Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Mott, ND. This action is due to the development of new public instrument procedures and to support instrument flight rule (IFR) operations.
Effective 0901 UTC, June 12, 2025. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Mott Municipal Airport, Mott, ND, to support IFR operations at this airport.
The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2023-2223 in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is publicly available as listed in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11J lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.
Subsequent to publication of the NPRM, a typographic error was noted in the airspace legal description header. “Mott Municipal Airport, SD” should be “Mott Municipal Airport, ND.” That error is corrected in this action.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.9-mile radius of Mott Municipal Airport, Mott, ND.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of Mott Municipal Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; correction.
This action corrects a final rule typographic error published in the
The effective date of the final rule published in the
A copy of this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5857.
The FAA published a final rule for Docket No. FAA-2024-2084 in the
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Establishment of Class E Airspace; Zeeland, MI, published in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends the Class E airspace at Austin, TX, and establishes Class E airspace at Austin, Lago Vista, and Lakeway, TX. This action is the result of biennial airspace reviews. This action brings the airspace into compliance with FAA orders and supports instrument flight rule (IFR) procedures and operations.
Effective 0901 UTC, June 12, 2025. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace designated as an extension to the Class C surface area at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, Austin, TX; amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport and Austin Executive Airport, Austin, TX; and establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Lago Vista TX/Rusty Allen Airport, Lago Vista, TX, and Lakeway Airpark,
The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2024-2511 in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6003 and 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is publicly available as listed in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11J lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 71:
Establishes Class E airspace extending upward from the surface designated as an extension to a Class C surface area within 2.2 miles each side of the 359° bearing from the Austin-Bergstrom INTL: RWY 18R-LOC extending from the 5-mile radius of Austin-Bergstrom International Airport to 7.1 miles north of the Austin-Bergstrom INTL: RWY 18R-LOC; and within 2 miles each side of the 359° bearing from the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, Austin, TX, extending from the 5-mile radius of Austin-Bergstrom International Airport to 6 miles north of the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport;
Modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Austin, TX, by removing the point of origin reference and the associated airspace as it is no longer required; removes Lakeway Airpark and the Lago-Vista Rusty Allen Airport and the associated airspace as the airspace will no longer adjoin the Austin, TX, Class E airspace and separate Class E airspace is being established for these airports; adds within a 7.5-mile radius of the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport; adds within 4 miles either side of the 179° bearing from the Austin-Bergstrom INTL: RWY 36R-GS extending from the 7.5-mile radius of Austin-Bergstrom International Airport to 7.7 miles south of the Austin-Bergstrom INTL: RWY 36R-GS; modifies within a 6.6-mile (increased from a 6.3-mile) radius of the Austin Executive Airport, Austin, TX; modifies within 2 miles each side of the 131° bearing from Austin Executive Airport extending from the 6.6-mile (previously 6.3-mile) radius of Austin Executive Airport to 11.2 (decreased from 11.3) miles southeast of the Austin Executive Airport; and modifies within 2 miles each side of the 311° bearing from the Austin Executive Airport extending from the 6.6-mile (previously 6.3-mile) radius of Austin Executive Airport to 10.9 (increased from 10.5) miles northwest of the Austin Executive Airport;
Establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Lago Vista TX/Rusty Allen Airport, Lago Vista, TX;
And establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of Lakeway Airport, Lakeway, TX.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.2 miles each side of the 359° bearing from the Austin-Bergstrom INTL: RWY 18R-LOC extending from the 5-mile radius of Austin-Bergstrom International Airport to 7.1 miles north of the Austin-Bergstrom INTL: RWY 18R-LOC; and within 2 miles each side of the 359° bearing from the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport extending from the 5-mile radius of Austin-Bergstrom International Airport to 6 miles north of the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.5-miles radius of the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport; and within 4 miles either side of the 179° bearing from the Austin-Bergstrom INTL: RWY 36R-GS extending from the 7.5-mile radius of Austin-Bergstrom International Airport to 7.7 miles south of the Austin-Bergstrom INTL: RWY 36R-GS; and within a
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of the Lago Vista TX/Rusty Allen Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of the Lakeway Airpark.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (the Commission) makes targeted modifications to the requirements for letters of credit (LOCs) that recipients of Universal Service Fund (USF) high-cost support awarded through a competitive process must obtain.
