VI commitment letter, available at: https://www.fda.gov/industry/medical-device-user-fee-amendments-mdufa-fees/medical-device-user-fee-amendments-2028-mdufa-vi .

FDA will post the agenda approximately 5 days before the meeting at: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/medical-devices-news-and-events/register-fdas-public-meeting-reauthorization-medical-device-user-fee-amendments-08052026 .

Registration: Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. People interested in attending the Medical Device User Fee Amendments public meeting must register online by 4 p.m. July 20, 2026. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited and, therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. If time and space permit, onsite registration will be provided on the day of the meeting beginning at 8 a.m. If you need special accommodation because of a disability, please contact Nia Ramsey (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) no later than July 17, 2026. To register for the meeting, please visit: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/medical-devices-news-and-events/register-fdas-public-meeting-reauthorization-medical-device-user-fee-amendments-08052026 . Please provide complete contact information for each attendee, including name, title, affiliation, email, and telephone number. Registrants will receive confirmation after they have been accepted.

Opportunity for Public Comment: Those who register will have an opportunity to participate in the public comment session of the meeting. If you wish to speak during the public comment session, follow the instructions in the notification and identify which topic(s) you wish to address. All requests to make public comments during the meeting must be received by July 20, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. We will do our best to accommodate requests to make public comments. Individuals and organizations with common interests are urged to consolidate or coordinate comment and request time jointly. We will determine the amount of time allotted to each commenter, and the approximate time each comment is to begin, and will select and notify participants by July 27, 2026. If selected for presentation, any presentation materials must be emailed to Nia Ramsey (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) no later than July 30, 2026, at 4:00 p.m. No commercial or promotional material will be permitted to be presented at the public meeting.

FDA is holding this meeting to provide information on the proposed recommendations for the reauthorization of MDUFA for FYs 2028 through 2032. In order to permit the widest possible opportunity to obtain public comment, FDA is soliciting either electronic or written comments on all aspects of the meeting topics. The docket will remain open 30 days after the publication of this notice. The draft commitment letter is posted in the docket and also on this website at: https://www.fda.gov/industry/medical-device-user-fee-amendments-mdufa-fees/medical-device-user-fee-amendments-2028-mdufa-vi.

Streaming Webcast of the Public Meeting: This meeting will also be webcast. The meeting link is: https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_ZDY3YWY1MDctNDU2MS00YjQyLTg2MTAtMmU3OGVjMzgzMDJl%40thread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%227d2fdb41-339c-4257-87f2-a665730b31fc%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%22f46007e5-06e8-46b8-8ed0-45459ca51924%22%7d. Organizations are requested to register all participants, but to view using one connection per location.

Transcripts: Please be advised that as soon as a transcript of the public meeting is available, it will be accessible in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov. It may be viewed at the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ). A link to the transcripts will also be available on the internet at: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/medical-devices-news-and-events/register-fdas-public-meeting-reauthorization-medical-device-user-fee-amendments-08052026.

Notice of this meeting is given pursuant to 21 CFR 10.65.

Agenda: The meeting presentations will be heard, viewed, captioned, and recorded through an online teleconferencing and/or video conferencing platform. On July 30, 2026, the Committee will meet in open session to discuss and make recommendations on Biologics License Application (BLA) 125827, from Replimune, Inc. for vusolimogene oderparepvec. The proposed indication (use) is in combination with nivolumab for the treatment of adult patients with advanced melanoma who have previously received an anti-PD-1 containing regimen.

FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than two (2) business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at the time of the advisory committee meeting. Background material and the link to the online teleconference and/or video conference meeting will be available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

The meeting will include slide presentations with audio and video components to allow the presentation of materials in a manner that most closely resembles an in-person advisory committee meeting.

Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the Committee. All electronic and written submissions to the Docket (see ADDRESSES ) on or before July 20, 2026, will be provided to the Committee. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 1:05 p.m. and 2:05 p.m. Eastern Time. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, along with the names, email addresses, and direct contact phone numbers of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before 12 p.m. Eastern Time on July 15, 2026. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by 6 p.m. Eastern Time on July 17, 2026.

For press inquiries, please contact the HHS Press Room at www.hhs.gov/press-room/index.html or 202-690-6343. FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Cicely Reese at CBERCTGTAC@fda.hhs.gov (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. ). This meeting notice also serves as notice that, pursuant to 21 CFR 10.19, the requirements in 21 CFR 14.22(b), (f), and (g) relating to the location of advisory committee meetings are hereby waived to allow for this meeting to take place using an online meeting platform. This waiver is in the interest of allowing greater transparency and opportunities for public participation, in addition to convenience for advisory committee members, speakers, and guest speakers. The conditions for issuance of a waiver under 21 CFR 10.19 are met.

Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires: written comments and/or suggestions from the public, and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimizes the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Proposed Collection Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Customer Participation and Performance Management with NIH Programs, Products, and Services (NIH), 0925-0778: Expiration Date 9/30/2026, Extension, National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Need and Use of Information Collection: Evaluating the effectiveness of leadership, programs, and services is essential for the vitality of any institution. Leadership review at NIH focuses on the productivity of the IC, management of resources and budget allocations, training activities, and influence on dimensions of diversity, inclusion, promotion of investigators and staff (including NIH Equity Committee (NEC) reports), and positive workforce culture.

Program and service reviews may focus on operational performance; outputs, outcomes, and impacts; policy compliance, stewardship, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Both types of reviews and evaluations may solicit input from IC staff and leadership (IC Director, Deputy Director, E.O.) and relevant program participants and stakeholders about the program's effectiveness, leader, or process. They may include comparisons with other ICs or programs, external benchmarks, and outcome metrics where appropriate and applicable. This input should provide meaningful information that can be used to identify strengths and areas that need improvement. Reports developed from the review or evaluation may be presented by the IC Director to the IC's Advisory Council or Board, to other IC or NIH leadership (such as the Deputy Director for Intramural Research and the NIH Director), or to program participants or the broader public. Such reports may include recommendations and proposed actions to address areas for improvement. In public or broadly shared reports, any sensitive information in the reviews or evaluations will be summarized and presented in aggregate.

This clearance will allow direct assessment and measurement of the customer/respondent base for participation in and satisfaction with NIH programs, products, and services. The clearance will also enable offices to assess participants' experience and accomplishments during or since participation and their preferences for existing and future programming, products, and services. The information collected using these tools informs and supports budgeting, program management and design, program planning, results reporting, information dissemination, and outreach initiatives.

OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 3,375.

The Deputy Director for Extramural Research, Jon Lorsch, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Alycia Booth, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

Cardiac calsequestrin (Casq2) plays an essential role in maintaining cardiac Ca 2+ homeostasis. Human CASQ2 mutations are associated with catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT), a rare familial arrhythmogenic disorder within a group of diseases characterized as Sudden Arrhythmic Death.

The inventors have generated Casq2Flox and Casq2RevFlox mouse strains that model CPVT. The two novel strains successfully phenocopy aspects of CPVT, including stress-induced arrhythmias and reduced basal heart rates. The strains allow investigators to determine the importance of Casq2 gene function in specific tissues and at specific developmental time points. They also allow investigators to determine the efficacy of gene therapy and to address key mechanism questions. The materials are validated and fully functional.

This Notice is in accordance with 37 CFR 404.4 Authority to grant licenses.

NIH Reference Number: E-128-2024.

Related Technologies: N/A.

Product Type: Research Material/Tool.

Therapeutic Area(s): Rare/Neglected Disease.

Development Stage: Validated and fully functional.

Publications:

• Knollmann BC, et al. Casq2 deletion causes sarcoplasmic reticulum volume increase, premature Ca 2+ release, and catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia. (PMID 16932808).

• Flores DJ, et al. Conditional ablation and conditional rescue models for Casq2 elucidate the role of development and of cell-type specific expression of Casq2 in the CPVT2 phenotype. (PMID 29452352).

• Blackwell DJ, et al. The Purkinje-myocardial junction is the anatomic origin of ventricular arrhythmia in CPVT. ( PMID 34990403).

Patents: N/A.

Potential Commercial Applications:

• Study of Casq2 function.

• Study of calcium storage in cardiac muscle and CPVT.

• Determining the efficacy of gene therapy for CPVT pies.

Competitive Advantages:

• Only available conditional and reverse conditional loss-of-function alleles in mouse Casq2.

• Allows the study of Casq2 gene function in specific tissues and at specific developmental points.

Collaboration Opportunity: NICHD seeks licensing for further developing or utilizing these Casq2 mouse strains.

RRP, caused by chronic infection with human papillomavirus (HPV) types 6 and 11, is a rare but potentially fatal disease characterized by the growth of papillomas throughout the respiratory tract. While HPV 6/11 infections are common, affecting approximately 40% of U.S. adults, a subset of patients can develop a range of conditions from benign papillomas to dysplasia and invasive cancers. Current treatment for RRP typically involves repetitive surgical intervention or laser ablation to alleviate symptoms, which carries significant procedural risks. A recent breakthrough with a therapeutic HPV vaccine demonstrated that 51% of patients avoided surgery for at least a year, with some experiencing durable remission. However, there remains no reliable diagnostic tool to confirm viral clearance or guide systemic therapy decisions.

Researchers at the NCI and FNLCR have developed a novel hybridization-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) liquid biopsy method to detect circulating cell-free HPV 6 and 11 DNA in the plasma of patients with RRP. This innovative approach uses the established relevance of circulating viral DNA as a valuable biomarker for disease monitoring and therapeutic decision-making in other virally-associated conditions. The method is designed to target multiple regions across the entire HPV 6 and 11 genomes. It employs a pull-down DNA technology to enhance coverage—overcoming limitations of fixed-primer PCR for small cell-free DNA fragments. While low-risk HPV-associated diseases like RRP exhibit less tumor cell turnover compared to advanced cancers, the inherent high vascularity of papillomas may facilitate the release of viral DNA into peripheral blood. This method offers a non-invasive, sensitive and potentially prognostic tool to aid in (1) diagnosis, (2) monitoring progression and (3) guiding systemic therapies such as HPV vaccination or predicting severity—including pulmonary risk.

Investigators at the NCI and FNLCR continue to evaluate circulating HPV 6 and 11 DNA in patients previously treated in clinical trials to further assess its prognostic and predictive capabilities. This technology presents a compelling opportunity for commercial development and seamless integration into existing diagnostic platforms. NCI and FNLCR offer licensing and collaborative development opportunities to advance this critical diagnostic and prognostic tool for RRP.

“This Notice is in accordance with 37 CFR 404.4 Authority to grant licenses.”

NIH Reference Number: E-019-2025.

Related Technologies: N/A.

Product Type: Diagnostic.

Therapeutic Area(s): Pulmonology | Infectious Disease | Oncology.

Development Stage: Pre-clinical ( in vivo validation).

Publications:

• Norberg SM, et al. PRGN-2012 gene therapy in adults with recurrent respiratory papillomatosis: a pivotal phase 1/2 clinical trial. (PMID 39855244).

Patents: PCT/US2026/027273, filed May 8, 2026.

Potential Commercial Applications:

• Liquid biopsy diagnostic for RRP confirmation.

• Monitoring RRP disease progression.

• Prognostic test for RRP severity, especially pulmonary disease.

• Companion diagnostic to guide systemic RRP therapies.

• HPV 6/11 detection assay for anogenital condyloma.

Competitive Advantages:

• Non-invasive, sensitive and potentially prognostic and diagnostic tool.

• Reduces the need for, and risk from, repeat surgical procedures.

• Detects disease even with a Derkay score of 0 (minimal laryngeal involvement).

Collaboration Opportunity: Researchers at the NCI seek licensing and/or co-development research collaborations for commercial development of a novel liquid biopsy diagnostic for non-invasive detection of cell-free HPV 6 and 11 DNA for RRP.

CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the request for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Title: Court-Ordered Refunds under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act Worksheet.

OMB Number: 1651-0149.

Form Number: N/A.

Current Actions: Extension.

Type of Review: Extension.

Affected Public: Businesses.

Abstract:

On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that all tariffs imposed by the President under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has collected pursuant to the President's Executive Orders and associated provisions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) since February 3, 2025, were unlawful. In so holding, the Supreme Court affirmed the August 29, 2025 judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, which in turn had affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded-in-part the May 28, 2025 decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in that case. On March 2, 2026, the CAFC issued its formal mandate to the CIT.

On March 4, 2026, the CIT ordered in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States “that, with respect to any and all unliquidated entries that were entered subject to the IEEPA duties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is hereby directed to liquidate those entries without regard to the IEEPA duties,” and “[a]ny liquidated entries for which liquidation is not final shall be reliquidated without regard to IEEPA duties.” On March 5, 2026, the CIT amended its March 4, 2026, order in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States to clarify that it applies to entries made “subject to the IEEPA duties imposed by the Executive Orders considered by the Supreme Court in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. ” On March 6, 2026, the CIT suspended its March 4, 2026, order, as amended, “to the extent that it directs immediate compliance,” to allow CBP time to develop an automated tool capable of processing the unprecedented volume and value of refunds covered by the CIT order. On the same day, the CIT also ordered the government to provide periodic status reporting on this development. The government submitted detailed status reports to the court on March 12, 2026, and March 19, 2026.

On March 20, 2026, the CIT again amended its Amended Order of March 5, 2026, to clarify that it applies to “any and all unliquidated entries that were entered subject to IEEPA duties” as well as to any such “liquidated entries for which liquidation is not final,” provided, however, that “nothing in this order addresses issues concerning duty free de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321 that are otherwise before this Court” in Axle of Dearborn, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. The CIT's March 20, 2026 order continued to suspend the Amended Order of March 5, 2026, “to the extent that it requires immediate compliance,” and ordered that the government file another status report on March 31, 2026, “describing the progress Customs has made toward the completion of a process to issue refunds of IEEPA duties paid with interest,” and join another closed settlement conference with the Court later the same day to further discuss the same. In accordance with this order, the government submitted a detailed status report and attended a closed settlement conference on March 31, 2026. On April 6, 2026, the plaintiff in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in its case, which the CIT granted on April 8, 2026.

On April 7, 2026, the CIT lifted the stay on Euro-Notions Florida, Inc. v. United States, CIT Ct. No. 25-00595, another pending case challenging the IEEPA duties, and issued an injunctive order substantively identical to its March 4, 2026, order, as amended, in Atmus Filtration, Inc. Accordingly, the Euro-Notions Florida, Inc. case has replaced the Atmus Filtration, Inc. case as the test case for the IEEPA refund process. On April 8, 2026, the CIT issued an order in Euro-Notions Florida, Inc. ordering the government to file another status update on April 14, 2026, regarding CBP's progress on the IEEPA duty refund process and join another closed settlement conference with the Court later the same day.

Specifically, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and CBP have initiated the development of the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) tool to handle the volume of tariff refunds anticipated in the timeframe required by the CIT. While the CIT has not set a timeframe to date, the Court has signaled that refunds be issued as quickly as possible because of the accrual of interest. Further, while the order to refund IEEPA duties with interest is currently suspended “to the extent that it requires immediate compliance,” the CIT is closely monitoring CBP's progress to timely complete the development of CAPE and can lift the suspension of its order at any time.

The tariffs assessed under IEEPA from February 3, 2025 to February 24, 2026 total an estimated $166 billion, with over 53 million entry summaries requiring processing in order to issue accurate refunds with required interest. Prior to CAPE, refunds were reviewed and processed entry summary-by-entry summary. Given the volume and values of the entries affected by the CIT order, CBP is unable to process the refunds owed in a timely or efficient manner using the existing process.

The CAPE tool may be accessed through CBP's Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), which is the CBP-operated system used to report, manage, process, and track U.S. imports and exports.

The CAPE tool allows CBP to process multiple entry summaries by the same importer on a single submission, which will lead to a single refund for a given importer rather than multiple refund transactions. Importers are able to file as many CAPE Declarations as they need. Thus, potentially thousands of refund transactions can be consolidated into a single payment that is directly deposited into an IOR's account (or the account of their designated party) on file. The request for a refund that is filed through CAPE is called a “CAPE Declaration”.

The new CAPE tool allows—

• Automated processes to be leveraged to the fullest extent possible to segment risk and execute millions of mathematical calculations with precision.

• CBP personnel to focus on those refund CAPE Declarations that are considered “high risk” due to the dollar values involved or the risk profile of the IOR.

• CBP personnel to determine with confidence which lines on an entry summary are eligible for an IEEPA refund while ensuring the remaining duties (including duties owed for antidumping/countervailing duty (AD/CVD) remedies and Section 232 tariffs), tax, and fees that are owed the U.S. government are retained and collected as usual.

• CBP personnel to ensure that the precise duty owed to the IOR is refunded directly to the IOR's account—no overpayments or payments to an erroneous party.

IORs will submit the information related to their refund request to CBP through the ACE Portal. Alternatively, IORs may have their information submitted to CBP using a licensed customs broker. Brokers are licensed through CBP to conduct customs business on behalf of their IOR clients. In order to receive a refund through the CAPE process, the IOR, or their designated broker, must have an active and up-to-date ACE Portal account and supporting profile. If a broker is filing a CAPE Declaration on an IOR's behalf, they must be the “notify party” designated in the appropriate ACE account. Only ACE account holders will be able to file a CAPE Declaration through the CAPE tool.

Most small businesses do not have an ACE account and instead enlist the assistance of a licensed customs broker to conduct business on their behalf. They will continue to be able, and are expected, to use their customs brokers for the IEEPA refunds process and CAPE. Based on public comments received, CBP may develop an alternative process for small businesses if it is determined that using ACE and CAPE is overly burdensome for those businesses.

It is also important to note that the Federal Government no longer disburses paper checks, but issues refunds electronically via Automated Clearinghouse (ACH). The transition to electronic refunds is in line with Executive Order 12247 and was implemented by CBP via the Interim Final Rule (IFR) Electronic Refunds (91 FR 21) in January 2026. CBP is currently holding refunds for filers who do not have an ACH account on file in ACE. CBP will continue to do the same for IEEPA Refunds. As noted in the IFR: “If an importer believes that one of the waiver criteria in 31 CFR part 208 applies and seeks payment of its refund via a U.S. Treasury check, the importer must notify CBP's Revenue Division in writing at frn-achrefundsupport@cbp.dhs.gov. ” CBP does not believe it is necessary at this time to create a procedure outside the one established in the IFR.

The term “Declaration filer” will be used going forward to cover both IORs who file their own IEEPA refund requests or their designated licensed customs broker.

The following modified information collection listed below was submitted to OMB for consideration of approval on an emergency clearance, with the justification of an unanticipated event and reasons to believe following the normal PRA process is likely to prevent or disrupt the collection of information and cause public harm. CBP welcomes public to comment on these approved changes.

To submit an IEEPA refund CAPEdeclaration, an IOR, or their broker, will submit a Comma-Separated Values (CSV) file with a list of entry summary numbers to the CAPE tool through the ACE Portal. Depending on the CAPE Declaration, this file may contain only a few lines of data or thousands of lines of data (there is a limit of 9,999 entries per CAPE Declaration). If the file submitted is rejected based on the screening and validation CBP will conduct prior to accepting a CAPE Declaration, the Declaration filer will need to adjust their CSV file and resubmit. CBP will issue technical guidance to filers to minimize the number of rejections/resubmissions.

Although the CIT suspended its order “to the extent that it directs immediate compliance,” the order indicates that this suspension was based on the CBP declaration filed in that case on March 6, 2026, which declared that CBP anticipates that CAPE would be ready April 20, 2026, and any delay would pose risks for CBP in following CIT orders and for returning those duties deemed refundable with the end of IEEPA.

Type of Information Collection: CVS File.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 330,000.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses per Respondent: 1.5.

Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 495,000.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 495,000.

Type of Information Collection: CVS File Replacement.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 33,000.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 33,000.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 16,500.

This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

Title of Information Collection: Recipient Financial Reporting for Grant Programs.

OMB Approval Number: 2535-Pending.

Type of Request: New information collection.

Form Number: N/A.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The information collection burden associated with enhanced financial reporting for grant programs aligns with cross-government priorities to strengthen stewardship of Federal funds and to better identify and address potential fraud, waste, and abuse in a timely manner. The information collection burden is also supported by Part 200 of Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which requires federal grant recipients to maintain financial records supported by source documentation (2 CFR 200.302) and retain those records for 3 years (2 CFR 200.334). HUD is currently in the process of adding special conditions to grant awards to require recipients to submit evidence to support financial expenditures. Under grants with the special conditions applied, recipients will need to provide financial records that substantiate payments made with federal funding, including payments made by subrecipients and other contracted services. HUD is establishing an online portal to collect the records from recipients. Such records will include itemized invoices showing vendor or subrecipient names, descriptions of goods or services provided, the service period, and amount billed; proof of payments such as canceled checks, payment confirmations, or accounting system payment registers; and subaward agreements or contracts signed with vendors or consultants. Over time, HUD anticipates this collection to replace existing collections used to satisfy financial monitoring requirements.

Respondents: All HUD grant recipients managing grants with special conditions for enhanced financial reporting requirements, which will typically apply to grants awarded in 2025 and forward.

Respondents (i.e., affected public): All HUD Grantees.

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

Section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.

Notice of these meetings is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and implementing regulations. 5 U.S.C. 1009(a)(2), 41 CFR 102-3.150. The Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) was established by the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974. Public Law 93-383, 88 Stat. 633, codified at 42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq. This Act was later amended by the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-569, 114 Stat. 2944). Under 42 U.S.C. 5403, the purposes of the MHCC are to:

(1) Provide periodic recommendations to the Secretary to adopt, revise, and interpret the Federal manufactured housing construction and safety standards in accordance with subsection 5403(a);

(2) Provide periodic recommendations to the Secretary to adopt, revise, and interpret the procedural and enforcement regulations, including regulations specifying the permissible scope and conduct of monitoring, in accordance with subsection 5403(b); and

(3) Be organized and carry out its business in a manner that guarantees a fair opportunity for the expression and consideration of various positions and for public participation. The MHCC is deemed an advisory committee not composed of Federal employees.

Interested parties wishing to make comments on the business of the MHCC are encouraged to register by or before Monday, July 13, 2026, by contacting HUD's Administering Organization for the MHCC (AO), Home Innovation Research Labs; Attention: Kevin Kauffman, 400 Prince Georges Blvd., Upper Marlboro, MD 20774, or email to mhcc@homeinnovation.com or call 1-888-602-4663. Written comments should be submitted on or before Monday, July 13, 2026, to give MHCC members an opportunity to review the comments and come prepared to the meeting. Timely submission of comments will allow adequate opportunity to consider stakeholder input and help facilitate meaningful discussions. The MHCC strives to accommodate citizen comments to the extent possible within the time constraints of the meeting agenda. Advance registration is strongly encouraged. The MHCC will provide an opportunity for public comments on specific matters before the MHCC.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, is providing an opportunity for the MHCC to discuss proposed updates to the Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards regarding energy conservation. The input will help HUD further refine certain aspects of the energy conservation standards for manufactured housing, as well as the supporting technical analysis, including anticipated costs and benefits. HUD is scheduling this meeting with the MHCC to allow robust discussion, analysis, and consideration as the committee is responsible for providing recommendations to the Secretary for the purposes of proceeding with changes to the standards. This meeting is scheduled for one day to provide sufficient time for thorough consideration and collection of MHCC recommendations. HUD, therefore, strongly encourages active participation by committee members, stakeholders, and other interested parties.

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 Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. In 2018, the Arizona State Museum received ancestral remains from the Snohomish County, Washington, Medical Examiner. The remains, designated AZ 04SN2365, were recovered from a thrift store in a box that contained a Tucson address and a newspaper. Based on these associated materials, the individual is believed to have originated from southern Arizona.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. In 1976, the Arizona State Museum received ancestral remains from a private citizen. The remains, designated AZ 76-83, were reportedly recovered from a mineshaft in the Empire Mountains southeast of Tucson, Arizona.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. On an unknown date, the Arizona State Museum received ancestral remains from the Tucson Police Department. The remains, designated AZ 831158002TPD, are believed to have originated from the Tucson area based on the limited available acquisition history.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. On January 20, 1988, a private citizen discovered ancestral remains near Red Rock, Arizona. The remains were reported to law enforcement and subsequently transferred to a deputy with the Pinal County Sheriff's Office, who delivered them to the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner (PCME) for evaluation. The PCME declined jurisdiction and, on March 8, 1988, transferred the remains to the Arizona State Museum, where they were designated AZ AA ML-88-0266.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. On an unknown date, a private citizen removed ancestral remains from the Silverbell Mountains in Pima County, Arizona. The individual donated the remains to the Arizona State Museum on April 5, 1941, where they were later assigned the designation AZ AA:— 304.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Between 1980 and 1985, ancestral remains were recovered during the Northern Tucson Basin Survey project, east of State Route 87 and north of Houser Road in Pinal County, Arizona. Upon completion of the project, circa 1985, the survey collections were transferred to the Arizona State Museum. The remains were later identified during a 2010 collections review and subsequently assigned the designation AZ AA:3:—.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, 12 individuals have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. On March 6, 2006, the Arizona State Museum received ancestral remains (AZ AT-2006-14) following their removal from a private roadside exhibit in Benson, Arizona. The remains exhibit variable states of preservation, suggesting they were recovered from multiple locations, presumably in southern Arizona.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. The two associated funerary objects are an animal bone awl and an animal bone tool. In February 2002, ancestral remains were identified in an arroyo wall near Dudleyville, Arizona, and reported to the Pinal County Sheriff's Office. The Sheriff's Office recovered the remains and transferred them to the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner (PCOME) for assessment. In February 2008, PCOME transferred the remains to the Arizona State Museum for repatriation, where they were assigned the designation AZ BB:1:— Dudleyville.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. In 1929, a private citizen recovered ancestral remains from a rock ledge near Winkelman, Arizona. The Arizona State Museum received the remains from the individual in 1992 for repatriation, where they were assigned the designation AZ BB:1:— Winkelman.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. In March 1962, a deputy with the Pinal County Sheriff's Office recovered ancestral remains along the San Pedro River near Redington, Arizona. The remains were subsequently transferred to the Department of Anthropology at the University of Arizona and later to the Arizona State Museum, where they were assigned the designation AZ BB:11:— San Pedro.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. In 1965, ancestral remains were identified on private property in southeast Tucson, Arizona during the construction of a retaining wall. The landowner retained custody of the remains until June 10, 2018, when they were received by the Arizona State Museum for repatriation and assigned the designation AZ BB:13:— Hutchinson.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. On December 26, 1994, the Pinal County Sheriff's Office recovered ancestral remains exposed in an eroded bank of the San Pedro River near Mammoth, Arizona. The remains were transferred to the Arizona State Museum on December 28, 1994, for repatriation and assigned the designation AZ BB:6:— DR-941200528.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. On an unknown date, the Graham County Sheriff's Department recovered ancestral remains near Fort Grant State Prison. The Arizona State Museum received the remains on August 25, 1986, where they were assigned the designation AZ CC:5:— FA-86-011.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. On an unknown date, ancestral remains were identified within the Arizona State Museum collections. The remains, assigned the designation AZ D-70, were housed in a plastic evidence bag marked “Pinal County Sheriff's Office,” but no additional provenience information was available. Based on the presumed acquisition history, the remains are believed to have originated from southern Arizona.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Between 1965 and 1990, a private citizen recovered ancestral remains along the Santa Cruz River south of Amado, Arizona. The Arizona State Museum later received the remains from the landowner and assigned the designation AZ DD:8:— Amado vicinity.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. In the early 1980s, ancestral remains were removed from private land near the Santa Cruz Wash, east of what was then Tumacácori National Monument. The remains were retained in private possession until 2008, when they were transferred to the Arizona State Museum by the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner, following involvement by the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office. The remains were assigned the designation AZ DD:8:— ML-2004-2077 by the Arizona State Museum.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, 12 individuals have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. On April 9, 2018, the Arizona State Museum received ancestral remains following their removal from an estate sale in southern Arizona. Limited accompanying information suggests the remains may have originated from AZ DD:8:12(ASM). The remains were subsequently assigned the designation AZ AT-2018-8 by the Arizona State Museum.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. On an unknown date, ancestral remains were recovered from the vicinity of Florence, Arizona by the Pinal County Sheriff's Office. On May 5, 1977, the Sheriff's Office transferred the remains to the Arizona State Museum where they were assigned the designation AZ DR-77-625 in absence of an accession.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. On May 18, 1996, the Arizona State Museum received human remains from the Cochise County Archaeological and Historical Society (CCAHS). The remains are believed to have been removed from site AZ EE:12:1(ASM) by a private citizen. The date of removal, as well as the circumstances and date of the transfer to CCAHS, are unknown.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. On an unknown date, a private citizen removed ancestral remains from the vicinity of Douglas, Arizona. The remains were received by the Arizona State Museum prior to August 1953 and assigned the designation AZ FF:10:— Douglas vicinity in absence of an accession.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. On an unknown date, a private citizen removed ancestral remains near Turkey Creek in the Chiricahua Mountains of southeastern Arizona. Prior to June 1976, the remains were transferred to the Arizona State Museum by the private citizen, where they were assigned the designation AZ FF:2:— Turkey Creek Ranch in absence of an accession.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Prior to April 17, 1924, a private citizen removed ancestral remains from Turkey Creek Canyon on the eastern slope of the Chiricahua Mountains near Paradise, Arizona. The Arizona State Museum subsequently received the remains and assigned the designation AZ FF:4:— Paradise in absence of an accession.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Prior to 1930, a former director of the Arizona State Museum recovered ancestral remains near a pit house in the Sulphur Springs Valley between Bisbee and Gleeson, Arizona. The remains were subsequently transferred to the Arizona State Museum. In 1968 or 1969, the Physical Anthropology Laboratory loaned the remains to a student, who retained them until May 2011, when they were returned to the Arizona State Museum for repatriation. Upon their return, they were assigned the designation AZ FF:5:— Sulphur Springs in absence of an accession.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. On an unknown date, ancestral remains were recovered by the Pima County Sheriff's Office from an unidentified location described as a “desert area southwest of Tucson.” The remains were subsequently transferred to the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner (PCOME) for assessment. On May 21, 2001, PCOME transferred the remains to the Arizona State Museum for repatriation, where they were assigned the designation AZ ML-00-0524.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. On September 23, 1988, the Arizona State Museum received ancestral remains from the Pinal County Sheriff's Office, likely for forensic assessment. Provenience and accession information were not recorded at the time of transfer; however, based on the acquisition history, the remains likely originated in Pinal County, Arizona. The remains were later assigned the designation AZ ML-88-1000 by the Arizona State Museum in absence of an accession.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, 27 individuals have been reasonably identified. The 16 associated funerary objects include a shell bead, shell fragments, ceramic sherds, a polished stone, a carved stone fragment, and a lithic flake. On unknown dates in 1935, ancestral remains were removed from the Allentown site in Pima County, Arizona, and the Manuelito site in McKinley County, New Mexico. On October 2, 1988, the Tucson Police Department recovered the remains from a private residence in Tucson, Arizona, and transferred them to the Arizona State Museum, where they were assigned the designation AZ ML-88-1028. Due to the manner in which the remains were housed, it is not possible to determine the original location from which each set was removed.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Prior to December 1955, ancestral remains were removed from private land near the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona. The Arizona State Museum subsequently received the remains from the landowner where they were designated AZ BB:-Santa Cruz River Ranch in absence of an accession.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. The one associated funerary object is a projectile point. In 1930, ancestral remains were recovered from University Farm on the Casa Grande Highway near Tucson, Arizona. The Arizona State Museum received the remains later that year where they were designated AZ AA:-University Farm in absence of an accession.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. In 1932 and 1933, a private citizen removed ancestral remains from undocumented locations in southern Arizona. The remains, later designated AZ unprovenienced Gipe, were transferred to the Arizona State Museum in 1965 by the citizen's spouse.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. On an unknown date, the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF) identified ancestral remains in an AZGF evidence locker. In 2018, the Arizona State Museum received the remains from the Department for repatriation, where they were assigned the designation AZ unprovenienced GF. Based on the location of the locker and AZGF office, the remains are believed to have originated in southern Arizona.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. On July 20, 1900, ancestral remains were removed from the vicinity of Yuma, Arizona. The Arizona State Museum received the remains on an unknown date prior to August 1953, when they were identified during an inventory. In the absence of accession information, the remains were later assigned the designation AZ X:— Yuma vicinity.

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 Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, has determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 81 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• The 19 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Ak-Chin Indian Community; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; and the Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona.

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 ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after August 7, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Arizona State Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Arizona State Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

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 Denver Art Museum and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

The five associated funerary objects are pottery sherds. In 1905, five ceramic sherds (1934.124-1934.128) were removed from the Garoga Site in Jefferson Co., NY. These objects were recovered by M.R. Harrington and Irwin Hayden during Harvard Peabody Museum excavations along Caroga Creek near the town of Ephratah and were later exchanged with the Denver Art Museum in 1934. Little museum documentation has been identified, however, human remains and associated funerary objects, including ceramic sherds were recovered during excavations of the site and were reported in a Notice of Inventory Completion published in the Federal Register by the Harvard Peabody Museum on October 5, 2001 (66 FR 51060). The site is affiliated with the Cayuga Nation, Oneida Indian Nation, Oneida Nation, Onondaga Nation, Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, Seneca Nation of Indians; Seneca-Cayuga Nation; Tonawanda Band of Seneca; and the Tuscarora Nation. No known hazardous materials were used to treat any of the objects.

Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the associated funerary objects described in this notice.

The Denver Art Museum has determined that:

• The five objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• There is a connection between the associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Cayuga Nation; Oneida Indian Nation; Oneida Nation; Onondaga Nation; Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe; Seneca Nation of Indians; Seneca-Cayuga Nation; Tonawanda Band of Seneca; and the Tuscarora Nation.

Written requests for repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

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 August 7, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Denver Art Museum 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 Denver Art Museum 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.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

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 Navy and the Southwest Museum Collection 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.

It was agreed upon by The Department of Navy that cultural materials collected before 1906 could potentially represent the same sites as those collected after 1906. Therefore, the collections are treated jointly as the cultural material will be returned to the islands together.

A total of 50 lots of cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The 50 lots of unassociated funerary objects are one shell bead, three beads, three lots of bone beads, one bone needle, one bone pendant, one doughnut stone, one dress ornament, one drill, two stone effigies, one fishhook, one fishhook barb, three hair pins, one harpoon point, one lid made from faunal bone, two lots of manufacturing tools, one modified faunal bone, three necklaces, one net weight, one pelican stone, two stone pendants, two perforators made of faunal bone, one shuttle-shaped hook, eight stone beads, four stone pendants, one steatite whale effigy, two whale tooth ornaments, and one whistle. Sometime between 1877 to 1895 Dr. Frank M. Palmer (2.P) collected cultural items from unknown areas on San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, Channel Islands, CA. The Southwest Society, precursor of Southwest Museum, purchased Dr. Frank M. Palmer's collection in 1896 and were the first items put on display for the Museum. The Southwest Museum is now part of the Autry Museum of the American West.

A total of one lot of cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The one lot of unassociated funerary objects are faunal bones. On an unknown date, an unknown collector collected cultural material from possibly San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, Channel Islands, CA. The cultural material (18.C.177) were found in a box with other San Clemente Island material with no object number. It is unknown when or how the items entered the Southwest Museum.

A total of one lot of cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The one lot of unassociated funerary objects are mixed beads (shell and trade beads). Circa 1900s, Mr. Edmond Leonard Doran collected cultural material (201.L.150) from an unknown site on San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, Channel Islands, CA. In 1930, Mr. Doran's daughter, Mrs. Margaret Doran Nix, donated her father's collection to the Southwest Museum.

A total of three cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The three unassociated funerary objects are one basket, one sea grass apron, and one kelp fishline. On an unknown date Mr. S.B. Clem collected cultural material from a cave in Mosquito Harbor on San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, CA. Mr. Clem donated the cultural material (64.G Collection) to the Southwest Museum in 1908.

A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one unassociated funerary object is an asphaltum applicator. Sometime between 1889 and 1907, either Mr. Arthur B. Chappelle or Mr. William Henery Burnham collected the object (615.G.30) from an unknown site on San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, Channel Islands, CA. Mr. Burnham donated their combined collection to the Southwest Museum in 1907.

A total of three cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The three unassociated funerary objects are two doughnut stones and one paint mortar. Sometime between 1920 to 1922, Mr. Frederick S. Hughes collected the cultural material from unknown sites on San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, Channel Islands, CA. Mr. Huges was in the U.S. Navy and collected the items while station on the island. Mr. Huges (216 G Collection) donated the cultural material to the Southwest Museum in 1922.

A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one unassociated funerary object is a hammerstone. Sometime between 1927 to 1928, the Citizens Committee of Parks, Playgrounds, and Beaches collected the cultural material (450.G.5) from an unknown site on San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, Channel Islands, CA. The Citizen's Committee was established in 1927 and ended in 1930. Mr. Hugh Reynolds Pomeroy, representative for the Citizens Committee of Parks, Playgrounds, and Beaches, donated the cultural material to the Southwest Museum in 1928.

A total of two cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The two unassociated funerary objects are one pestle and one modified shell. In 1930, Mr. John A. Sherman collected the cultural materials from unknown sites on San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, Channel Islands, CA. Mr. Sherman (799.G Collection) donated the cultural material to the Southwest Museum in 1938.

A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one unassociated funerary object is a sandstone doughnut stone (1629.G.16). Sometime between 1922 to 1960, Mr. Fritz Hertzog collected the cultural material from an unknown site on San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, Channel Islands, CA. Mr. Hertzog donated the cultural material to the Southwest Museum in 1960.

A total of two cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The two unassociated funerary objects are one sandstone mortar (1752.G.1) and one sandstone pestle (1752.G.2). In 1937, Lt-Com. Everette G. Lewis, chief aerographer for the U.S. Navy, collected the cultural material from an unknown site on San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, Channel Islands, CA. Mrs. Everette G. Lewis donated the cultural material to the Southwest Museum in 1963.

A total of 11 cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The 11 unassociated funerary objects are two comal fragments, one cooking stone rim fragment, one fishhook fragment, one fishhook gorge fragment, one gorget, two pestles, one scraper, one shell ornament blank, and one stone pendant. In March 1943, while stationed on the ship U.S.S. Pensacola that was docked on San Clemente Island, Robert O. Harris collected the cultural material from unknown sites. Mrs. and Mr. Norton Allen (1998.14 Collection) donated the cultural material to the Southwest Museum in 1998. The connection between Harris and Norton Allen is unknown.

A total of two cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The two unassociated funerary objects are one fossilized shell (31.F.4) and one stone bowl (31.F.5). The cultural material was found in the museum on George Kritman's worktable without object numbers. Their bags were labeled “Gordo Site, San Clemente Island”. It is possible that “Gordo Site” could refer to Gordon Redfeldt. Gordon was lead archaeologist for the Archaeological Survey Association of Southern California (ASA) and together with the Southwest Museum conducted expeditions on San Clemente Island between 1962 and 1965, which is the possible date it was collected. It is unknown when the cultural material entered the Southwest Museum.

A total of two lots of cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The two lots of unassociated funerary objects are one small steatite fish effigy and one lot of modified steatite ring fragments. The fish effigy (31.F.1) was collected in 1962 and the one lot of modified steatite ring fragments (31.F.3) between June 14 to 17, 1963, during a joint Southwest Museum and Archaeological Survey Association of Southern California (ASA) expedition on San Clemente Island lead by Mr. Bruce Bryan and Mr. Gordon Redfeldt to Ledge Site (CA-SCLI-126). The cultural material entered the Southwest Museum around the same time as the objects were collected but were not accessioned until 2018.

A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one unassociated funerary object is a metal catholic medal (31.F.2). In 1961, Mr. Kenneth E. Seaman collected the cultural material from Ledge Site (CA-SCLI-126) on San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, Channel Islands, CA. Mr. Seaman was a range engineer on the China Lake Naval Air Warfare Station, he went to the island in 1961 with NOTS. It is unknown when the cultural material entered the Southwest Museum.