Effective March 26, 2025, except for §§ 54.315(c)(2)(i)(B); 54.804(c)(2)(i)(B); 54.1016(a)(2)(i)(B); and 54.1508(c)(1)(ii) which shall be effective August 25, 2025.
For further information, please contact, Nathan Eagan, Attorney Advisor, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order and Order (
In this document, the Commission makes targeted modifications to the requirements for letters of credit that recipients of USF high-cost support awarded through a competitive process must obtain. These changes are intended to facilitate accelerated broadband deployment in the areas where it is needed most, while continuing to safeguard our investment of limited USF dollars. First, the Commission modifies its bank eligibility rules for programs that award high-cost support through a competitive process, which will allow winning bidders to obtain qualifying letters from United States banks that meet the “well capitalized” criteria established by Federal bank supervisory agencies. This change will increase the number of banks qualified to issue letters of credit compared to the Commission's prior standard, which required a B− or better Weiss safety rating, while also ensuring that the Commission only accept letters of credit from financially stable banks. Second, the Commission allows Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) support recipients to reduce the value of their letters of credit to one year of their annual support if they have deployed service to 10% of their required locations by the end of their second year of support. Finally, the Commission allows Connect America Fund Phase II (CAF II) support recipients that have met all of their reporting and deployment obligations to similarly reduce the value of their letters of credit consistent with the RDOF rules. Reducing the required letter of credit values for qualifying RDOF and CAF II support recipients will facilitate broadband deployment by reducing the amount of capital providers must maintain for the required letters of credit.
The record provides broad support for the Commission to use a standard other than a Weiss B− safety rating for banks to qualify to issue letters of credit. The record also broadly supports reducing the required letter of credit values to one year of support for (1) RDOF providers that have deployed service to 10% of their required locations within a State by the end of their second year of support and (2) CAF II support recipients that have met all of their reporting and deployment obligations.
The Commission first finds its relevant high-cost programs should continue to use a reliable benchmark to assess an issuing bank's financial stability. As a threshold matter, several commenters argued that no evaluation of a bank's reliability is necessary, and that any federally insured bank should be eligible to issue program LOCs. The Commission disagrees. As the Commission explained in 2016, allowing any federally-insured bank to issue program LOCs would require Commission staff to “conduct a comprehensive review of every bank to determine whether it has adequate safety and soundness.” The Commission continues to believe that some assurance of a bank's stability beyond being federally-insured is necessary, and that this assurance will enhance the reliability of the LOCs that are issued, and, by extension, the integrity of its programs that rely on those LOCs.
The Commission next decides the appropriate standard to ensure a bank's financial health. Commenters disagreed about whether the Commission should continue to use the Weiss ratings, with some arguing that the Weiss ratings were opaque and fundamentally unreliable, while others believe the Commission should continue to use the Weiss ratings to minimize disruption. Commenters also had a number of different proposals for alternative methods of evaluating a bank's suitability to issue program LOCs. The Bank Policy Institute argued that if the Commission sought to evaluate a bank's suitability to issue program LOCs, it should require the bank to be “well capitalized,” which is “the federal supervisory framework's highest tier of capitalization.” Other commenters suggested that a bank should only need to be “adequately capitalized,” a less stringent standard than “well capitalized.” Bank of America suggested that a United States bank should be allowed to issue program LOCs if it had either: (1) a Weiss rating of B− or higher, or (2) a long-term unsecured credit rating issued by a widely-recognized credit rating agency that is equivalent to a BBB− or better rating by Standard & Poor's.
Based on the Commission's review of the record, it eliminates the use of the Weiss ratings as the standard for United
Federal bank regulators are required by statute to promulgate regulations ensuring that a bank maintains adequate capital. The financial condition of United States banks is supervised by one of three agencies: the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, and the OCC. Each agency has promulgated nearly-identical criteria to determine a bank's capitalization status and whether it is “well capitalized.” Based on the four publicly-available metrics used by these agencies, a bank's capitalization status can be well capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized, or critically undercapitalized. For a bank to be well capitalized, the regulations also require a confirmation from the bank that it is not subject to certain regulatory actions from its supervising agency.