A total of four lots of cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The four lots of unassociated funerary objects are one Channel Island Barbed Point, one bowl fragment, one lot of trade beads, and one lot of shell beads. Between 1960 to 1961, Mr. Gerald Nelson collected cultural material from what he called “Nelson #2” within the “Hilltop Site”. Through research it was found he was referring to what is now called Ledge Site (CA-SCLI-126) on San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, Channel Islands, CA. Mr. Nelson (1668.G Collection) donated the cultural material to the Southwest Museum in 1961.

A total of 23 lots of cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The 23 lots of sacred objects are one lot of asphaltum coated shell beads, one lot of burned basket fragments, one burned faunal bone, five lots of burned shell beads, one comal, two doughnut stones fragments, one net weight, one pestle fragment, one pipe fragment, one point fragment, four lots of shell beads, one lot of shell pendants, one stone bead, one stone bowl, and one stone disk. Between 1960 to 1961, Mr. Gerald Nelson collected cultural material from what he called “Nelson #3” within the “Hilltop Site”. Through research it was found he was referring to what is now called Ledge Site (CA-SCLI-126) on San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, Channel Islands, CA. “Nelson #3” site is part of a mourning/ceremonial site. Mr. Nelson (1668.G Collection) donated the cultural material to the Southwest Museum in 1961.

A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one unassociated funerary object is a large animal stone effigy (2330.G.1). Circa 1968, Mr. Michael K. Hammer collected the cultural material from the surface near a cave at Seal Cove (CA-SCLI-67) on San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, Channel Islands, CA. Mrs. Carol V. Hammer donated her husband's collection to the Southwest Museum in 1983.

A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one unassociated funerary object is a wedge with traces of asphaltum (948.G.60). Sometime between 1920 to 1944, Mr. Franklin R. Johnston collected the cultural material from his campsite on an unknown site on San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, CA. Mr. Johnston donated the cultural material to the Southwest Museum in 1944.

A total of 15 lots of cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The 15 lots of unassociated funerary objects are one abalone shell, one lot of animal fur, one lot of shark teeth, four lots of shell beads, seven abalone shell bowl offerings, and one stone pendant. In 1936, Mr. H.L. Pogue collected cultural material from human and animal burials at Big Dog Cave Site (CA-SCLI-119) on San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, Channel Islands, CA. Mr. Pogue collected the cultural material when U.S.S. Pioneer was docked on San Clemente Island, he worked on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey team. Mr. Pogue (733.G Collection) donated the cultural material to the Southwest Museum in 1937.

A total of 33 lots of cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The 33 lots of sacred objects are one lot of asphaltum applicators, one basketry fragment, one boat effigy, one lot of boat effigy fragments, one burned basket fragment, one burned soaproot brush, two lots of comals, one cordage, one lot of dog hair, one doughnut stone fragment, one lot of animal fur, two hair ornaments, one manta fragment, one mortar fragment, two pestles, three plaques, nine lots of textile fragments, and three lots of water basket fragments. In 1936, Mr. H.L. Pogue collected cultural material from Big Dog Cave Site (CA-SCLI-119) on San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, Channel Islands, CA. Big Dog Cave (CA-SCLI-119) is a sacred/ceremonial/habitation site. Mr. Pogue collected the cultural material when U.S.S. Pioneer was docked on San Clemente Island during period of 1933 to 1934, he worked on the team of the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. Mr. Pogue (733.G Collection) donated the cultural material to the Southwest Museum in 1937.

A total of 10 lots of cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The 10 lots of sacred objects are three comal fragments, one lot of dog hair, one fishhook, one lot of fur possibly otter, one net weight, and three lots of Spanish textile fragments. Sometime between 1933 to 1934, Mr. C. Rife collected cultural material from Big Dog Cave (CA-SCLI-119) on San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, Channel Islands, CA. Big Dog Cave (CA-SCLI-119) is a sacred/ceremonial/habitation site. Mr. Rife collected the cultural material when U.S.S. Pioneer was docked on San Clemente Island during period of 1933 to 1934, he worked on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey team. Mr. Rife donated the cultural material to the Southwest Museum in 1936.

A total of two cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The two unassociated funerary objects are one steatite pelican stone (1.A.18) and one steatite plaque fragment (1.A.19). Sometime before the 1900s, Dr. Lorenzo G. Yates collected the cultural material from unknown sites on San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, Channel Islands, CA. Dr. Yates donated the cultural material to the Southwest Society, a precursor to the Southwest Museum in circa 1900.

A total of five cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The five unassociated funerary objects are two red abalone shells, one bag of matrix, one lot of modified steatite fragments, and one lot of shell and asphaltum fragments. Sometime before 1936, the museum conducted an expedition to San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, Channel Islands, CA. Per museum records, the cultural material (10.C.1A-E) was collected in the museums' early expedition days (either Southwest Society or after it became the Southwest Museum) to the island and were found together and sealed. Sometime in 1936, the shells enclosed with asphaltum were unsealed.

A total of 11 cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The 11 unassociated funerary objects are one gorget, one stone ring, three beads, one blade, one doughnut stone, one doughnut stone preform, one mortar, and two net weights. Sometime between 1877 to 1895, Dr. Frank M. Palmer (2.P Collection), first curator for the Southwest Society, a precursor to the Southwest Museum, collected cultural items from unknown sites on San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, Channel Islands, CA. Museum records state one gorget, one stone ring, three beads, one blade, one doughnut stone, and one doughnut stone preform came from unknown burials. While one mortar and two net weights were collected from the surface.

A total of two lots of cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The two lots of unassociated funerary objects are one sandstone pestle (18.C.144) and one lot of San Nicolas Island fox bones (18.C.400). The cultural material was found in the museum without an object number, with “San Nicolas Island” written on the bags. Museum records do not have when the items entered the Southwest Museum or by whom. However, evidence suggests that one of the many museum curators, Bruce Bryan, Charles Rozaire or George Kritzman, brought them into the museum.

A total of 27 lots of cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The 27 lots of unassociated funerary objects are one awl, one lot of blades, one charm, one chisel, one drill, two lots of faunal teeth, two lots of fishhook blanks, one fishhook gorge, one flaker, one harpoon, one knife, one modified shell tool, one modified stone fragment, one lot of net weights, one lot of pins, one pry, one lot of reamers, one lot of shell beads, two lots of shell ornaments, one side notched point, one stone disk, one stone pendant, one lot of unmodified abalone shells, and one lot of unmodified tower shells. Sometime between 1871 to 1919, Mr. John L. Von Blon collected cultural material from unknown sites on San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, Channel Islands, CA. Mr. Von Blon (45.L Collection) loaned the cultural material to the Southwest Museum in 1920.

A total of six lots of cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The six lots of unassociated funerary objects are three lots of abalone shell with asphaltum plugs, two lots of stone beads, and one fishhook blank. Sometime circa the 1900s, Mr. Edmond Leonard Doran (201.L Collection) collected cultural material from unknown sites on San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, Channel Islands, CA. His daughter Mrs. Margaret Doran Nix, donated her father's collection to the Southwest Museum in 1930.

A total of 130 lots of cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The 130 lots of unassociated funerary objects are one cup, one doughnut stone, one ladle, one nut anvil, one pry, one shell, one lot of shell ornaments, one awl fragment, one biface tool, one bone bead, one bone pendant fragment, two lots of bone tubes, one bowl fragment, one burned bone bead, one chisel, two disks, 10 doughnut stones, four doughnut stone preforms, four lots of drills, one effigy, 10 fishhook blanks, one fishhook blank debitage, four fishhook fragments, one fishhook preform, one gorget, one hammerstone, two harpoon point fragments, one incised stone fragment, one incised stone object, one ladle, one ladle fragment, one leaf point, one lid, one lot of modified bone implements, two modified stone fragments, five mortars, one net weight, one nut anvil, one paint cup, one pelican stone fragment, one pot lid, three pry's, five reamers, three shell beads, one shell bead debitage, two lots of shell bead preforms, 25 lots of shell ornaments, two lots of shell bead debitage, one lot of shell ornament preforms, seven lots of shell pendants, two stone beads, one stone object, one whistle, and one lot of stone pendant with stone beads. Sometime between the late 1870s to 1911, Mr. James Wesley Calkins (311.G and 5.C Collections) collected cultural material from unknown sites on San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, Channel Islands, CA. Mrs. Lily Belle Calkins Parsons donated her father's collection to the Southwest Museum in 1923.

A total of six lots of cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The six lots of unassociated funerary objects are four lots of inlaid stone tubes, one inlaid stone pipe, and one necklace. On unknown date(s), unknown collector(s) collected cultural material from unknown sites on San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, Channel Island, CA. The items were purchased by the Southwest Museum in 1959 at the Old Curiosity Shop located in Los Angeles, CA using the General Charles McC. Reeve Collection Fund (491.P Collection).

A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one unassociated funerary object is one sandstone mortar. Sometime between 1889 to 1907, either Mr. Arthur B. Chappelle or Mr. William H. Burnham (615.G Collection) collected the cultural material from an unknown site on San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, Channel Islands, CA. Mr. Burham purchased Mr. Chappelle's collection and donated their combined collection to the Southwest Museum in 1907. Museum records do not show which cultural material was collected by whom.

A total of eight lots of cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The eight lots of unassociated funerary objects are one contracting stem point fragment, one lot of drills, one net weight, one point, and four Vandenberg Contracting Stem Points. Sometime before 1906, Mr. Frederick Hastings Rindge (980.G Collection) collected cultural material from unknown sites on San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, Channel Islands, CA. Mrs. Rhonda Rindge Adamson donated her father's collection to the Southwest Museum in 1943.

A total of two cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The two unassociated funerary objects are one sandstone mortar (1691.G.5) and one sandstone pestle (1691.G.6). Sometime between 1879 to 1961, Mr. Lanier Bartlett collected the cultural materials from an unknown site on San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, Channel Islands, CA. Mrs. Jannie Belle Bartlett donated her husband's collection in his memory to the Southwest Museum in 1962.

A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one unassociated funerary object is a fishhook (1677.G.15). Circa 1885, Mrs. Hope Gans Lockley collected the cultural material from the surface of an unknown site on San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, Channel Islands, CA. Her daughter-in-law, Mrs. Phyllis Lockley, donated her husband's collection to the Southwest Museum in 1961 in his memory.

A total of two cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The two unassociated funerary objects are one fishhook (4042.G.35) and one fishhook gorge (4050.G.14). On an unknown date, an unknown collector collected the cultural material from unknown site(s) on San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, Channel Islands, CA. Mr. Hubert H. Weiser donated the cultural material to the Southwest Museum in 1986. Mr. Weiser had purchased the items from Mr. Anthony J. Krechel antiques store in Montrose, CA in 1962.

A total of 824 lots of cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The 824 lots of unassociated funerary objects are one abalone shell bowl with offering, one abalone shell fragment with asphaltum, two abalone shells with asphaltum, seven anvils, four asphaltum applicators, 10 lots of asphaltum basketry impressions, one lot of asphaltum fragments, one atlatl spur, 10 awls, one dual use awl/bone pendant, 18 bifaces, eight lots of blades, three bone beads, two bone tubes, one lot of bone tube beads preforms, one dual use bone tube/perforator, three lots of bowl fragments, seven lots of burned and unburned faunal bone fragments, one lot of burned awl fragments, one burned chisel/pry fragment, one burned faunal bone fragment, five burned faunal bone tool fragments, one burned faunal jaw fragment, one burned fishhook fragment, six burned pry fragments, one burned scraper, one burned shell bead, one lot of burned whistle fragments, one caliche with asphaltum, 13 lots of charcoal mixed with other material, one charm stone, three chisel/pry's, one lot of hair pins mixed with chisel/pry's, 39 choppers, two dual use chopper/hammerstones, one contracting stemmed point, four coral fragments, two dual use core/hammerstones, 24 lots of cores, two debitage, 10 lots of doughnut stones, four lots of doughnut stone preforms, two drills, three effigy fragments, one fire affected chopper, 95 lots of fishhooks and fragments, 19 fishhook blanks, three fishhook debitage, 12 lots of fishhook gorges, one lot of fishhook flakes, three fishhook preform fragments, two lots of fishhook preforms, 12 lots of flakes, seven flakers, one fossilized/burned modified faunal bone fragment, one gouge, three gravers, two grinding slabs, one grinding stone fragment, six ground stones, seven hair pins, 27 hammerstones, one lump of iron, two knapping debitage, four lots of knives, one ladle handle, two leaf points, 16 lots of manos, one lot of matrix, one maul, two metates, one lot of modified and unmodified faunal bone fragments, three modified faunal bones, three modified faunal bone tools, seven lots of modified quartz flakes, two modified sandstone fragments, one lot of mixed modified and unmodified shell and faunal fragments, one modified shell blank, two modified shell fragments, two modified steatite fragments, five modified stones, six mortars, one mortar preform, two needle fragments, 12 lots of net weights, one lot of orca effigies, one paint mortar, one palette fragment, one perforated stone, five perforator fragments, 19 lots of pestles, four pestle preforms, 17 picks, one pin, two lots of point fragments, one lot of point fragments with other lithic tools, one point preform fragment, one preform, 22 pry's, two dual use pry/asphaltum applicators, one lot of pseudomorphs, one quarry material, one quartz flake, one reamer, one retouched point, two reused modified shell blanks, two root casts, 15 lots of scrapers, 16 lots of scraper planes, one lots of loose seagrass fragments, three lots of seagrass bundles, two lots of seagrass cordage and material, seven lots of seagrass cordage and woven fragments, 27 lots of seagrass cordage fragments, 10 lots of seagrass knotted cordage fragments, four lots of seagrass matting and matrix, one lot of seagrass matting with asphaltum fragments, four lots of seagrass matting and cordage fragments, 11 lots of seagrass matting fragments, 10 lots of seagrass woven fragments, 26 lots of shell beads, one shell bead preform, one lot of shell beads with asphaltum fragments, one shell blank, four shell ornaments, one shell ornament preform, seven lots of shell pendants, one lot of shell type collection, one side notched point, four side scrapers, one lot of steatite bowl fragments, two stemmed points, one stone bead, one stone ornament, three stone pendants, one sweat scraper fragment, 12 lots of tarring pebbles, four thumbnail scrapers, two unifacially flaked stone tools, eight lots of unmodified chiton shell plates, two unmodified cone snail shells, one lot of unmodified faunal bone and shell fragments, 28 lots of unmodified faunal bones, two unmodified limpet shells, two unmodified otolith bones, four lots of unmodified shells, one unmodified stone, two utilized flakes, one Vandenberg Contracting Stem point, three wedges, one whale effigy fragment, and three whistles. Between the years of 1958 to 1960 the Southwest Museum conducted their own expeditions to San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, Channel Islands, CA. The expeditions were conducted under field staff Mr. Bruce Bryan, and assistant curator Dr. Charles E. Rozaire of the Southwest Museum. They collected from the following 43 sites: SNI-4, SNI-5, SNI-6, SNI-7, SNI-8, SNI-9, SNI-10, SNI-11, SNI-12, SNI-13, SNI-14, SNI-15, SNI-16, SNI-18, SNI-21, SNI-25, SNI-38, SNI-39, SNI-40, SNI-41, SNI-47, SNI-50, SNI-51, SNI-52, SNI-53, SNI-55, SNI-57, SNI-58, SNI-59, SNI-62, SNI-70, SNI-79, SNI-84, SNI-85, SNI-88, SNI-90, SNI-91, SNI-92, SNI-94, SNI-97, SNI-97, SNI-99, and SNI-119. Additionally, some cultural material is marked as coming from the island, but site number is unknown. The cultural material entered the Southwest Museum the same year they were collected but wasn't formally accessioned until 2004 and given a 28.F accession number.

A total of three lots of cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The three lots of sacred objects are three lots of ochre. Between the years of 1958 to 1960 the Southwest Museum conducted their own expeditions to San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, Channel Islands, CA. The expeditions were conducted under field staff Mr. Bruce Bryan, and assistant curator Dr. Charles E. Rozaire of the Southwest Museum. The 3 lots of ochre (28.F.43A-C) were collected from site CA-SNI-38. The cultural material entered the Southwest Museum the same year they were collected but wasn't formally accessioned until 2004 and given a 28.F accession number.

A total of 1,773 lots of cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The 1,773 lots of unassociated funerary objects are one China cup fragment, three Coastal Contracting Stem Cluster points, one Diablo Canyon Side Notched point fragment, one abalone scoop, two abalone shell containers, five lots of abalone shell with asphaltum, seven abraders, eight anvils, one asphaltum applicator, three lots of asphaltum basketry impressions, eight asphaltum lumps, two atlatl spurs, 29 lots of awls, one lot of mixed awls/chisels/hair pins/perforators, one lot of mixed awls/pry's/chisels, six bifaces, 12 lots of blades, one blade preform, one blunt bone point fragment, one boat effigy, five bone beads, one bone bead blank, two bone ornaments, one bone pendant debitage, one borer, one bowl, 26 lots of bowl fragments, one bowl preform fragment, two bullet casing, five blunts, one lot of burned and unburned fishhook blanks, one lot of burned and unburned shell beads, three burned awls, seven burned chisel/pry fragments, one burned fishhook fragment, one burned flaker fragment, five burned modified faunal bone fragments, one burned perforator fragment, eight burned pry fragments, two burned shell beads, one burned wedge, one canoe effigy fragment, one champagne bottle, five Chinese jug fragments, 12 lots of chisels, one dual use chisel/asphaltum applicator, three chisel/pry fragments, 10 choppers, one cobble mortar, five comal fragments, one composite fishhook fragment, two concretions, eight contracting stemmed points, 14 cores, six crockery fragments, three dart point fragments, five lots of debitage, three possible digging stick fragments, 27 lots of doughnut stones, 18 lots of doughnut stone preforms, five drills, one dual use drill/blade, two lots of eel grass matting fragments, one end scraper, one file, one fire affected rock, two fish effigies, nine lots of fishhooks, 146 lots of fishhook fragments, two fishhook barbs, 192 lots of fishhook blanks, 10 lots of fishhook preforms, two fishhook blanks debitage, one fishhook composite shank, one lot of fishhook fragments and preforms, 24 lots of fishhook gorges, one fishing spool, two flakes, one flake scraper, 53 flakers, one lot of mixed flakers with awls and hairpins, one fossilized unmodified shark tooth fragment, one lot of mixed chisels with pry's and wedges, two glass fragments, eight lots of gorgets, 40 lots of gouges, nine gravers, one grinding stone, two grooved stones, two ground stones, 24 lots of hair pins, nine hammerstones, one dual use hammerstone/anvil, one dual use hammerstone/pecking stone, three harpoon barbs, two harpoon parts, five lots of harpoon point fragments, 26 historic glass fragments, one hoe, two lots of San Nicolas Island fox bones, 34 knives, one lanceolate point, one lap stone fragment, eight leaf points, three leaf point preforms, eight manos, one dual use mano/anvil, one metal button, one microdrill, one miniature mortar, one modem butchered bone, three lots of modified and unmodified steatite fragments, 21 modified faunal bone fragments, one modified ground stone fragment, one modified quartz, one modified quartz crystal, one modified shell fragment, six modified steatite fragments, seven modified stone fragments, one modified whale bone, 16 mortars and fragments, three mortar preforms, 10 lots of metal nails, one needle, eight net weights, two net weights preforms, one dual use net weight/hammerstone, three paint mortar fragments, two paint mortars, two pecked stones, three pelican stones, one pendant blank, three perforated stones, six lots of perforators, 24 pestles, four pestle preforms, two dual use pestle/choppers, 14 picks, five lots of pins, one pipe, six pipe fragments, one pipe preform fragment, two plaques fragments, one point blank, 68 lots of points and fragments, five point preforms, five polishing stones, five porcelain dish fragments, one pounder, 103 pry's, three raw material-calcite, three raw material-chert, one raw material-jasper, two raw material-petrified wood, one raw material-serpentine, one raw material-steatite, one raw material-Sulphur, 19 reamers, two retouched points, one reused shell bead, one rivet washer, three rods, one scoop, 60 lots of scrapers, eight scraper plans, two dual use scraper/choppers, one seagrass cordage fragment, one lot of seagrass cordage with woven fragments and a fishhook, five lots of seagrass woven matting fragments, one sharpening stone, 63 lots of shell beads, four shell bead blanks, one lot of shell beads and shell bead discard, one lot of shell beads and shell blanks, 33 lots of shell ornaments, four shell ornament blanks, 51 shell pendants, five lots of shell pendant blanks, one historic shoe sole, one side notched point, six side scrapers, two smoothing stones, one spatula, eight spear points, 14 lots of stone beads, seven stone bead blanks, one stone ornament, 13 stone pendants, three stone pendant blanks, four stone pipe fragments, two stone tube fragments, one whistle made of stone, 18 stoneware dish fragments, three stoneware jug fragments, 11 lots of sweat scrapers, one lot of sweat scrapers and hair pin fragments, two lots of tarring pebbles, three thumbnail scrapers, one triangular point, one uniface, 14 lots of unmodified faunal bones and teeth fragments, two unmodified limpet shells, six lots of unmodified otolith bones, two unmodified purple hinge pectan shells, one unmodified shark tooth fragment, six lots of unmodified shells, 10 unmodified steatite fragments, three unmodified stones, one unmodified tusk fragment, two lots of unmodified whale ear bones, one unmodified whale rib fragment, one utilized flake, two water worn shell fragments, 17 wedges, 17 whistles, and one whistle preform. Between the years of 1976 to 1984, George Kritzman conducted an archaeological surface reconnaissance on San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, Channel Islands, CA. The cultural material was collected from a numerous sites: CA-SNI-1, SNI-5, SNI-7, SNI-8, SNI-9, SNI-10, SNI-11, SNI-12, SNI-13, SNI-15, SNI-16, SNI-18, SNI-21, SNI-22, SNI-23, SNI-25, SNI-38, SNI-39, SNI-40, SNI-41, SNI-51, SNI-53, SNI-54, SNI-55, SNI-56, SNI-62, SNI-65, SNI-72, SNI-79, SNI-80, SNI-81, SNI-102, SNI-105, SNI-112, SNI-113, SNI-114, SNI-116, SNI-117, SNI-119, SNI-135, SNI-136, SNI-137, SNI-138, SNI-140, SNI-141, SNI-142, SNI-145, SNI-149, SNI-150, SNI-154, SNI-159, SNI-160, SNI-161, SNI-173, SNI-186, SNI-187, SNI-188, SNI-192, SNI-193, SNI-214, SNI-223, SNI-235, SNI-240, SNI-303, and Dutch Harbor. There is also cultural material that have a general place collected of San Nicolas Island as site number is unknown. George Kritzman is the main collector, but other collectors include Dr. Fred M. Reinman, Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command, and Mr. Lou Zitnick from San Nicolas Island Public Works. The cultural materials (3030.G Collection) were donated to the Southwest Museum by Mr. Kritzman in 1985.

A total of 11 lots of cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The 11 lots of sacred objects are 11 lots of ochre. Between the years of 1976 to 1984, George Kritzman conducted an archaeological surface reconnaissance on San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, Channel Islands, CA. The ochre was collected from sites CA-SNI-7, SNI-18, SNI-21, SNI-25, SNI-117, SNI-137, SNI-138, SNI-214, as well as unknown sites. Collectors are Mr. George Kritzman of the Southwest Museum as well as Mr. Lou Zitnick who worked in public works on the island. Mr. Kritzman donated the cultural material to the Southwest Museum in 1985.

A total of three cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The three objects of sacred objects/objects of cultural patrimony are two petroglyphs (10.C.75; 13.C.3) and one replica of a petroglyph on plaster (19.C.1244). The two sandstone petroglyphs come from the sacred site of Cave of Whales (CA-SNI-144) on San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, CA. The smaller and lower panel (10.C.75) was collected in 1962 by the US Navy and presented to the Southwest Museum for exhibition the same year. The larger and top panel (13.C.3) fell sometime between 1962 and 1976. The panel was first stored at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County before it was transferred to the Southwest Museum in 1987.

A total of three lots of cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The three lots of unassociated funerary objects are one lot of a seagrass skirt with asphaltum weights, one lot of seagrass cordage fragments, and one lot of seagrass apron fragments. In the 1930s, Mr. Howard Arden Edwards of the Antelope Valley Indian Museum, collected the cultural material from unknown sites on San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, Channel Islands, CA. Mr. Edwards also worked at the Southwest Museum as preparator. The cultural materials entered the Southwest Museum in 1954 as part of a research exchange (24.X Collection) between the two museums.

A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one unassociated funerary object is one boat effigy (149.G.96). Sometime between 1939 to 1946, Miss Rose Dougan collected the cultural material from child's burial from an unknown site on San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, Channel Islands, CA. Miss Dougan donated the cultural material to the Southwest Museum in 1946.

A total of 54 lots of cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The 54 lots of unassociated funerary objects are 11 awls, one Channel Islands Barbed point, six chisel/pry's, one Coastal Contracting Stem Cluster point, one lot of doughnut stones, three fishhooks, one lot of fishhook barbs, two fishhook blanks, one gorget, one hair pin, one hammerstone, one leaf point, one mortar, two net weights, two perforated stones, four points, two reamers, two scrapers, three shell ornaments, four lots of shell pendants, one stone ring fragment, one vessel, one whistle, and one winged crescent knife. In the 1930, Mrs. Agee, Island occupant, and Mr. Clifford Park Baldwin collected cultural material from unknown sites on San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, Channel Islands, CA. Mr. Baldwin purchased Mrs. Agee's collection, and together with cultural material he collected, donated the cultural material (534.G Collection) to the Southwest Museum in 1932 and 1935.

A total of seven cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The seven unassociated funerary objects are one bone bead, one bowl fragment, one doughnut stone, one modified faunal bone fragment, one net weight, one reamer, and one tarring pebble. Sometime between 1920 to 1944, Mr. Franklin R. Johnston collected cultural material from his campsite on an unknown location on San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, Channel Islands, CA. Mr. Johnston (948.G Collection) donated the cultural material to the Southwest Museum in 1944.

A total of 20 cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The 20 unassociated funerary objects are 20 shell ornaments (1059.G.2A-4J). In 1929, Mr. Arthur R. Sanger as part of the Los Angeles County Museum Expedition to the islands, collected the cultural material from Corral Harbor on San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, Channel Islands, CA. Mr. Sanger donated the cultural material to the Southwest Museum in 1946.

A total of one lot of cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The one lot of unassociated funerary objects is one lot of seagrass matting fragments (1349.G.1). In the 1930s, Mr. Howard Arden Edwards, and Mr. Agee (island occupant) collected the cultural material for the Antelope Valley Indian Museum. In 1940, Mr. Edwards donated the cultural material to the Southwest Museum.

A total of 27 lots of cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The 27 lots of unassociated funerary objects are six lots of basketry impressions and matrix, two fishhooks, 16 fishhook blanks, one hair pin, one potsherd, and one lot of soil samples. In 1927, Mr. George Kritzman collected cultural materials from CA-SNI-11, SNI-18, and SNI-54 as part of his reconnaissance to San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, Channel Islands, CA. Mr. Kritzman donated the cultural material (2300.G Collection) to the Southwest Museum in 1982.

A total of two cultural items has been requested for repatriation. The two unassociated funerary objects are one mortar preform (2399.G.1) and one pestle preform (2399.G.2). Sometime between the 1976 to 1984, George Kritzman conducted an archaeological surface reconnaissance on San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, Channel Islands, CA. Museum records do not which site these two cultural materials are from. Mr. Kritzman donated the cultural material to the Southwest Museum in 1985.

The Navy and the Autry Museum of the American West have determined that:

• The 3,017 lots of 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 80 lots of sacred objects described in this notice are specific ceremonial objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization.

• The three sacred objects/objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice are, 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 La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians, California; Pala Band of Mission Indians; Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma &Yuima Reservation, California; Pechanga Band of Indians (previously listed as Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation, California); Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians (previously listed as Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of Rincon Reservation, California); Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California; and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, California.

Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by 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 cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after August 7, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Navy and the Autry Museum of the American West 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 Navy and the Autry Museum of the American West is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3004 and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.9.

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 San Bernardino County 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 39 cultural items have been requested for repatriation.

The one lot of objects of cultural patrimony are lithics. SBCM-109 (Kern County, trinomial unknown), Randsburg Mormon Wells, was collected and reported on by Dee Simpson (San Bernadino County Archaeologist) on March 25, 1978 The objects were first recorded on 6/16/1989 by Carol Rector (SBCM).

The one lot of objects of cultural patrimony are lithics. SBCM-263 (Kern County, trinomial unknown), Willow Springs, was collected by the Archaeological Survey Association (ASA) at an unknown date. The objects were first recorded in June 1964 by J. Smith.

The five lots of objects of cultural patrimony are one lot of lithics, one lot of groundstone, one lot of unworked faunal bone, one lot of ecofacts, and one lot of charcoal. SBCM-272 (Kern County, trinomial unknown), Oak Creek Cave at California Portland Cement was first recorded and mapped on June 1964.

The one lot of objects of cultural patrimony is one lot of lithics. SBCM-273 (Kern County, trinomial unknown), Oak Creek at California Portland Cement was first recorded and mapped on June 1964.

The four lots of objects of cultural patrimony is one lot of ceramics, one lot of lithics, one lot of unworked faunal bone, one lot of historics. SBCM-274 (Kern County, trinomial unknown), Oak Creek Spring at California Portland Cement was first recorded and mapped on June 1964.

The one lot of objects of cultural patrimony is one lot of lithics. SBCM-432 (Kern County, trinomial unknown), Desert Butte, north of Edwards Air Forse Base was recorded at an unknown date.

The one lot of objects of cultural patrimony is one lot of ceramics. SBCM-478 (CA-KER-221, Southwest Museum Number/ASA 39-S), Phillips Ranch Site in Sand Canyon was recorded by Gordon Redfeldt and excavated from 1954 to 2956 by the Archaeological Survey Association of Southern California.

The one lot of objects of cultural patrimony is one lot of lithics. SBCM-488 (Kern County, trinomial unknown), Cantil A, B, C, was recorded on May 31, 1950.

The seven lots of objects of cultural patrimony is one lot of ceramics, one lot of lithics, one lot of unworked shell, one lot of unworked faunal bone, one lot of worked faunal bone, one lot of ecofacts, and one lot of charcoal. SBCM-546 (Kern County, trinomial unknown), Horse Thief Canyon was recorded by Stuart Peck (ASA) in 1941, 1947, and 1950.

The five lots of objects of cultural patrimony is one lot of ceramics, one lot of lithics, one lot of groundstone, one lot of worked shell, one lot of unworked faunal bone. SBCM-1090 (Kern County, trinomial unknown) San Canyon, Tehachapi have no further documentation regarding excavation. The objects were recorded by J. Perry on February 11, 1988.

The one lot of objects of cultural patrimony is one lot of lithics. SBCM-1098 (Kern County, trinomial unknown) Freeman Gulch surveyed and recorded by R.E. Reynolds in February 1969. The objects were recorded by J. Perry on February 11, 1988.

The two lots of objects of cultural patrimony is one lot of lithics and one lot of groundstone. SBCM-1125 (Kern County, trinomial unknown, ASA 49-S) Horse Canyon was visited by an ASA field trip from March 15-17, 1947 to do “survey and reconnaissance.” It was later recorded by Gerald Smith on 5/11/1974. The objects were recorded by C. Beekman at an unknown date.

The one lot of objects of cultural patrimony is one lot of lithics. SBCM-2221 (Kern County, trinomial unknown) Boron Buttes #1 was recorded by Gerald Smith in March 1973. The objects were recorded by C. Beekman at an unknown date.

The one lot of objects of cultural patrimony is one lot of lithics. SBCM-2789 (Kern County, CA-SBR-3208, ASA #4-S) Willow Spring was recorded by L. Eckhardt on July 20, 1978. The objects were recorded in April 7, 1988.

The one lot of objects of cultural patrimony is one lot of lithics. SBCM-5697 (CA-KER-385) Kern River Pipeline, UNLV was inventoried and evaluated by ASM Affiliated, Inc in October 1997 for Catellus Development Corporation.

The two lot of objects of cultural patrimony is one lot of lithics and one lot of historics. SBCM-5780 (CA-KER-385H) Kern River Pipeline, UNLV was inventoried and evaluated by ASM Affiliated, Inc in October 1997 for Catellus Development Corporation.

The one lot of objects of cultural patrimony is one lot of lithics. SBCM-5877 (Kern County, trinomial unknown) House Creek Canyon (McCown Collection) was excavated and recorded by Benjamin McCown on February 15, 1947.

The one lot of objects of cultural patrimony is one lot of lithics. SBCM-5916 (Kern County, trinomial unknown) Indian Wells Valley (McCown) was excavated and recorded by Benjamin McCown on May 21, 1949.

The one lot of objects of cultural patrimony is one lot of lithics. SBCM-5943(Kern County, trinomial unknown) Red Rock Canyon was excavated by Benjamin McCown at an unknown date.

The one lot of objects of cultural patrimony is one lot of lithics. SBCM-6298 (Kern County, trinomial unknown) Cache Creek was excavated and recorded by Benjamin McCown on February 15, 1947 and April 4, 1947, respectively.

San Bernardino County Museum has determined that:

• The 39 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 ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by 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 cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after August 7, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, San Bernardino County 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. San Bernardino County 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.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3004 and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.9.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the PMAE, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one object of cultural patrimony is one lot of basket bags from Kern County, California that was donated to the Peabody Museum by Lewis Farlow in 1903.

The PMAE has determined that:

• The one object of cultural patrimony described in this notice has ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

• There is a connection between the cultural item described in this notice and the 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 ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by 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 cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after August 7, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the PMAE must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The PMAE is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3004 and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.9.

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 Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. In 1972, personnel from the Arizona State Museum recorded a Mogollon ceramic and lithic scatter in Arizona's San Simon Valley as part of the TG&E Clifton-Vail Survey project. The site, designated AZ CC:10:3(ASM), was assigned to the Mogollon archaeological tradition based on ceramics identified during the survey. In 2010, ancestral remains were located among the survey collections associated with the project.

Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains described in this notice.

The Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, 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 Hopi Tribe of Arizona and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

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 August 7, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, 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 Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the University of California, Berkeley, 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.

In 1907 and 1938, the University of California Museum of Anthropology (today the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology) accessioned 36 lots of objects of cultural patrimony removed from the area of Indian Wells, Riverside County, CA and represented in museum records as CA-RIV-64. The objects of cultural patrimony include worked stone, faunal remains, and ceramic fragments.

Collections and collection spaces at the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology were treated with substances for preservation and pest control, some potentially hazardous. No records have been found to date at the Museum to indicate whether or not chemicals or natural substances were used prior to 1960.

The University of California, Berkeley has determined that:

• The 36 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 reasonable connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation, California.

Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by 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 cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after August 7, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of California, Berkeley 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 University of California, Berkeley 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.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3004 and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.9.

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 Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, four individuals have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. On an unknown date, a private citizen recovered ancestral remains from an unidentified location in southern Arizona, likely in the vicinity of Tucson. ASM received the remains in 2000 and assigned them the designation AZ 2000-295. No additional provenience information is available.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. The 17 associated funerary objects include a ceramic jar, a ceramic bowl, and ceramic sherds. On a date prior to 1950, a private citizen removed a cremation vessel housing ancestral remains from an unrecorded location in southern Arizona. The vessel and accompanying bowl are identified as Hohokam Classic period ceramics. In 1996, ASM received the ancestral remains and associated funerary objects, designated AZ 96-267, from a descendant of the collector through the Museum of Northern Arizona.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. On an unknown date, AZ AA:12:409(ASM), a Hohokam Classic period compound at the base of the Tortolita Mountains, was surface collected as part of the Northern Tucson Basin Survey project. The resulting collections were subsequently transferred to the ASM Repository under a curation agreement. During a review of the bulk survey collections in June 2010, ancestral remains were identified among the materials from this site.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. In March 2006, Statistical Research, Inc. excavated AZ BB:13:17(ASM), a Hohokam village site situated on the terrace and floodplain of the Santa Cruz River, as part of the Julian Wash Data Recovery project. Collections from the project were transferred to ASM under a repository agreement on October 24, 2012. During a 2022 review of the project's bulk collections, ancestral remains were identified among the curated materials.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Between December 1970 and May 1971, the Arizona State Museum Highway Salvage Program excavated AZ BB:6:6(ASM), a small Hohokam Pre-Classic period hamlet in the lower San Pedro Valley, as part of the Peppersauce Wash Project. In 1974, the project collections were transferred to ASM under a curation agreement.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, 56 individuals have been reasonably identified. The 61 associated funerary objects include a bone artifact, a bone awl, ceramic figurine fragments, ceramic bowls, ceramic jars, ceramic scoops, ceramic sherds, lithic flaked stone, lithic projectile points, lithic core, a stone palette, a shell fragment, a shell ring fragment, shell beads, red ochre. Between December 1970 and May 1971, personnel from the Arizona State Museum excavated AZ BB:6:9(ASM) as part of the Peppersauce Wash Project in the lower San Pedro River Valley. The site is a large residential settlement dating to the Hohokam Preclassic period. In 1974, the project collections were transferred to the Arizona State Museum under a curation agreement.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. The one associated funerary object is a ceramic jar. Prior to 1917, a private citizen affiliated with the Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society (AAHS) removed a cremation vessel containing ancestral remains from the Salt-Gila River Basin in Maricopa County, Arizona. In May 1917, AAHS transferred the ancestral remains and associated funerary object to the Arizona State Museum, where they were assigned the designation AZ Cremation 13.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. The one associated funerary object is a ceramic jar. Prior to May 18, 1967, the Arizona State Museum received ancestral remains housed within a Salado cremation vessel from an unknown source and unrecorded provenience. In 2009, the ancestral remains and associated funerary item were identified in the museum during an inventory of collections and assigned the designation AZ Cremation 25.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. The one associated funerary object is a ceramic jar. Prior to January 14, 1944, the Arizona State Museum received ancestral remains and an associated funerary object from E.B. “Ted” Sayles, designated AZ Cremation 29. No provenience information is recorded in the archives; however, the associated funerary object is identified as Hohokam Salt River redware, suggesting a south-central Arizona origin.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, six individuals have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Between 1968 and 1975, Cochise College, under the direction of Richard Myers, excavated AZ FF:7:13(ASM) on the west side of Walnut Canyon Creek in Cochise County, Arizona. Following completion of the excavations, collections were curated by the Cochise County Historical and Archaeological Society. In 1972, Myers loaned ancestral remains and faunal materials to the Arizona State Museum for identification and documentation; all materials were returned to him in 1985. At a later, unknown date, ancestral remains from this site were identified within faunal collections.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. The one associated funerary object is a ceramic jar. Prior to 1917, a private citizen affiliated with the Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society (AAHS) removed a cremation vessel containing ancestral remains from the Gila Valley in Maricopa County, Arizona. In May 1917, AAHS transferred the ancestral remains and accompanying associated funerary object to the Arizona State Museum, where they were assigned the designation AZ Gila Valley. In March 1954, the ancestral remains were transferred to the University of Arkansas Museum as part of an exchange. In 2012, the ancestral remains were returned to the Arizona State Museum and reunited with their associated funerary belonging. The jar is identified as Hohokam Sacaton Red-on-buff.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. The 25 associated funerary objects include ceramic sherds, flaked stone, and a projectile point. In 2009, ancestral remains designated AZ ML-88-0944 were identified within collections at the Arizona State Museum. Based on the presence of Hohokam Classic period ceramics among the associated funerary objects, the remains and items are believed to originate from a southern Arizona location.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. The two associated funerary objects are a ceramic jar and a fragment of modified shell. Prior to January 1944, the Arizona State Museum received ancestral remains and an associated funerary object, designated Cremation 44, from an unknown source and unrecorded provenience. The associated funerary object, a Gila Redware jar, suggests that the remains and object originated in central to southern Arizona.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. The one associated funerary object is a ceramic jar. Prior to 1956, the Arizona State Museum received ancestral remains and an associated funerary object, designated Cremation 30, from an unknown source and unrecorded provenience. The associated funerary object, a Hohokam Gila Plainware jar, suggests that the remains and object originated in central to southern Arizona.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, three individuals have been reasonably identified. The 11 associated funerary objects include a ceramic jar, faunal bone, shell fragments, ceramic fragments, and wood fragments. In 1993, the Arizona State Museum received, through a bequest, ancestral remains and associated funerary objects collected by a private citizen from an unrecorded location. The Hohokam Gila Plainware jar housing the remains and other cultural items suggests an origin in central to southern Arizona.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been reasonably identified. The seven associated funerary objects include a ceramic jar, faunal bone, and ceramic sherds. On an unknown date, the Arizona State Museum received ancestral remains and associated funerary objects designated Cremation 55. No source or provenience information is documented in archive records. Based on the Hohokam Gila Plainware vessel, it is believed the ancestral remains and associated funerary objects originate from a central to southern Arizona location.

Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. The two associated funerary objects are a ceramic jar and one lot of shell beads. In July 1940, a private citizen removed a cremation vessel containing ancestral remains from the Babocomari River area of southeastern Arizona. The Arizona State Museum received the ancestral remains and associated funerary objects through a bequest in 1969.

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 Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, has determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 84 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• The 130 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Ak-Chin Indian Community; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; 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 this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after August 7, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, 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 Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

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 Denver Art Museum and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

The five associated funerary objects are pottery sherds. In 1906, five ceramic sherds (1934.116-1934.120) were removed from Jefferson Co., NY by Mark Raymond Harrington and Iwin Hayden during Harvard Peabody Museum excavations. These objects were recovered from the Heath Farm site near Rodman and were exchanged with the Denver Art Museum in 1934. Museum records indicate these objects were recovered along with human remains, and the Peabody Museum reported these individuals and funerary objects, including sherds, in a Notice of Inventory Completion published in the Federal Register on October 5, 2001 (66 FR 51060). After consultations, the Peabody Museum found that the objects from the Heath Farm Site were culturally affiliated with the Oneida Indian Nation, Oneida Nation, and Onondaga Nation. Per a Notice of Intended Repatriation published in the Federal Register by the Peabody Museum on June 17, 2024 (89 FR 51360), objects in the Peabody collection were repatriated to the Onondaga Nation in 2024. There are no known hazardous substances used to treat the 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 Denver Art Museum has determined that:

• The five objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• There is a connection between the associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Oneida Indian Nation; Oneida Nation; and the Onondaga Nation.

Written requests for repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

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 August 7, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Denver Art Museum 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 Denver Art Museum 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.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

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 Denver Art Museum and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

The three associated funerary objects are pottery sherds. In 1903, three ceramic sherds (1934.121-1934.123) were removed from the Silverheels Site on the Cattaraugus Reservation in Erie Co., NY. These objects were recovered by Mark Raymond Harrington and Arthur Caswell Parker during Harvard Peabody Museum excavations near the town of Brant and were later exchanged with the Denver Art Museum in 1934. Museum records indicate no human remains were recovered with these specific objects, but human remains were recovered from the Silverheels Site along with ceramic sherds classified as funerary objects by the Peabody Museum. Historical and geographical information indicate that these objects are from areas considered to be the aboriginal homelands and traditional burial grounds of the Haudenosaunee. The present-day Indian Tribes who represent the Haudenosaunee are the Cayuga Nation; Oneida Indian Nation; Oneida Nation; Onondaga Nation; Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe; Seneca Nation of Indians; Seneca-Cayuga Nation; Tonawanda Band of Seneca; and the Tuscarora Nation. There are no known hazardous materials used to treat any of the objects.

Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the associated funerary objects described in this notice.

The Denver Art Museum has determined that:

• The three 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 Cayuga Nation; Oneida Indian Nation; Oneida Nation; Onondaga Nation; Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe; Seneca Nation of Indians; Seneca-Cayuga Nation; Tonawanda Band of Seneca; and the Tuscarora Nation.

Written requests for repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

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 August 7, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Denver Art Museum 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 Denver Art Museum 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.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

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 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. The one associated funerary object is one lot of a ceramic vessel. Howard F. Gilson removed these ancestors and funerary belonging from an unknown location in “eastern Tennessee” in 1875, and Alden P. Gilson donated them to the Peabody Museum in 1947.

Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. The ancestral remains were previously in the possession of the PMAE but are currently not located. The seven associated funerary objects are seven lots of stone tools and projectile points. The ancestral remains and associated funerary objects were removed from a cave or rock shelter in Sullivan County, TN, by John W. Emmert in 1883 as part of a Peabody Museum expedition.

Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. The four associated funerary objects are four lots of stone tools and stone items. The ancestral remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Wasson Mound (40SL10) in Sullivan County, TN, by John W. Emmert in 1890 as part of a Peabody Museum expedition.

Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. The five associated funerary objects are five lots of stone tools, stone items, projectile points, and copper beads. The ancestral remains and associated funerary objects were removed from “stone graves” in Sullivan County, TN, by John W. Emmert in 1892 and donated to the PMAE the same year.

Associated funerary objects representing 22 cultural items have been identified. The 22 associated funerary objects are 22 lots of ceramic items, stone items, stone tools, groundstone, stone pipes, projectile points, shell beads, and faunal remains. The associated funerary objects were removed from a cave or rock house in Sullivan County, TN, by John W. Emmert in 1883 as part of a Peabody Museum expedition.

Associated funerary objects representing seven cultural items have been identified. The seven associated funerary objects are seven lots of stone tools, projectile points, stone items, and shell items, including beads. The associated funerary objects were removed from Odell Mound in Sullivan County, TN, by John W. Emmert in 1892 and donated to the PMAE the same year.

Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.

The PMAE has determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 13 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• The 46 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

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 August 7, 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 and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The PMAE is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and any other consulting parties.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the PMAE and CHoM, Harvard 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, two individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The remains of the individuals were found in the Warren Anatomical Museum collection, and their housing suggested they are from the Hawaiian Islands.

Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the information available about the human remains described in this notice.

The PMAE and CHoM have determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.

• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Hui Iwi Kuamo'o.

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

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 August 7, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the PMAE and CHoM 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 and CHoM are responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of UWO, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

In the 1980s, human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Fox Tower site (47-WN-0258), Winnebago County, WI by both UWO faculty and private collectors, and later donated to the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh (UWO). In June 2022, UWO published a Notice of Inventory Completion describing the human remains and a portion of the associated funerary objects and completed the repatriation process to the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska. Additional consultation with affiliated Tribes in 2026 determined that all materials from the surface of the site should be considered as associated funerary objects, since the site itself was significantly disturbed by plowing and those items may have been part of a burial. The five associated funerary objects are one lot of lithics, one lot of faunal material, one lot of post-contact ceramics, one lot of glass, and one lot of post-contact metal.

Between 1966 and before 1972, human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Hoffman Site (47-WN-0132), Winnebago County, WI by different private collectors and donated to the UWO. In June 2022, UWO published a Notice of Inventory Completion describing the human remains and a portion of the associated funerary objects and completed the repatriation process to the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska. Additional consultation with affiliated Tribes in 2026 determined that all materials from the surface of the site should be considered as associated funerary objects, since the site itself was significantly disturbed by plowing and those items may have been part of a burial. The 11 associated funerary objects are two lots of lithics, two lots of pre-contact ceramics, two lots of faunal material, two lots of post-contact ceramics, one lot of glass, one lot of post-contact metal, and one lot of unknown material.

Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the associated funerary objects described in this notice.

UWO has determined that:

• The 16 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• There is a connection between the associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; 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 Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi (previously listed as Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan); Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan; Oglala Sioux Tribe; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska; and the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.

Written requests for repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

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 August 7, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, UWO must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. UWO is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and any other consulting parties.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the PMAE, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A total of 70 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The 70 unassociated funerary objects are 70 lots of ceramic sherds and vessels, chunkey stones, shell items (including beads, pins, ear plugs, and gorgets), worked faunal remains, stone vessels and vessel fragments, stone tools, stone items, mica, projectile points, pipes, and unidentified items.

Of the 70 total unassociated funerary objects, 28 lots were removed from a cave or rock shelter in Sullivan County, TN, by John W. Emmert in 1883 as part of a Peabody Museum expedition. Of the 70 total unassociated funerary objects, four lots were removed from Odell Farm in Sullivan County, TN, by John W. Emmert in 1892 and donated to the PMAE the same year.

Of the 70 total unassociated funerary objects, the remaining 38 lots were removed from mounds and “stone graves” in unknown counties in eastern Tennessee. Available geographic information, which includes references to proximity to known towns, rivers, and valleys, places these mounds and graves in eastern Tennessee. These items were removed by various collectors, including A. M. Crandall, Edwin Curtiss, Charles C. Jones, Jr., William H. Claflin, Jr., and John W. Emmert, between 1872 and 1927, and were donated to the PMAE or acquired via a Peabody Museum expedition between 1872 and 1985.

The PMAE has determined that:

• The 70 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 Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.

Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by 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 cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after August 7, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the PMAE must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The PMAE is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3004 and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.9.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the PMAE, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

Human remains representing, at least, eight individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The human remains were removed from Diamond Head, Oahu, HI in 1865 and acquired by the Boston Society of Natural History. They were transferred to the PMAE in 1916 and 1959.

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 eight individuals of Native American ancestry.

• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Hui Iwi Kuamo'o.

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

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 August 7, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the PMAE must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The PMAE is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

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 Navy and the Autry Museum of the American West, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

Human remains representing at least one individual has been identified. The one lot of associated funerary objects are Russian blue glass trade beads. In 1913 an unknown collector collected a human skull (1.Q.38) from an unknown location on San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, Channel Islands, CA. It is unknown when or how the human remains became to be a part of the Southwest Museum collection (now part of the Autry Museum of the American West). At one point, museum staff drilled holes into the cranium and added the trade beads forming a cap and was most likely put on display.

Human remains representing at least four individuals have been identified. The three associated funerary objects are one unmodified giant key-hole limpet shell, one unmodified tegula shell, and one lot of unmodified faunal bones. Sometime between 1961-1967, human remains and associated funerary objects were collected from a burial on an unknown site on San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, Channel Islands, CA by Mr. James McEowen (17.C.79). The remains were collected while Mr. McEowen was stationed at the Naval Ordnance Test Station, Long Beach detail when the island was controlled by the Naval Ordnance Test Station (NOTS). It is unknown when exactly the human remains and associated funerary objects entered the Southwest Museum (now part of the Autry Museum).

Human remains representing at least four individuals have been identified. The six lots of associated funerary objects are one lot of Olivella disk beads, one lot of California Mussel shell beads, one mortar, one pestle, one cupped Olivella shell bead, and one incised steatite ornament. Circa 1908, Mr. Miles Orton Bolser (1293.G) collected human remains and associated funerary objects from burials on the Northeast Harbor (aka Wilson Cove) of San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, Channel Islands, CA. Mr. Bolser donated the items to the Southwest Museum (now part of the Autry Museum) in 1952.

Human remains representing at least three individuals have been identified. The three associated funerary objects are two abalone shell possible disk beads, and one bone bead. Between 1960-1961, Mr. Gerald Nelson (1668.G) collected human remains and associated funerary objects from Ledge Site (CA-SCLI-126) on San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, CA. Mr. Nelson visited the site and excavated at three separate hilltop sites at the Ledge Site which he called Nelson Site 1, Nelson Site 2, and Nelson Site 3. The human remains and associated funerary objects come from Nelson Site 1. Mr. Nelson donated the cultural materials to the Southwest Museum (now part of the Autry Museum) in 1961.

Based on the information available, 20 lots of associated funerary objects have been found to be associated with human remains listed in a Notice of Inventory Completion published in the Federal Register on June 28, 2019 (84 FR 31092) and repatriated. The 20 associated funerary objects are four lots of bone beads, one chisel/asphaltum applicator, one contracting stem point, one flaker, one chert microlith, one possible paddle shaped object, one point fragment, one scraper plane, one lot of scrapers, three lots of Olivella shell beads, one lot of Olivella shell bead blanks, two side notched points, one lot of unmodified faunal bone fragments, and one lot of unmodified shells with soil. On November 30th, 1976, Mr. George Kritzman, Assistant Curator of Archaeology at the Southwest Museum of the American Indian (now part of the Autry Museum of the American West), collected from a bead cache on the surface of site CA-SNI-12, San Nicolas Island in Ventura County, Channel Islands, CA. The items entered the Southwest Museum the same year the objects were found.

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 Navy and the Autry Museum of the American West have determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 12 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• The 33 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 La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians, California; Pala Band of Mission Indians; Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma &Yuima Reservation, California; Pechanga Band of Indians (previously listed as Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation, California); Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians (previously listed as Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of Rincon Reservation, California); Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California; and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, 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 ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

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 August 7, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Navy and the Autry Museum of the American West 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 Navy and the Autry Museum of the American West is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and any other consulting parties.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

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. All remains were donated to the Hamann-Todd Human Osteological Collection in 1931 by Dr. I. Lester Furnas. Dr. Furnas, a professor at the School of Dentistry, Western Reserve University, traveled to Alaska in 1931 to study Inuit dentition and provide dental services. The expedition was sponsored by the United States Public Health Service. According to skeletal notes and correspondence, 13 remains are from Nunivak Island, eight are from Point Hope, and four are from Point Barrow. Additionally, two are noted as “Alaska: Point Barrow, Point Hope, or Nunivak Island” and two are labeled as “Alaska” with no specific geographical designation. The remains include partial skeletons of eight males, 15 females, four children and two are unknown. 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 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.

• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government; Native Village of Mekoryuk; and the Native Village of Point Hope.

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

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 August 7, 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 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.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

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 Antelope Valley 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 426 cultural items, 383 objects of cultural patrimony from the Burnt Peak Pictograph (CA-LAN-484/AVC-2) site and 43 unassociated funerary objects from the Green Valley Cemetery (CA-LAN-487/AVC-6) site have been requested for repatriation.

A total of 383 objects of cultural patrimony are one lot of faunal bone, one lot of organic material, 15 lots of shell material, 346 lots of flaked stone, and 20 lots of ground stone. The Burnt Peak Pictograph (CA-LAN-484/AVC-2) site is in the foothills of the Sierra Pelona on the southwestern edge of the Antelope Valley in the western Mojave Desert, North Los Angeles County. The site was excavated by Roger W. Robinson, Instructor of Anthropology at Antelope Valley College (AVC) in the fall of 1968 with volunteers from AVC. The site was temporarily recorded as AVC-2, later assigned the trinomial CA-LAN-484. All work performed by AVC was published in the article “ Test Excavations at the Burnt Peak Pictograph Site (CA-LAN-484), Western Mojave Desert, California ” by Mark Q. Sutton and Roger W. Robinson (2021). This is the only report published on the excavations.

The materials from the site were initially catalogued at AVC in 1968. The collection was then transferred to California State University, Bakersfield (CSUB). During the 2004 cataloguing effort at CSUB, human remains were discovered in the collection. This discovery was immediately reported to the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office (letter dated November 4, 2004, sent by certified mail to Mr. Anthony T. Hernandez), and copied to Larry Myers of the Native American Heritage Commission. CSUB never received a response from either party. In 2021, the collection was returned to Antelope Valley College. Based on artifact typology and the absence of European material culture, it is suggested the human remains date to the Late Prehistoric Period Post-A.D. 900, but before European contact. No hazardous substances are known to have been used to treat any of the cultural items.

A total of 43 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The 43 unassociated funerary objects include a ground stone bowl, shell beads and ornaments, and flaked stone. The Green Valley Cemetery (CA-LAN-487/AVC-6) site is in Green Valley, California, on the southwestern edge of the Antelope Valley in the western Mojave Desert, North Los Angeles County. The site was excavated by Roger W. Robinson, Instructor of Anthropology at Antelope Valley College on May 30 and 31, 1971 as part of an emergency salvage operation. A total of 15 human burials were identified during the salvage excavations. The site record and publication note that all human remains were given to a tribal elder, Semu Huaute in July 1971 for reburial (Robinson 1987). In 1972, R.W. Robinson published “ A Salvage Excavation of an Alliklik Cemetery in Green Valley, California ”. This is the only report published on the excavations. Based on artifact typology and the absence of European material culture, it is suggested the human remains date to the Late Prehistoric Period Post-A.D. 900, but before European contact. No human remains were identified during the AVC inventory. No hazardous substances are known to have been used to treat any of the cultural items.

Based on archaeological context and information obtained through consultation with representatives of the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (previously listed as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California), as well as non-federally recognized California Tribes including the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians and the San Fernando Band of Mission Indians, these cultural items have been identified as culturally affiliated. Archaeological evidence indicates that Serrano peoples have continuously occupied the San Gabriel Mountains and surrounding regions for approximately 5,000-6,000 BP. Linguistic data further support a strong and continuous shared group identity between these ancestral populations and present-day Native American communities of Serrano descent. Additionally, ethnographic evidence and Traditional Knowledge recognize the Antelope Valley region as the ancestral homeland of Serrano peoples since time immemorial.

The Antelope Valley College has determined that:

• The 43 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 383 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 reasonable connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (previously listed as San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California).

Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by 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 cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after August 7, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Antelope Valley College must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Antelope Valley 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.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3004 and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.9.

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 Denver Art Museum and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

The five associated funerary objects include ceramic vessels (1933.141-1933.144 and possibly 1933.189). In 1903, five ceramic vessels were acquired from Apache Co., AZ, by Charles Schenck. According to museum documentation, Schenck toured Canyon de Chelly in 1903 with Charles Day who previously identified several burial sites in the area. Day and Schenck removed several individuals from the surface at multiple sites, including Sentinel Ruin, Massacre Cave, and Canyon del Muerto, however it is unclear if Schenck recovered the ceramic objects himself or purchased them from Day's store. Schenck later entrusted the remains to the Colorado Historical Society (now History Colorado) and the ceramic objects to the Denver Art Museum in 1933. A total of four objects appear similar in style and age, while one object (1933.189) was identified as potentially a more recent Zuni work. According to a Notice of Inventory Completion published in the Federal Register by History Colorado on May 13, 2011 (76 FR 28071), History Colorado contacted several possibly affiliated Tribes and found cultural affiliation for the remains with the Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico, & Utah. There are no known hazardous materials used to treat any of the objects.

Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the associated funerary objects described in this notice.

The Denver Art Museum has determined that:

• The five objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• There is a connection between the associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico, & Utah.

Written requests for repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

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 August 7, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Denver Art Museum 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 Denver Art Museum 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.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

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 Denver Art Museum and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

The one associated funerary object is a ceramic vessel. In 1988, the Denver Art Museum purchased a dog effigy jar from the Caddo Trading Company in Murfreesboro, Arkansas. The DAM has little documentation on this object, and there is no documentation on this object being from a burial. However, this jar was published in Roy Hathcock's 1983 Quapaw and Their Pottery: A Pictorial Study of Proto-Historic Pottery of the Quapaw Indians, 1650-1750 AD (see pg. 137 & 175, fig. 292) as being in a private collection and had provenience to the Clay Hill Site in Lee County, AR, supported by a label on the bottom of the jar as well. According to a Notice of Inventory Completion published in the Federal Register by the Arkansas Archaeological Survey on January 30, 2018 (83 FR 4251), at an unknown date the remains of numerous individuals and funerary objects, including ceramic vessels and sherds, were recovered from the Clay Hill Site in Lee Co. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Clay Hill site indicate that these ancestors were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541). Based on the archeological context for this site and what is presently known about the peoples who pre-date the historic Quapaw people and occupied the Clay Hill Site, the Denver Art Museum has determined the ceramic vessel listed in this notice is culturally affiliated with the Quapaw Nation. There are no known hazardous substances present on the object.

Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the associated funerary object described in this notice.

The Denver Art Museum has determined that:

• The one object described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• There is a connection between the associated funerary object described in this notice and the Quapaw Nation.

Written requests for repatriation of the associated funerary object in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

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 object described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after August 7, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Denver Art Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the associated funerary object are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Denver Art Museum 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.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 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 have been requested for repatriation. The eight unassociated funerary objects are comprised of six pieces of lithic debitage, one bag of unquantified debitage, and one long stone. These cultural items were collected by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection during archaeological surveys and site investigations for projects during the 1980s and 1990s. The eight unassociated funerary objects originate from two sites in Sacramento County, California: CA-SAC-112 and CA-SAC-113. The eight unassociated funerary objects from CA-SAC-112 and CA-SAC-113 have been accessioned at the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Sacramento Headquarters. Collections were treated with substances for labeling and identification and are unlikely to be potentially hazardous.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has determined that:

• The eight 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 Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California and the Wilton Rancheria, California.

Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by 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 cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after August 7, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 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.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3004 and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.9.

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 AVC, 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 has been identified. A total of eight human bones were recovered from the site. The Burnt Peak Pictograph (CA-LAN-484/AVC-2) site is in the foothills of the Sierra Pelona on the southwestern edge of the Antelope Valley in the western Mojave Desert, North Los Angeles County. The site was excavated by Roger W. Robinson, Instructor of Anthropology at Antelope Valley College in the fall of 1968 with volunteers from AVC. The site was temporarily recorded as AVC-2, later assigned the trinomial CA-LAN-484. All work performed by AVC was published in the article “ Test Excavations at the Burnt Peak Pictograph Site (CA-LAN-484), Western Mojave Desert, California” by Mark Q. Sutton and Roger W. Robinson (2021). This is the only report published on the excavations.

The materials from the site were initially catalogued at AVC in 1968. The collection was then transferred to California State University, Bakersfield (CSUB). During the 2004 cataloguing effort at CSUB, human remains were discovered in the collection. This discovery was immediately reported to the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office (letter dated November 4, 2004, sent by certified mail to Mr. Anthony T. Hernandez), and copied to Larry Myers of the Native American Heritage Commission. CSUB never received a response from either party. In 2021, the collection was returned to Antelope Valley College. Based on artifact typology and the absence of European material culture, it is suggested the human remains date to the Late Prehistoric Period Post-A.D. 900, but before European contact. No hazardous substances are known to have been used to treat any of the human remains.

Based on archaeological context and information learned from consultations, with representatives of the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (previously listed as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California) and non-federally recognized California Tribes including the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians and the San Fernando Band of Mission Indians, these individuals are Native American. Archaeologists have asserted that Serrano peoples have continuously occupied the San Gabriel Mountains and the surrounding areas for up to 5,000-6,000 years BP. Linguistic sources demonstrate a strong continuous shared group identity between those people and modern Native Americans of Serrano descent. Ethnographic evidence and Traditional Knowledge document the Palmdale region as home to Serrano peoples since time immemorial.

Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains described in this notice. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: anthropological information, archaeological information, geographical information, folkloric, historical, kinship, linguistic, oral traditional, and expert opinion, including Tribal Traditional Knowledge.

AVC has determined that:

• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of at least one individual of Native American ancestry.

• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (previously listed as San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California).

Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under ADDRESSES . Requests for repatriation may be submitted by:

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 August 7, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, AVC 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. AVC 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.

Authority: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3003, and the implementing regulations, 43 CFR 10.10.

Authority: This sale is being held pursuant to the requirements of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Pub. L. 119-21). This Final Notice of Sale is published pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. ) and 30 CFR 556.308(a). Following President Trump's Executive Order 14172, “Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness,” (January 20, 2025), the Gulf of Mexico has been renamed to the Gulf of America. Any references to “Gulf of Mexico” herein are solely retained due to official titles of statutes, treaties, agreements or publications.

Blocks Offered for Leasing: BOEM will offer for bid in this lease sale all available unleased acreage in the GOA OCS as identified on the map, “Final Oil and Gas Sale Area for Sale BBG3” ( https://www.boem.gov/Sale-BBG3 ), except those blocks listed below in “Blocks Not Offered for Leasing.” Any lease blocks in an official relinquished, expired, or terminated status at least 30 calendar days prior to publication of the Final Notice of Sale in the Federal Register , and any lease blocks whose high bids were rejected and not appealed in the immediately preceding Big Beautiful Gulf lease sale, are expected to be included as eligible for lease.

Blocks Not Offered for Leasing: BOEM will exclude the following whole and partial blocks from this sale. The BOEM Official Protraction Diagrams (OPDs) and Supplemental OPDs are available online at https://www.boem.gov/oil-gas-energy/mapping-and-data.

• Whole and Partial Blocks withdrawn from leasing by Presidential Withdrawal in the September 8, 2020, Memorandum on the Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the United States Outer Continental Shelf from Leasing Disposition:

• Whole and Partial Blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary (East and West Flower Garden Banks and the Stetson Bank) as of the July 14, 2008, Memorandum on Modification of the Withdrawal of Areas of the United States Outer Continental Shelf from Leasing Disposition:

• Whole and Partial Blocks that are adjacent to or beyond the United States Exclusive Economic Zone in the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap:

• Depth-restricted, segregated block portion(s). The current block meeting this criterion is:

Block 299, Main Pass Area, South and East Addition (as shown on Louisiana Leasing Map LA10A), containing 1,125 acres from the surface of the earth down to a subsea depth of 1,900 feet with respect to the following described portions: SW 1/4 NE 1/4 ; NW 1/4 SE 1/4 NE 1/4 ; W 1/2 NE 1/4 SE 1/4 NE 1/4 ; S 1/2 S 1/2 NW 1/4 NE 1/4 ; S 1/2 SW 1/4 NE 1/4 NE 1/4 ; S 1/2 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 NE 1/4 NE 1/4 ; N 1/2 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 NE 1/4 ; SW 1/4 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 NE 1/4 ; NW 1/4 SE 1/4 SE 1/4 NE 1/4 ; N 1/2 NW 1/4 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 SE 1/4 NE 1/4 ; N 1/2 SE 1/4 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 NE 1/4 ; N 1/2 S 1/2 SE 1/4 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 NE 1/4 ; S 1/2 NE 1/4 NW 1/4 ; S 1/2 S 1/2 N 1/2 NE 1/4 NW 1/4 ; N 1/2 SE 1/4 NW 1/4 ;S 1/2 SE 1/4 NW 1/4 NW 1/4 ; NE 1/4 SE 1/4 NW 1/4 NW 1/4 ; E 1/2 NE 1/4 SW 1/4 NW 1/4 ; N 1/2 SE 1/4 SE 1/4 NW 1/4 ; NE 1/4 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 NW 1/4 ; N 1/2 NW 1/4 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 NW 1/4 ; SE 1/4 SE 1/4 SE 1/4 NW 1/4 ; E 1/2 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 SE 1/4 NW 1/4 ; N 1/2 NW 1/4 NE 1/4 SW 1/4 NW 1/4 ; N 1/2 S 1/2 NW 1/4 NE 1/4 SW 1/4 NW 1/4 ; N 1/2 N 1/2 NE 1/4 NE 1/4 NE 1/4 SW 1/4 ; N 1/2 N 1/2 N 1/2 NW 1/4 NW 1/4 SE 1/4 ; N 1/2 N 1/2 NW 1/4 NE 1/4 NW 1/4 SE 1/4 .

• Any blocks in which the status of existing leases are under appeal.

The final list of blocks available for bid will be posted on BOEM's website at https://www.boem.gov/Sale-BBG3.

Each lease is issued pursuant to the OBBBA and OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq., as amended, and is subject to OCSLA implementing regulations promulgated pursuant thereto in 30 CFR part 556, and other applicable statutes and regulations in existence upon the effective date of the lease, as well as those applicable statutes enacted and regulations promulgated thereafter, except to the extent that the after-enacted statutes and regulations explicitly conflict with an express provision of the lease. Each lease is subject to amendments to statutes and regulations, including but not limited to OCSLA, that do not explicitly conflict with an express provision of the lease. The lessee expressly bears the risk that such new or amended statutes and regulations ( i.e., those that do not explicitly conflict with an express provision of the lease) may increase or decrease the lessee's obligations under the lease. BOEM reserves the right to reject any and all bids received, regardless of the amount offered (see 30 CFR 556.516).

The OBBBA was signed into law on July 4, 2025, and contains statutory requirements to conduct lease sales in the Gulf of America with specific parameters and timing requirements. Section 50102(a)(1) of the OBBBA requires the Secretary to conduct a minimum of 30 offshore lease sales in the Gulf of America Region through 2040, notwithstanding the 2024-2029 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program (or any successor leasing program that does not satisfy the requirements of the OBBBA). This lease sale constitutes the third lease sale required by OBBBA in the Gulf of America. The statute directs the Secretary to hold at least two lease sales in each calendar year from 2026 through 2039 (by March 15 and August 15 of each applicable year), and at least one sale by March 15, 2040. The statute further requires specific Terms and Stipulations that must be used for these sales, stating that the Secretary must “offer the same lease form, lease terms, economic conditions, and stipulations 4 through 9 as contained in the Final Notice of Sale of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management entitled for the `Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region-Wide Oil and Gas Lease Sale 254' (85 FR 8010 (February 12, 2020)).”

Additionally, the OBBBA requires the Secretary to set royalty rates at not less than 12 1/2 percent and not more than 16 2/3 percent; establishes a 10-year primary term for deepwater GOA leases; requires not fewer than 80 million acres to be offered, or all available unleased acres if less than 80 million acres are available; and increases the amount of revenue sharing pursuant to the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA, Pub. L. 109-432) from $500 million to $650 million through 2034. The annual GOMESA revenue sharing caps continue thereafter at $500 million per year through 2055, after which there will be no caps on GOMESA revenue sharing.

BOEM will offer leases that include certain terms and conditions to ensure compliance with the requirements of the OBBBA.

Pursuant to Section 50102(b)(1)(A) of the OBBBA, BOEM will use Form BOEM-2005 (February 2017) to convey leases resulting from this sale. This lease form can be viewed on BOEM's website at http://www.boem.gov/BOEM-2005. The lease form will be amended to include specific terms, conditions, and stipulations applicable to the individual lease. The final terms, conditions, and stipulations applicable to this sale are below.

Section 50102(b)(1)(A) of the OBBBA requires that the primary term for leases in water depths less than 800 meters to be the same as those in Lease Sale 254. Additionally, Section 50102(b)(1)(D) requires a primary term of 10 years for leases offered in water depths 800 meters or deeper. The primary terms for this sale are summarized in the following table:

1. The primary term for a lease in water depths of less than 400 meters is 5 years. If the lessee spuds a well targeting hydrocarbons below 25,000 feet TVDSS within the first 5 years of the lease, then the lessee may earn an additional 3 years, resulting in an 8-year primary term. The lessee will earn the 8-year primary term when the well is drilled to a target below 25,000 feet TVDSS; or the lessee may earn the 8-year primary term in cases where the well targets, but does not reach, a depth below 25,000 feet TVDSS due to mechanical or safety reasons that are beyond the lessee's control, and that are supported by sufficient evidence from the lessee. To earn the 8-year primary term, the lessee is required to submit a letter to the BOEM GOA Regional Supervisor, Office of Leasing and Plans, as soon as practicable, but no more than 30 days after completion of the drilling operation, providing the well number, spud date, information demonstrating a target below 25,000 feet TVDSS and whether that target was reached, and if applicable, any safety or mechanical reasons encountered that prevented the well from reaching a depth below 25,000 feet TVDSS. In the letter, the lessee must request confirmation from BOEM that the lessee earned the 8-year primary term. The BOEM GOA Regional Supervisor for Leasing and Plans will confirm in writing, within 30 days of receiving the lessee's letter, whether the lessee has earned the extended primary term and accordingly update BOEM's records. The extended primary term is not effective unless and until the lessee receives confirmation from BOEM. A lessee that has earned the 8-year primary term by spudding a well with a hydrocarbon target below 25,000 feet TVDSS during the standard 5-year primary term of the lease will not be granted a suspension for that same period under the regulations at 30 CFR 250.175 because the lease is not at risk of expiring.

2. The primary term for a lease in water depths ranging from 400 meters to less than 800 meters is 5 years. If the lessee spuds a well within the first 5 years of the lease, the lessee will earn an additional 3 years, resulting in an 8-year primary term. To earn the 8-year primary term, the lessee is required to submit a letter to the BOEM GOA Regional Supervisor, Office of Leasing and Plans, as soon as practicable, but no more than 30 days after spudding a well, providing the well number and spud date, and requesting confirmation from BOEM that the lessee earned the 8-year extended primary term. Within 30 days of receipt of the request, the BOEM GOA Regional Supervisor for Leasing and Plans will provide written confirmation of whether the lessee has earned the extended primary term and accordingly update BOEM's records. The extended primary term is not effective unless and until the lessee receives confirmation from BOEM.

3. The primary term for a lease in water depths 800 meters or deeper is 10 years.

Pursuant to Section 50102(b)(1)(A) of the OBBBA, the minimum bonus bids are the same as those used in Lease Sale 254. BOEM will not accept a bonus bid unless it provides for a cash bonus in an amount equal to or exceeding the specified minimum bid, as described below.

• $25 per acre or fraction thereof for blocks in water depths less than 400 meters; and

• $100 per acre or fraction thereof for blocks in water depths 400 meters or deeper.

Pursuant to Section 50102(b)(1)(A) of the OBBBA, rental rates are the same as those used in Lease Sale 254. Annual rental rates, per acre or fraction thereof, are summarized in the following table:

Any lessee with a lease in less than 400 meters water depth who earns an 8-year primary term will pay an escalating rental rate as shown above. The rental rates after the fifth year for blocks in less than 400 meters water depth will become fixed and no longer escalate if another well is spudded targeting hydrocarbons below 25,000 feet TVDSS after the fifth year of the lease, and BOEM concurs that such a well has been spudded. In this case, the rental rate will become fixed at the rental rate in effect during the lease year in which the additional well was spudded.

Pursuant to Section 50102(b)(1)(A) of the OBBBA, the minimum royalty rates are the same as those used in Lease Sale 254:

• $7.00 per acre or fraction thereof per year for blocks in water depths less than 200 meters; and

• $11.00 per acre or fraction thereof per year for blocks in water depths 200 meters or deeper.

The royalty rate is the minimum allowed by Section 50102(b)(1)(C) of the OBBBA:

• 12 1/2 percent for blocks in all water depths.

Pursuant to Section 50102(b)(1)(A) of the OBBBA, the royalty suspensions offered in this sale are the same as those offered in Lease Sale 254. The Department may issue leases with Royalty Suspension Volumes (RSVs) under 30 CFR part 560, which BOEM administers. The specific details relating to eligibility and implementation of RSVs and other royalty relief programs are found at 30 CFR part 203, which the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement administers.

Pursuant to 30 CFR part 203, certain leases issued because of this sale may be eligible for RSV incentives on gas produced from ultra-deep wells. Under this program, wells on leases in less than 400 meters water depth and completed to a drilling depth of 20,000 feet TVDSS or deeper receive an RSV of 35 billion cubic feet on the production of natural gas. This RSV incentive is subject to applicable price thresholds set forth in the regulations at 30 CFR part 203. These regulations implement the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005)).

Pursuant to Section 50102 (b)(1)(A) of the OBBBA, BOEM must use the same lease stipulations 4 through 9 that were provided in the Lease Sale 254 Final NOS. BOEM has updated Stipulations 1, 2, 3, and 10, where applicable, to reflect current conditions in the GOA.

One or more of the stipulations below may be applied to leases issued in this sale. The applicable blocks for each stipulation are identified on the map entitled, “Final Gulf of America Oil and Gas Lease Sale BBG3, August 2026, Stipulations and Deferred Blocks,” which is included in the Final NOS package. The full text of the following stipulations is contained in the “Lease Stipulations” section of the Final NOS package. BOEM has posted the final list of blocks available for bid and the applicable stipulations that apply to those blocks on its website at https://www.boem.gov/Sale-BBG3 under the Final NOS tab.

Information to Lessees (ITLs) provide detailed information on certain issues pertaining to specific oil and gas lease sales. The full text of the ITLs for this sale is contained in the “Information to Lessees” section of the Final NOS package and covers the following topics:

The maps pertaining to this lease sale can be viewed on BOEM's website at https://www.boem.gov/Sale-BBG3. The following maps also are included in the Final NOS package:

The sale area is shown on the map entitled, “Final Oil and Gas Sale Area for Sale BBG3.”

The lease terms and economic conditions associated with leases of certain blocks are shown on the map entitled, “Final Gulf of America Oil and Gas Lease Sale BBG3, August 2026, Lease Terms and Economic Conditions.”

The lease stipulations and the blocks to which they apply are shown on the map entitled, “Final Gulf of America Oil and Gas Lease Sale BBG3, August 2026, Stipulations and Deferred Blocks.”

Prior to the bid submission deadline, bids may be submitted through any parcel delivery service ( e.g., FedEx, UPS, U.S. Postal Service, DHL) or in-person at the address listed in the “Mailed Bid Submission” section. Business hours for in-person bid submission are Monday, August 10th from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and Tuesday, August 11th from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.

Instructions on how to submit a bid, secure payment of the advance bonus bid deposit (if applicable), and the information to be included with the bid are as follows:

For each block bid upon, a separate sealed bid must be submitted in a sealed envelope (as described below) and include the following items:

• Total amount of the bid in whole dollars only;

• Sale number;

• Sale date;

• Each bidder's exact name;

• Each bidder's proportionate interest, stated as a percentage, using a maximum of five decimal places ( e.g., 33.33333 percent);

• Typed name and title, and signature of each bidder's authorized officer. Electronic signatures are acceptable. The typed name, title, and signature must agree exactly with the name and title on file in the BOEM Gulf of America OCS Region Adjudication Section;

• Each bidder's BOEM qualification number;

• Map name and number or OPD name and number;

• Block number; and

• Statement acknowledging that the bidder(s) understands that this bid legally binds the bidder(s) to comply with all applicable regulations, including the requirement to post a deposit in the amount of one-fifth of the bonus bid amount for any tract bid upon and make payment of the balance of the bonus bid and first year's rental upon BOEM's acceptance of high bids.

The information required for each bid is specified in the document “Bid Form” that is available in the Final NOS package, which can be found at https://www.boem.gov/Sale-BBG3. A blank bid form is provided in the Final NOS package for convenience and can be copied and completed with the necessary information described above.

Each bid must be submitted in a separate sealed envelope labeled as follows:

• “Sealed Bid for GOA Region-wide Sale BBG3, not to be opened until 9 a.m. Wednesday, August 12, 2026”;

• Map name and number or OPD name and number;

• Block number for block bid upon;

• Acreage, if the bid is for a block that is split between the Central and Eastern Planning Areas; and

• The exact name and qualification number of the submitting bidder only.

The Final NOS package includes a sample bid envelope for reference.

Please address the envelope containing the sealed bid envelope(s) as follows:

Attention: Leasing and Financial Responsibility Section, BOEM New Orleans Office, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard MS-266A, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394, Contains Sealed Bids for Lease Sale BBG3, Please deliver to Mr. Idrissa Boube or Mrs. Karoline DiPerna, 2nd Floor, immediately.

Please Note: Bidders are advised to inform BOEM by email at BOEMGulfLeaseSalesAttendance@boem.gov immediately after placing bid(s) in the mail. This provides advance notice to BOEM regarding pending bids before the bid submission deadline. In the email, please state the tracking number of the bid package, the number of bids being submitted, and the email address of the person who should receive the bid receipt for signature. If BOEM receives bids later than the bid submission deadline, the BOEM GOA Regional Director (RD) will return those bids unopened to bidders. Please see Section XI, “Delay of Sale,” regarding BOEM's discretion to extend the bid submission deadline in the case of an unexpected event ( e.g., flooding) and how bidders can obtain more information on such extensions.