The Commission finds that these established criteria are appropriate metrics by which it can determine that a banking institution is financially stable and has sufficient assets relative to its liabilities. Furthermore, like the Weiss bank safety ratings, the metrics that determine whether a bank is well capitalized are accessible—in this case in the electronic Code of Federal Regulations, and a bank's well capitalized status is not confidential supervisory information and is publicly available, which will assist both the Commission and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC or the Administrator) in determining whether a support recipient's letter of credit complies with program rules. Relying on these criteria will promote transparency in how banks may qualify to issue LOCs for Commission high-cost support programs because the standards for the metrics are established by regulation. Further, as stewards of the USF, the Commission has a responsibility to ensure that its programs' expenditures are protected while minimizing disruption for support recipients and their banks, and it concludes that using these criteria will achieve its obligations.
As an additional safeguard, when future LOCs are submitted by program recipients to demonstrate compliance with the Commission's rules, it will also require a certification from a United States bank's officer that the bank meets the criteria to be considered well capitalized by at least one of the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, or the OCC. The Commission directs the Administrator to confirm the bank's status as well capitalized based on the four publicly-available metrics. The certification from a United States bank's officer will also serve as confirmation that the bank is not subject to any of the enhanced regulatory scrutiny set forth in the banking agencies' rules that would remove a bank from well capitalized status.
Numerous commenters supported the Commission using well capitalized as the appropriate standard. The Commission disagrees with the commenters who argued that banks that are merely “adequately capitalized” under the financial regulations should also be allowed to issue program LOCs. The Commission concludes that allowing only banks that are well capitalized, which is the highest tier of capitalization among the banks that are federally supervised, will provide an appropriate level of assurance that the LOCs that are issued can be relied upon, if needed. Although there are no regulatory penalties associated with being adequately capitalized instead of well capitalized, banks that are adequately capitalized but not well capitalized are subject to additional requirements, such as more frequent examinations, and a bank would need to exceed the well capitalized standard to avoid certain capital restrictions. To avoid any marginal risk associated with institutions that do not meet the well capitalized standard, and because the vast majority of United States banks are well capitalized, the Commission believes that requiring this highest tier of capitalization best balances its need for assurances of a bank's financial stability while allowing a large number of banks to issue program LOCs.
The Commission disagrees with commenters who contend that it should continue to use the Weiss ratings. The Commission believes, based on its experience and the record before it, that the use of the Weiss bank safety ratings has ultimately burdened RDOF and CAF II recipients and their banks, and the significant number of banks whose Weiss safety rating has fallen below a B− has forced numerous recipients to incur additional time and expense to obtain LOCs from different banks or to obtain a waiver of our rules. Since there are more banks that are well capitalized—a criteria that also provides the Commission an appropriate level of assurance regarding the bank's financial stability—than there are banks that have a Weiss bank safety rating of B− or better, modifying the Commission's bank qualification standard will allow for more flexibility for program support recipients to obtain and maintain LOCs from the bank of their choice without sacrificing program integrity. There appear to be more than 4,000 banks that are “well capitalized” under the Federal rules, which makes it unlikely that the Commission's rule change would lead to disruption for program support recipients, as it expects that any bank that has a Weiss bank safety rating of B− or better will also be well capitalized.
Nor does the Commission find it reasonable or necessary to permit reliance on banks with Weiss safety ratings of C− or better, as some commenters suggested. While lowering the permissible minimum rating from B− to C− would likely allow more United States banks to issue program LOCs, the Commission believes that such a change is rendered unnecessary given its adoption of the well capitalized criteria, which, as explained in this document, allows more banks to qualify to issue LOCs than the current Weiss B− rating threshold. Accordingly, the Commission declines to continue to use the Weiss bank safety ratings at any level.
Finally, the Commission declines to adopt the alternative methods of evaluating a bank's reliability that were proposed in the record. The Commission notes that adopting Bank of America's proposal of allowing United States banks with a “long-term unsecured credit rating issued by a widely recognized credit rating agency that is equivalent to a BBB− or better rating by Standard & Poor's” would leave many smaller banks ineligible to issue program LOCs, as many of these smaller institutions are not rated by large Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations. Preventing smaller banks from issuing program LOCs would run counter to the Commission's original goal of “expand[ing] the eligibility of banks to lower barriers to participation in the auction for entities that may not otherwise be able to obtain a letter of credit from a smaller pool of banks.” Instead, allowing United States banks
Additionally, support recipients whose letter of credit comes from a bank that no longer meets the Commission's criteria as of the effective date of the
In the
Commenters almost universally supported this change and argued that allowing an RDOF support recipient to reduce the value of its LOC to one year of support after deploying service to 10% of required locations by the end of its second year of support would free up capital to facilitate more broadband deployment, while still requiring proof of substantial network construction. The Coalition of RDOF Winners supported allowing an LOC's value to be reduced if a support recipient had deployed service to 10% of locations by the end of its second year of support, but also argued that the support recipient should be allowed to reduce its LOC upon certification that it has met its deployment obligations, rather than needing to wait for USAC to verify that deployment.
One commenter, GeoLinks, disagreed and argued that lowering this threshold could introduce risk with regard to RDOF support recipients that had only completed a “minimal amount of network construction,” and that 10% was not evidence of sufficient network construction to justify an LOC reduction. GeoLinks also argued that there were alternative ways, such as accelerated disbursement of RDOF support, to more efficiently facilitate accelerated broadband deployment. However, the Commission does not find GeoLinks' arguments persuasive.
GeoLinks has not provided specific examples of the type of behavior that would lead the Commission to conclude that the LOC reduction it adopts in this document would introduce risk. Based on the Commission's experience administering RDOF and other high-cost programs, deploying service to 10% of required locations by the end of the second year of support shows sufficient progress and sufficiently demonstrates a provider's intent to fulfill its deployment obligations. Further, the permitted reduction in the value of the LOC will alleviate financial burdens and in turn facilitate faster broadband expansion by freeing up capital that can be directed to deployment. Also, the concerns raised by GeoLinks are mitigated by the fact that this change has no impact on the other required deployment milestones; all RDOF support recipients still must deploy qualifying service to 40% of their required locations by the end of their third year of support, and then continue to progressively meet their next obligations, in order to maintain an LOC at an amount equal to one year of support. Moreover, this adjustment does not change the amount owed in the event that the Commission must recover funds from a support recipient due to noncompliance.
At the same time, the Commission declines to allow an RDOF support recipient to lower the value of its LOC upon certification of deploying service to at least 10% of its locations by the end of its second year of support, rather than upon USAC's verification of deployment. While the Coalition of RDOF Winners argues that USAC's verification process can be lengthy, the verification process, which may include follow-up questions and requests for further documentation from USAC, is critical to ensuring that reported broadband deployment is actually occurring. The Commission has previously encouraged support recipients to report their deployment on a rolling basis, and to certify their deployment and start the verification process as soon as they are able. Once that verification is complete, the support recipient may obtain and maintain an LOC at a lower value as long as it continues to meet its deployment and reporting obligations.
The Commission also declines Talkie Communications, Inc.'s request to further modify (or waive) its rules to allow RDOF support recipients that were authorized to receive funding during the first quarter of 2022 to immediately reduce the value of their LOCs to one year of their support
The relief provided in this document, which will allow providers to lower the value of their LOCs to one year of support only upon the completion of the verification process, strikes the appropriate balance between relieving burdens on providers and ensuring that support recipients only reduce the values of their letters of credit after their deployment progress has been verified by an independent source, rather than relying on the recipient's self-certification. Even though the Commission denies Talkie's additional
Additionally, the Commission is mindful that allowing for the reduction of an LOC before any verification process has been completed could ultimately undermine the critical role that the verification process plays in ensuring that RDOF support recipients deploy service to their required locations and preserving carriers' incentive to fully cooperate during the verification process. Moreover, there is ultimately no financial penalty for recipients who pass the verification process. Other providers, to remain compliant with our LOC rules, have been required to obtain new LOCs at increased values during the pendency of USAC's verification process, and those support recipients were then able to lower the values of their LOCs upon the successful completion of that process.