Bidders must advise BOEM via email at BOEMGulfLeaseSalesAttendance@boem.gov no later than 4:00 p.m. on July 28, 2026, if the intention is to participate in Lease Sale BBG3 in person for bid submission, bid reading, or both. BOEM will promptly respond to the email with additional instructions for gaining security clearance to attend bid submission and/or bid reading in-person. Bidders who do not notify BOEM and gain clearance to attend in advance will not be granted access to the venue and will be instructed to mail in bids, which must arrive prior to the bid submission deadline.

Bidders who are not currently an OCS oil and gas lease record title holder or designated operator, or those who have ever defaulted on a one-fifth bonus bid deposit, must guarantee (secure) the payment of the one-fifth bonus bid deposit, by Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) or otherwise, before bid submission using one of the following four methods:

• Provide a third-party guarantee;

• Amend a development stage area-wide bond via bond rider;

• Provide a letter of credit; or

• Provide a lump sum payment in advance via EFT.

Please provide, at the time of bid submittal, a confirmation or tracking number for the payment, the name of the company submitting the payment as it appears on the payment, and the date the payment was submitted so that BOEM can confirm payment with the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR). Bidders should submit payments to their financial institution at least 5 business days prior to bid submittal to ensure that the Office of Foreign Assets Control and the U.S. Department of the Treasury (U.S. Treasury) have time to screen and process payments and that payments are posted to ONRR prior to placing the bid. ONRR cannot confirm payment until the monies have been moved into settlement status by the U.S. Treasury. Bids will not be accepted if BOEM cannot confirm payment with ONRR before 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 11, 2026.

If providing a third-party guarantee, amending a development stage area-wide bond via bond rider, or providing a letter of credit to secure your one-fifth bonus bid deposit, bidders are urged to file these documents with BOEM well in advance of submitting the bid. This allows processing time and ensures bidders have time to take any necessary curative actions prior to bid submission. For more information on EFT procedures, see Section X, “The Lease Sale.”

The GDIS is composed of five parts:

1. A “Statement” page that includes the company representatives' information and separate lists of blocks bid on that used proprietary data and those blocks bid upon that did not use proprietary data;

2. A “Table” listing the required data about each proprietary survey used (see below);

3. A “Survey Parameter Worksheet” listing acquisition geometry, frequency range, fold coverage and processing methods for each survey (see below);

4. “Maps,” which contain the live trace maps for each proprietary survey and fast-track survey that are identified in the GDIS statement and table; and

5. “Proprietary geophysical and fast-track SEGY”, not submitted previously to BOEM, needs to be submitted along with the GDIS.

Any bidder who used proprietary seismic data not previously submitted to BOEM to evaluate a block in Lease Sale BBG3—or who is a joint bidder on such a bid—must submit all five parts of the GDIS at the time of bid submission. If only speculative seismic data was used, the bidder must submit the GDIS Form and GDIS Table listing all speculative data used for each block. A bidder must submit the GDIS even if a joint bidder or bidders on a specific block also have submitted a GDIS. Any speculative data that has been reprocessed externally or “in-house” is considered proprietary due to the proprietary processing and is no longer considered to be speculative.

The bidder and joint bidder must submit the GDIS in a separate and sealed envelope and must identify all proprietary data; reprocessed speculative data, and/or any Controlled Source Electromagnetic surveys, Amplitude Versus Offset (AVO) data, gravity data, and/or magnetic data; or other data or information used as part of the decision to bid or participate in a bid on the block.

The bidder and joint bidder must also include a live trace map ( e.g., .pdf and ArcGIS shapefile) for each proprietary and fast-track survey identified in the GDIS illustrating the actual areal extent of the proprietary geophysical and fast-track data in the survey (see the “Example of Preferred Format” that is included in the Final NOS package for additional information). The shape file must not include cultural resources information; only the live trace map of the survey itself.

The GDIS statement must include the name, phone number, and full address for a contact person and an alternate, who are both knowledgeable about the geophysical information and data listed and who are available for 30 days after the sale date. The GDIS statement must also include a list of all blocks bid upon, including those blocks where no proprietary or reprocessed geophysical data and/or proprietary information was used, as a basis for the bidder's decision to bid or to participate as a joint bidder in the bid. All bidders must submit the GDIS statement even if no proprietary geophysical data or information was used in its bid preparation for the block.

Examples of the preferred format of the table and parameter worksheet are included in the Final NOS package, and a blank digital version of the preferred table and Survey Parameter Worksheet can be accessed on the Lease Sale BBG3 website at https://www.boem.gov/Sale-BBG3. The GDIS table should have columns that clearly state the following:

• The sale number;

• The bidder's company name;

• The joint bidder's company name (if applicable);

• The company providing proprietary data to BOEM;

• The block area and block number bid upon;

• The owner of the original data set ( i.e., who initially acquired the data);

• The industry's original name of the survey ( e.g., E Octopus);

• The BOEM permit number for the survey;

• Whether the data set is a fast-track version; BOEM will request all fast-track data;

• Whether the data is speculative or proprietary;

• The data type ( e.g., 2-D, 3-D, or 4-D; pre-stack or post-stack; time or depth);

• The migration algorithm ( e.g., Kirchhoff migration, wave equation migration, reverse migration, reverse time migration) of the data and areal extent of bidder survey ( i.e., number of line miles for 2-D or number of blocks for 3-D);

• The live proprietary survey coverage (2-D miles 3-D blocks);

• The computer storage size, to the nearest gigabyte, of each seismic data and velocity volume used to evaluate the lease block;

• Who reprocessed the data;

• The date on which the final reprocessing was completed (month and year);

• If the data was previously sent to BOEM, list the sale number and date of the sale for which it was used;

• Whether proprietary or speculative AVO/AVA (PROP/SPEC) was used;

• The date on which the AVO or AVA was sent to BOEM, if it was sent before the sale;

• Whether AVO/AVA is time or depth (PSTM or PSDM);

• Which angled stacks were used ( e.g., NEAR, MID, FAR, ULTRAFAR);

• Whether the company used Gathers to evaluate the block in question; and

• List of other Geophysical Data methods used to evaluate the bid block ( e.g., Inversion, Modeling, Illumination, Grav, Mag).

BOEM will use the computer storage size information to estimate the reproduction costs for each data set, if applicable. BOEM will determine the availability of reimbursement of production costs consistent with 30 CFR 551.13.

BOEM reserves the right to inquire about alternate data sets, perform quality checks, and compare the listed and alternative data sets to determine which data set most closely meets the needs of the fair market value determination process. See the “Example of Preferred Format” that is included in the Final NOS package.

The BOEM GOA Region now requires bidders to submit a completed electronic version of the Survey Parameters Worksheet alongside any Seismic Survey submittal.

This worksheet plays a critical role in supporting BOEM's Fair Market Value (FMV) Evaluation Methodology, which is used to assess the economic value of leases offered in OCS lease sales. The data provided in the worksheet allows BOEM to better understand the technical scope and intent behind each seismic survey, and how those data contribute to subsurface interpretation and prospectivity analysis.

By supplying detailed parameters—such as acquisition geometry, frequency range, fold coverage, and processing methods—bidders provide BOEM with the context necessary to:

• Qualitatively assess the degree of geological understanding obtained from the survey;

• Evaluate the quality and resolution of seismic imaging, which can directly influence the identification of leads and prospects;

• Determine the likelihood of successful hydrocarbon identification, by considering how the data may mitigate or highlight geological risks;

• Identify geophysical phenomena ( e.g., amplitude anomalies, velocity pull-ups, multiples) that could impact the interpretation and chance of success;

• Assess the commercial implications of the survey in supporting new play concepts or de-risking known trends.

Ultimately, the inclusion of this worksheet enhances the transparency and technical rigor behind BOEM's FMV assessments. It ensures that economic evaluations are informed by the best available subsurface data and geological interpretations, helping to safeguard the public interest in OCS resource development.

Bidders are encouraged to complete the worksheet with care and accuracy, as it will directly inform BOEM's ability to fairly and accurately evaluate lease block value based on current geoscientific insight.

Glossary of Terms in order the terms appear in the Seismic Parameter Worksheet:

• BOEM Project Name: Please do not fill out. This element is for internal BOEM purposes.

• Seismic Vendor: List the company who shot the survey.

• Industry Survey Name: List the name of the original survey.

• Speculative or Proprietary: Speculative is data that is available for purchase from a vendor for anyone; the original data “right out of the box.” Proprietary is any data that was acquired by an Exploration & Production Company or Speculative Data that has become proprietary through reprocessing. Any speculative data such as 2-D or 3-D, pre-stack or post-stack, time or depth, amplitude with offset (AVO), inversion, CSEM, gravity and magnetic data that has been modified or changed from its original processing would be considered proprietary due to the proprietary processing.

• 2D/3D/4D: List the acquisition type.

• Time/Depth: List the survey domain.

• Acquisition Company (if different from Vendor): The Field Acquisition Company could be different from the Final Processed Survey Vendor.

• Acquisition Project Name (if different from Final Processed Industry Survey Name): Acquisition Project Name could be different than Final Processed Survey Name especially when Merging Shoots and/or Reprocessing.

• Acquisition Date: List the date the field acquisition was complete.

• Maximum Offset (Inline/Crossline)/(X/Y): Maximum distance between source and receiver. Offset can be different in Inline and Crossline direction.

• Streamer or Ocean Bottom Nodes (OBN): Examples are marine towed streamer, seafloor cable, or seafloor nodes.

• Streamer depth: Depth of streamer below the water.

• Streamer configuration (example: Multistreamer: ten 8,000m cables or 1,000 seafloor nodes): Description of receivers including how many cables and length of each.

• Hydrophone type (2D (P wave), 2D (P+S wave), 3D (P Wave), 3D (P+S, Multicomponent)): Describe the richness of the hydrophones.

• Receiver Group Interval (DGF) (meters): The distance between two consecutive receivers located on the same receiver line.

• Azimuth Distribution (NAZ, MAZ, WAZ, RAZ, FAZ): List the quality of the azimuth distribution in the survey.

• Azimuth Orientation (either degree or cardinal direction): List the direction of the acquisition; example (N/S and W/E or 0/180 and 90/270).

• Energy Source (# sources, # source vessels, cubic inches per array): Describe the source array and source vessel.

• Source Depth: Depth the source array is towed below the sea-surface.

• Shot Interval: Time between shots. Could also be recorded as distance between shots.

• Sample Rate (ms): Time between vertical trace samples.

• Record Length: Total time of seismic shot record. (Number of samples per trace) x (sample rate).

• Recorded bin dimensions (Example: 6.25 x 60m): The recorded grid dimensions in Inline and Crossline.

• Fold: The number of traces, or midpoints, withing each CMP bin. Multiplicity of the CMP data.

• Seismic Processing Vendor: Company that completed the final processing for the survey.

• Processing Completed Year: Year the processing was completed.

• Migration/Processing Type: Examples are Post-Stack Time, Post-Stack Depth, Pre-Stack Time, and Pre-Stack Depth. Please list all that apply.

• Processed Bin Size (specify either feet or meters, e.g., 25m x 30m): Bin size of the final processed product.

• Migration algorithm(s): Migration types include: Kirchoff, Beam, WEM, RTM, LSRTM, FWI, or other. Please list all Migrations submitted with survey.

• Velocity Build: (Salt, Salt + Wells, Acoustic FWI, Elastic FWI). List the highest complexity of data involved with building the velocity model.

• Illumination Study Type & Reliability (None, highly suspect, reasonable reliability, Full 3D wavefield). List the quality of the Illumination Study.

• Velocity Anisotropy Used? Type? (HTI, VTI, TTI, other, none). List the type of anisotropy used in the velocity.

• For Sub-Stack Volumes, list class and offset or angle range per volume. (Example, Mid Offset Range: 5000′-7000′ or Mid Angle Range: 24deg-30deg). Use a separate line for each sub-stack volume. Include the angle or offset range.

• Controlled Source Electro-Magnetic (CSEM) Source Type (HED-Horizontal Dipole or VED-Vertical Dipole): Type of CSEM Source.

• CSEM Receiver Type (Seabed Nodes or Surface Towed Receiver): Type of receiver.

• Inversion Year: Year the inversion was completed.

• Receiver Spacing: Spacing between receiver/nodes.

• Source Line Spacing: Spacing between source lines.

• Inversion Type (1D, 2D, 3D): Geometry/Complexity of the Inversion.

• Inversion Type (Isotropic or Anisotropic): List if Inversion was Isotropic or Anisotropic.

• TTI (Tilted Transverse Isotropy) performed (yes, no, unknown). If TTI applied, indicate Yes or No.

• Is Inversion Speculative or Proprietary (Prospect Specific)? Is the Inversion speculative or proprietary?

The GDIS maps are live trace maps ( e.g., .pdf and ArcGIS shapefiles) that bidders should submit for each proprietary survey identified in the GDIS table. The maps should illustrate the actual areal extent of the proprietary geophysical data in the survey (see the “Example of Preferred Format” that is included in the Final NOS package for additional information). As previously stated, the shapefile must not include cultural resources information, only the live trace map of the survey itself.

Pursuant to 30 CFR 551.12 and 556.501, as a condition of the sale, the BOEM GOA RD requests that all bidders and joint bidders submit the proprietary data and fast-track data identified on their GDIS along with their bid and GDIS packet.

This includes any proprietary data or fast-track data that has not been provided previously to BOEM. Commercially available speculative data should not be submitted to BOEM unless specifically requested by BOEM. If the bidder is not sure whether the data has been provided previously, the bidder should send the proprietary or fast-track. BOEM requires all data that are considered proprietary and fast-track to be submitted for the evaluation of the bid blocks.

The proprietary and fast-track data must be submitted to BOEM at the following address: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Resource Studies, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard MS-266A, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394. Please deliver to Mr. Idrissa Boube or Mrs. Karoline DiPerna, 2nd Floor, immediately.

BOEM recommends that bidders mark the submission's external envelope as “Deliver Immediately to DASPU.” BOEM also recommends that bidders submit the GDIS data and Survey Parameter Worksheet in an internal envelope, or otherwise marked, with the following designation: “Geophysical Data and Information Statement for Oil and Gas Lease Sale BBG3, Company Name, GOA Company Qualification Number, and “Proprietary Data.”

In the event a person supplies any type of data to BOEM, that person must meet the following requirements to qualify for reimbursement:

1. Must be registered with the System for Award Management (SAM), formerly known as the Central Contractor Registration (CCR). CCR usernames will not work in SAM. A new SAM user account is needed to register or update an entity's records. The website for registering is SAM.gov.

2. Must be enrolled in the U.S. Treasury's Invoice Processing Platform (IPP) for electronic invoicing; to enroll go to https://www.ipp.gov/. Access then will be granted to use the IPP for submitting requests for payment. When submitting a request for payment, the assigned Purchase Order Number must be included.

3. Must have a current Online Representations and Certifications Application at SAM.gov.

Please Note: Digital copies and duplicate hardcopies should be submitted for the GDIS Statement, Parameter Sheet, table, shapefiles, and maps. The GDIS Statement should be sent in as a digital PDF. The GDIS Information Table must be submitted digitally as an Excel spreadsheet. The proprietary data and fast-track data maps should be sent in as PDF files and the live trace outline of each proprietary survey and fast-track survey should also be submitted as a shapefile. Please flatten all layered PDF files, since layered PDFs can have many objects. Layered PDFs can cause problems opening or printing the file correctly. Bidders may submit the digital files on a USB external drive (formatted for Windows). Proprietary surveys and fast-track surveys should be sent in as regular SEGY files. If bidders have any questions, please contact Ms. Dee Smith at (504) 736-2706, or Ms. Teree Campbell at (504) 736-3231.

Bidders should refer to the “Acceptance, Rejection, or Return of Bids” heading under Section X, “The Lease Sale,” regarding a bidder's failure to comply with the requirements of the Final NOS, including any failure to submit information required in the Final NOS package.

BOEM requests that bidders provide this information in the suggested format prior to or at the time of bid submission. The suggested format is included in the Final NOS package. The form must not be enclosed inside the sealed bid envelope.

BOEM may require bidders to submit other documents in accordance with 30 CFR 556.107, 556.401, 556.501, and 556.513.

On April 27, 2026, BOEM published the most recent List of Restricted Joint Bidders in the Federal Register (91 FR 22546). Potential bidders are advised to refer to the Federal Register before bidding for the most current list at the time of the lease sale. Please refer to the joint bidding provisions at 30 CFR 556.511-556.515.

All signatories executing documents on behalf of the bidder(s) must execute the same in conformance with the BOEM qualification records. Bidders are advised that BOEM considers the signed bid to be a legally binding obligation on the part of the bidder(s) to comply with all applicable regulations, including the required payment of one-fifth of the bonus bid on all high bids. A statement to this effect is included on each bid form (see the document “Bid Form and Envelope” that is included in the Final NOS package).

BOEM warns bidders against violation of 18 U.S.C. 1860, which prohibits unlawful combination or intimidation of bidders.

Bids may only be withdrawn by written request delivered to BOEM via any parcel delivery service, or in-person prior to the bid submission deadline. Withdrawals will not be accepted via email. The withdrawal request must be on company letterhead and must contain the bidder's name, its BOEM qualification number, the map name and number, and the block number(s) of the bid(s) to be withdrawn. The withdrawal request must be executed by one or more of the representatives named in the BOEM qualification records. The name and title of the authorized signatory must be typed under the signature block on the withdrawal request. The BOEM GOA RD, or the RD's designee, will indicate approval by signing and dating the withdrawal request.

Minimum bonus bid calculations, including rounding, for all blocks are shown in the document “List of Blocks Available for Leasing” that is included in the Final NOS package. The bonus bid amount must be stated in whole dollars. If the acreage of a block contains a decimal figure, then prior to calculating the minimum bonus bid, BOEM will round up to the next whole acre. The appropriate minimum rate per acre will be applied to the whole (rounded up) acreage. The bonus bid amount must be greater than or equal to the minimum bonus bid, as calculated and stated in the Final NOS package.

The Final NOS package includes instructions, samples, and/or the preferred format for the items listed below. BOEM strongly encourages bidders to use the recommended formats. If bidders use another format, they are responsible for including all the information specified for each item in the Final NOS package.

Sealed bids received in response to the Final NOS will be opened at the place, date, and hour specified under the DATES and ADDRESSES sections of the Final NOS. The venue will not be open to the public. Instead, the bid opening will be available for the public to view on BOEM's website at http://www.boem.gov via live streaming. Bidders participating in Lease Sale BBG3 who have gained the required clearance as stated in the “In-person Bid Submission and/or In-person Bid Reading” section will be allowed to view bid reading in person. The opening of the bids is for the sole purpose of publicly announcing and recording the bids received; no bids will be accepted or rejected at that time.

Each bidder submitting an apparent high bid must submit a bonus bid deposit to ONRR equal to one-fifth of the bonus bid amount for each such bid. A copy of the notification of the high bidder's one-fifth bonus bid amount can be obtained on the BOEM website at https://www.boem.gov/Sale-BBG3 under the heading “Notification of EFT 1/5 Bonus Liability” after 1:00 p.m. on the day of the sale. All payments must be electronically deposited into an interest-bearing account in the U.S. Treasury by 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time the day following the bid reading (no exceptions). Account information is provided in the “Instructions for Making Electronic Funds Transfer Bonus Payments” found on the BOEM website identified above.

Bidders must submit payment to their financial institution as soon as possible on the day of bid reading and no later than 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the day of bid reading. This will help ensure that deposits have time to process through the U.S. Treasury and post to ONRR. ONRR cannot confirm payment until the monies have been moved into settlement status by the U.S. Treasury.

BOEM requires bidders to use EFT procedures for payment of one-fifth bonus bid deposits for Lease Sale BBG3, following the detailed instructions contained on the ONRR Payment Information web page at https://www.onrr.gov/ReportPay/payments.htm. Acceptance of a deposit does not constitute, and will not be construed as, acceptance of any bid on behalf of the United States.

The United States reserves the right to withdraw any block from this lease sale before issuance of a written acceptance of a bid for the block.

The United States reserves the right to reject any and all bids, regardless of the amount offered. Furthermore, no bid will be accepted, and no lease for any block will be awarded to any bidder, unless:

1. The bidder has complied with all applicable regulations and requirements of the Final NOS, including those set forth in the documents contained in the Final NOS package;

2. The bid is the highest valid bid; and

3. The amount of the bid has been determined to be adequate by the authorized officer.

Any bid submitted that does not conform to the requirements of the Final NOS, OCSLA, or other applicable statutes or regulations will be rejected and returned to the bidder. The United States Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission will review the results of the lease sale for any antitrust issues prior to the acceptance of bids and issuance of leases.

To ensure that the U.S. Government receives fair market value for the conveyance of leases from this sale, BOEM will evaluate high bids in accordance with the bid adequacy procedures that are effective on the date of the sale. This is the third GOA lease sale to use the revised bid adequacy procedures that BOEM finalized in 2024. The bid adequacy procedures are available on BOEM's website at https://www.boem.gov/oil-gas-energy/leasing/bid-adequacy-procedures.

BOEM requires each bidder who is awarded a lease to complete the following:

1. Execute all copies of the lease (Form BOEM-2005 [February 2017], as amended);

2. Pay by EFT the balance of the bonus bid amount and the first year's rental for each lease issued in accordance with the requirements of 30 CFR 1218.155 and 556.520(a); and

3. Satisfy the bonding requirements of 30 CFR part 556, subpart I, as amended.

ONRR requests that bidders use only one transaction for payment of the balance of the bonus bid amount and the first year's rental. Once ONRR receives such payment, the bidder awarded the lease may not request a refund of the balance of the bonus bid amount or first year's rental payment.

The BOEM GOA RD has the discretion to change any date, time, and/or location specified in the Final NOS package if the RD deems that an emergent event could interfere with a fair and orderly lease sale. Such events could include, but are not limited to, natural disasters ( e.g., earthquakes, hurricanes, floods), wars, riots, acts of terrorism, fires, strikes, civil disorder, or other events of a similar nature. In case of such events, bidders should call (504) 731-1531 or access the BOEM website at http://www.boem.gov, for information regarding any changes.

BOEM facilitates access to the development of U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) energy, mineral, and geological resources pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). In addition to oil, gas, and renewable energy development, OCSLA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to grant leases, easements, or rights-of-way to “produce or support production, transportation, storage, or transmission of energy from sources other than oil and gas” (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)). In the case of an existing OCS facility, OCSLA also authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to grant leases, easements, or rights-of-way for activities that “use, for energy-related purposes or for other authorized marine-related purposes, facilities currently or previously used for activities authorized under this Act.” (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)).

Advances in commercial space transportation, combined with evolving national priorities to expand U.S. leadership in space exploration, economic competitiveness, and commercial space markets, have increased interest in commercial offshore space launch, re-entry, and recovery concepts. On December 18, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14369 entitled, Ensuring American Space Superiority, which directs Federal departments and agencies to pursue space policy priorities that include expanding human reach and American presence in space, enhancing cost-effective launch architectures, and growing a vibrant commercial space economy, including through increased launch and reentry cadence and new or upgraded facilities.

BOEM is considering whether these concepts may encompass the repurposing of existing offshore infrastructure ( e.g., mobile offshore drilling units or other fixed platforms previously used for oil and gas operations), as well as the potential development of new, purpose-built offshore facilities dedicated to commercial space launches, space re-entry, and related activities on the OCS. The siting, construction, and operation of such platforms or facilities—whether repurposed or newly constructed—would likely implicate multiple Federal authorities and legal frameworks. BOEM is issuing this RFI to improve its understanding of these considerations and to inform potential future interagency coordination, policy development, or guidance before any policy positions or decisions are finalized.

The purpose of this RFI is to:

• Enhance BOEM's understanding of potential offshore space launch and re-entry concepts relevant to the OCS;

• Determine technical, operational, environmental, spatial, and other considerations associated with siting offshore space launch platforms or identified re-entry locations;

• Gather information on any relevant domestic and international guidelines, standards, and practices;

• Identify potential interactions with existing OCS uses and ocean users;

• Understand active relevant research and gaps across applicable technology and environmental impacts.

This RFI does not constitute a solicitation, a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement, or a proposal to authorize any activity. BOEM is not requesting nominations or project-specific information.

BOEM requests specific and detailed comments from the public, including commercial space companies and other interested and affected parties on the following subjects.

• What types of offshore space launch platforms are currently under consideration ( e.g., fixed platforms, MODUs, floating launch systems)?

• How might existing or previously used offshore oil and gas facilities be adapted for such purposes?

• Is there industry appetite for the reuse of existing OCS facilities?

• What types of offshore re-entry or recovery infrastructure are currently under consideration?

• Have re-entry locations already been identified on the OCS?

• How might existing or previously used offshore oil and gas facilities be adapted for such purposes?

• Is there industry appetite for the reuse of existing OCS facilities?

• What geographic, oceanographic, or operational factors would influence the siting of offshore space launch and re-entry facilities?

• What distances from shore, water depths, or seabed conditions would typically be required or preferred?

• What infrastructure, support vessels, safety zones, or onshore facilities would be associated with offshore space launch and re-entry operations?

• What operational timelines or frequencies could reasonably be anticipated?

• What potential environmental impacts or risks may be associated with offshore space launch, re-entry, and recovery activities? How might these impacts be mitigated?

• What data gaps or research needs should be addressed to better assess environmental effects?

• BOEM anticipates relying on the Secretary of the Interior's broad authority in section 8(p) of OCSLA to authorize the use of existing offshore oil and gas platforms and new offshore facilities for space launch and re-entry activities.

• Are there other legal authorities that would bolster BOEM's ability to authorize these activities?

• What other legal issues should BOEM consider in relation to authorizing offshore space launch and re-entry activities?

• How might offshore space launch and re-entry activities interact with oil and gas operations, other existing infrastructure, commercial fisheries, navigation, military activities, or cultural resources?

• What measures could reduce conflicts or enhance compatibility among uses?

• Are there potential scenarios in which offshore commercial space launch or re-entry facilities could be co-located with, or function as an alternate or complementary use to, other existing or proposed OCS-authorized activities? If so, what technical, operational, or planning considerations should BOEM evaluate?

• What existing domestic guidelines, standards, or best practices—including offshore engineering, maritime, aerospace, environmental, and safety standards—are relevant to the siting, design, construction, operation, or decommissioning of offshore commercial space launch or re-entry facilities?

• Are there industry consensus standards, voluntary best practices, emerging technical standards, research initiatives, or guidance documents that should be considered when evaluating offshore commercial space launch or re-entry facilities?

• What approaches to consultations and environmental review, including those applied under the National Environmental Policy Act, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Essential Fish Habitat, National Historic Preservation Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, Government to Government, Clean Water and Air Acts, and other applicable laws, may be appropriate for offshore space launch or re-entry activities involving OCS facilities?

• What considerations should BOEM evaluate when determining the timing, sequencing, and scope of environmental review for potential actions related to offshore commercial space launch or re-entry facilities?

• Are there international agreements, conventions, or multilateral frameworks that may be relevant to offshore commercial space launch or re-entry activities?

• Have any countries developed regulatory models, safety standards, or environmental review frameworks specifically for offshore launch platforms or re-entry sites?

• Are there international organizations or forums currently addressing environmental, safety, or maritime considerations related to offshore space launch or re-entry activities?

• How are other nations approaching offshore or sea-based space launch or re-entry operations?

• With which stakeholder groups should BOEM engage with as it evaluates this potential use of the OCS?

• How can BOEM best engage with stakeholder groups during its next steps/evaluation?

BOEM will protect privileged and confidential information that you submit as required by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Exemption 4 of FOIA applies to trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential. If you wish to protect the confidentiality of such information, clearly label it and request that BOEM treat it as confidential. BOEM will not disclose such information if BOEM determines that it qualifies for exemption from disclosure under FOIA. Please label privileged or confidential information “Contains Confidential Information” and consider submitting such information as a separate attachment, along with an explanation on why the information should not be subject to disclosure.

BOEM will not treat as confidential any aggregate summaries of information or comments not containing privileged or confidential information. Additionally, BOEM will not treat as confidential the legal title of the commenter (for example, the name of your company). Information that is not labeled as privileged or confidential may be regarded by BOEM as suitable for public release.

Include your name and address as part of your comment. You should be aware that your entire comment, including your name, address, and any personally identifiable information (PII) included in your comment, may be made publicly available at any time. Even if BOEM withholds your information in the context of this RFI, your submission is subject to FOIA. If your submission is subject to a FOIA request, your information will only be withheld if a determination is made that one of the FOIA's exemptions to disclosure applies. Such a determination will be made in accordance with the Department of the Interior's FOIA regulations and applicable law.

For BOEM to consider withholding from disclosure your PII, you must identify in a cover letter any information contained in your comment that, if released, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of your personal privacy. You must also briefly describe any possible harmful consequences of the disclosure of your PII, such as embarrassment, injury, or other harm. Note that BOEM will make available for public inspection all comments, in their entirety, submitted by organizations and businesses, or by individuals identifying themselves as representatives of organizations or businesses.

After consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, BOEM is required to withhold the location, character, or ownership of historic resources if it determines that disclosure may, among other things, risk harm to the historic resources or impede the use of a traditional religious site by practitioners. Tribal entities should designate information that falls under Section 304 of NHPA as confidential.

Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that, if the Commission finds a violation, it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States unless, after considering the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers, it finds that such articles should not be excluded from entry. (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1)). A similar provision applies to cease and desist orders. (19 U.S.C. 1337(f)(1)).

The Commission is soliciting submissions on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief should the Commission find a violation, specifically: a limited exclusion order directed to certain mobile electronic devices imported, sold for importation, and/or sold after importation by respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Suwon-Shi, Republic of Korea and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of New Jersey (collectively, “Samsung”); and cease and desist orders directed to Samsung. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4).

The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in this investigation. Accordingly, members of the public and interested government agencies are invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the ALJ's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued in this investigation on July 1, 2026. Comments should address whether issuance of the recommended remedial orders in this investigation, should the Commission find a violation, would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended remedial orders are used in the United States;

(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;

(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third-party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended orders within a commercially reasonable time; and

(v) explain how the recommended orders would impact consumers in the United States.

Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on August 6, 2026.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above pursuant to 19 CFR 210.4(f). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1432”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. ( See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf ). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment by marking each document with a header indicating that the document contains confidential information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. Any non-party wishing to submit comments containing confidential information must serve those comments on the parties to the investigation pursuant to the applicable Administrative Protective Order. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with any confidential filing and must be served in accordance with Commission Rule 210.4(f)(7)(ii)(A) (19 CFR 210.4(f)(7)(ii)(A)). All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) by the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection on EDIS.

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

The Commission instituted the investigation on June 18, 2025, based on a complaint, as supplemented, filed by Complainants ARPC LLC and Paul N. Unmack (together, “Complainants”), both of Butte, Montana. 90 FR 26066-67 (Jun. 18, 2026). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain boiler protection for absorption refrigeration systems by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,056,360 (“the '360 patent”). Id. at 26066. The Commission's notice of investigation named 10 respondents: Kuofanghenanmaoyiyouxiangongsi of Zhengzhou, China (“Koofang”); Wuhujiaoxiangdianzishangwuyouxiangongsi of Wuhu, China (“Bydorunce”); Shenzhenshi Xiangfan Xinxizixun Youxiangongsi of Shenzhen, China (“RVGIVE”); Ruianshichensumaoyiyouxiangongsi of Rui'an, China (“Tesmirror”); Wuhu Tianhao e-commerce Co., Ltd of Wuhu, China (“iFJF”); shen zhen shi hong kang da ke ji you xian gong si of Shenzhen, China (“HKDAUTOTECH”); guangzhou yingpeng dianzi shangwu youxiangongsi of Guangzhou, China (“VISVIC”); Wang Hai Ping of Guangzhou, China (“Hofantek”); shen zhen shi xing han xing dian zi shang wu you xian gong si of Shenzhen, China (“XHXAUTO”); and Qingyuannuozedianzishangwuyouxianzerengongsi of Qingyuan, China (“Little Bear Pocket”). Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) is participating in this investigation. Id.

On November 21, 2025, Complainants moved for an order to show cause and an entry of default against seven respondents—Koofang, Bydorunce, RVGIVE, Tesmirror, iFJF, HKDAUTOTECH, and VISVIC. On December 2, 2025, OUII filed a response in support of the motion. On December 8, 2025, the CALJ issued an order to show cause against Koofang, Bydorunce, RVGIVE, Tesmirror, iFJF, HKDAUTOTECH, and VISVIC. Order No. 8 (Dec. 8, 2025).

On December 11, 2025, Complainants moved to withdraw the complaint and terminate the investigation with respect to the three unserved respondents—Hofantek, Tesmirror, and XHXAUTO. On December 15, 2025, OUII filed a response in support of the motion. The Commission terminated those parties from the investigation. Order No. 10 (Dec. 19, 2025), unreviewed by Notice (Jan. 8, 2026).

On December 19, 2025, the CALJ issued an order correcting Order No. 8 based on the inadvertent exclusion of Little Bear Pocket and inadvertent inclusion of Tesmirror, and ordered Little Bear Pocket to show cause why it should not be found in default. Order No. 9 (Dec. 19, 2025).

On January 11, 2026, Complainants moved for a summary determination of violation against the seven respondents subject to the show cause order, and requested the issuance of a GEO, the issuance of CDOs against each respondent, and the imposition of a bond of one hundred percent (100%) of the entered value of the infringing articles. On February 9, 2026, OUII filed a response in support of the motion.

On February 24, 2026, respondents Bydorunce and iFJF moved to terminate the investigation based on the entry of a consent order. On February 27, 2026, OUII filed a response supporting the motion to terminate the investigation with respect to those parties. On March 6, 2026, Complainants filed a response supporting the motion. The Commission subsequently terminated Bydorunce and iFJF from the investigation. Order No. 17 (Mar. 11, 2026), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Mar. 30, 2026).

On February 25, 2026, the CALJ found respondents Koofang, RVGIVE, Little Bear Pocket, and VISVIC (together, “the Defaulting Respondents”) in default for failing to respond to the order to show cause why they should not be found in default. Order No. 16 (Feb. 25, 2026), unreviewed by Notice (Mar. 20, 2026). The CALJ also declined to find HKDAUTOTECH in default because Complainants could not establish that the show cause order was served on HKDAUTOTECH.

On March 6, 2026, Complainants moved to terminate the investigation with respect to HKDAUTOTECH based on a partial withdrawal of the complaint. On March 12, 2026, OUII filed a response in support of the motion. The Commission subsequently terminated HKDAUTOTECH from the investigation. Order No. 19 (Mar. 24, 2026), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Apr. 15, 2026).

On May 21, 2026, the CALJ issued the subject ID granting the motion for summary determination of violation. Specifically, the ID found that: (1) the importation requirement is satisfied for all Defaulting Respondents; (2) all Defaulting Respondents' accused products infringe claims 1, 4, 6, and 10 of the '340 patent; (3) the asserted domestic industry product satisfies claims 1, 4, 6, and 10 of the '340 patent; and (4) the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement is satisfied under both subsection 337(a)(3)(A) and (B). The CALJ recommended that the Commission issue a GEO, CDOs against each Defaulting Respondent, and set a bond rate of one hundred percent (100%) of the entered value of the imported articles. No party petitioned for review of the ID.

Having examined the record of this investigation, including the subject ID, the Commission has determined to review the ID's findings on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. Complainant is not to brief the issue on review, which is adequately presented in the existing filings. The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the ID.

In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the statute authorizes issuance of, inter alia, (1) an exclusion order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States and/or (2) cease and desist orders that could result in the respondents being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background, see Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843, Comm'n Op. at 7-10 (Dec. 1994).

The statute requires the Commission to consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The public interest factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and cease and desist orders would have on: (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.

If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve, disapprove, or take no action on the Commission's determination. See Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered.

Written Submissions: Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such submissions should address the recommended determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding.

In their initial submission, Complainants are also requested to identify the remedy sought and Complainants and OUII are requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainant is further requested to state the HTSUS subheadings under which the accused products are imported and to supply the identification information for all known importers of the products at issue in this investigation. All initial written submissions, from the parties and/or third parties/interested government agencies, and proposed remedial orders from the parties must be filed no later than close of business on July 20, 2026. All reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on July 27, 2026. All submission from third parties and/or interested government agencies are limited to 10 pages. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above pursuant to 19 CFR 210.4(f). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (Inv. No. 337-TA-1453) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. ( See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf ). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary, (202) 205-2000.

Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment by marking each document with a header indicating that the document contains confidential information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with any confidential filing. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) by the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection on EDIS.

The Commission vote for this determination took place on July 6, 2026.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

Background. —On June 5, 2026, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (91 FR 10148, March 2, 2026) 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. 1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)).

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 July 31, 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, 2 and any party other than an interested party to the reviews may file written comments with the Secretary on what determination the Commission should reach in the reviews. Comments are due on or before August 7, 2026 and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year reviews nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the reviews by August 7, 2026. However, should the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its reviews, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce's final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce's results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of §§ 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Handbook on Filing Procedures, available on the Commission's website at https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf, elaborates upon the Commission's procedures with respect to filings.

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 this review/these reviews is/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).

Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

The Office of Personnel Management, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Agency assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Agency's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. OPM is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection that is described below. The Agency is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Agency; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Agency enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Agency minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

OPM published notice and accepted comment on an existing information collection request (ICR) without approval, Request for Reduction or Cancellation of Federal Employees Group Life Insurance (FEGLI), RI 76-30, on December 3, 2025 (90 FR 55766). OPM received two comments. One comment was in general support of the idea while the other comment was requesting to be enrolled in FEGLI. We thank the supportive commenter and direct the second commenter to https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/life-insurance/enrollment/.

Annuitants who are enrolled in the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) Program can cancel or reduce their coverage. The form, RI 76-30, ensures that an individual is fully informed about the effect of cancellation of FEGLI coverage. A cancellation of enrollment within the FEGLI Program will inhibit the annuitant from ever re-enrolling as an annuitant. A reduction of coverage within the FEGLI Program (Basic Life Insurance, Option B-Additional Insurance, Option C-Family Insurance) will prohibit the annuitant from increasing their coverage as an annuitant. A request is not processed until the signed form is returned to OPM.

Agency: Office of Personnel Management, Retirement Services.

Title: Request for Reduction or Cancellation of Federal Employees Group Life Insurance (FEGLI).

OMB Number: 3206-NEW.

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Number of Respondents: 5,000.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 10 minutes.

Total Burden Hours: 835.

Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.

The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website ( http://www.prc.gov ). Non-public portions of the Postal Service's request(s), if any, can be accessed through compliance with the requirements of 39 CFR 3011.301. 1

Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.

The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.

Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review. See 39 CFR 3041.110(n); 39 CFR 3041.205(a). Such requests are reviewed in summary proceedings pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.325(c)(2) and 39 CFR 3041.505(f)(1). Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405(c)-(d), the Commission does not appoint a Public Representative or request public comment in proceedings to review such requests.

1. Docket No(s).: MC2026-293 and K2026-290; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage & Parcel Select Contract 7 to the Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: July 2, 2026; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.310; Public Representative: Jennaca Upperman; Comments Due: July 13, 2026.

1. Docket No(s).: MC2026-292 and K2026-289; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add New Fulfillment Standardized Distinct Product, PM-GA Contract 1029, and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: July 2, 2026; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3633, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.325.

2. Docket No(s).: MC2026-294 and K2026-291; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add New Mid-Market Standardized Distinct Product, PM-GA Contract 1030, and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: July 2, 2026; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3633, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.325.

3. Docket No(s).: MC2026-295 and K2026-292; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add New Fulfillment Standardized Distinct Product, PM-GA Contract 1031, and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: July 2, 2026; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3633, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.325.

This Notice will be published in the Federal Register .

The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission the following requests:

Documents are available at www.prc.gov.

The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 30, 2026, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International & First-Class Package International Service Contract 116 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2026-287 and K2026-284.