In the
In 2022, when the Bureau sought comment on extending the waiver of the CAF II LOC rules, it proposed limiting that waiver with a more “tailored” approach by permitting application of the waiver to those recipients that have deployed the supported broadband networks as required. The Bureau ultimately adopted this proposal, reasoning that the Commission will most likely need to draw on the LOCs of the CAF II support recipients that have failed to comply with the program's deployment obligations, reporting requirements, and other program rules and deadlines. Therefore, when deciding to extend the waiver applying the RDOF letter of credit rules to the CAF II program, the Bureau limited the waiver relief
The Commission will continue to allow those CAF II recipients that have met each of their deployment and reporting deadlines to maintain LOCs under the RDOF rules. These recipients have shown that they are in compliance with the requirements of the CAF II program, and that this reduction in the LOC amount will serve the public interest by freeing up additional capital for these recipients, which will allow them to more efficiently deploy broadband service throughout their service areas.
Since the Bureau's existing waiver will end before the Commission's amendments to § 54.315(c)(1) of its rules take effect, the Commission extends, on its own motion, the existing waiver to permit CAF II recipients that have met each of their deployment and reporting obligations to maintain LOCs pursuant to the RDOF rules until the amended rule takes effect. Since the Commission's rules will soon be changed and will at that point be consistent with the existing waiver for certain CAF II support recipients, it will serve the public interest to avoid requiring those providers from incurring the costs to increase their letters of credit due to the end of the current waiver, only to be permitted to lower them again when the rule changes adopted in this document become effective.
The Commission declines to adopt several other proposals from commenters for the reasons explained in the following.
This document does not contain new or substantively modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, concurs, that this rule is non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of the
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the
The
The
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.” A “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2022, there were approximately 530,109 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were 90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county, municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent school districts) with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that at least 48,724 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”
Small entities potentially affected by the rules herein include Wired Telecommunications Carriers, Local Exchange Carriers (LECs), Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs), Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Interexchange Carriers (IXCs), Local Resellers, Toll Resellers, Other Toll Carriers, Prepaid Calling Card Providers, Fixed Microwave Services, Cable and Other Subscription Programming, Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation), Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard), Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, Satellite Telecommunications, Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), All Other Telecommunications, Wired Broadband Internet Access Service Providers (Wired ISPs), Wireless Broadband Internet Access Service Providers (Wireless ISPs or WISPs), Internet Service Providers (Non-Broadband), All Other Information Services.
The
The changes in the
The requires an agency to provide, “a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.”
The Commission has considered the economic impact on small entities in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding. The rules that the Commission adopts in the
The Commission also considered alternatives to its existing rules, by seeking comment on alternative standards that could be used to evaluate the health and suitability of a bank. For example, Bank of America proposed on alternative method of determining a bank's eligibility that includes the current Weiss rating of B− or better or a long-term unsecured credit rating issued by a widely-recognized credit rating agency that is equivalent to a BBB− or better rating by Standard & Poor's, which is the requirement for non-U.S banks. WISPA proposed that CAF II or RDOF support recipients that met 80% of their obligations should be allowed to retire their LOCs, instead of the current requirement for completing all deployment obligations. Other alternatives proposed allowing banks that were “adequately capitalized” or those with lower Weiss ratings to issue LOCs. The Commission disagrees with these and other alternative proposals. The “well capitalized” standard allows the Commission to honor its responsibility to ensure that its programs' expenditures are protected, while minimizing disruption for support recipients and their banks. Retaining the requirement that support recipients maintain LOCs until all deployment obligations are met provides security that funding is protected until these obligations are complete. Some alternative proposals would reduce the ability of smaller banks to be eligible to provide LOCs, which is counter to our goal of expanding eligibility of banks, and may lower barriers to participation for small and other entities. In light of the economic burdens that auction support recipients could face by being required to obtain new LOCs from different banks, the Commission considered the most effective ways of allowing those support recipients to maintain their LOCs with the banks that originally issued them, as long as they are confident that the bank's economic health is sufficient. This change will free up capital to support small and other recipients which will allow them to more efficiently deploy broadband service.
The Commission also allowed RDOF support recipients that deployed service to 10% of their required locations by the end of their second year of support to reduce the value of their LOC to one year of their totally support, upon USAC's verification. Commenters opposed to these changes did not provide alternatives or specific examples of behavior that would lead the Commission to conclude this reduction would be inappropriate. Further, the USAC verification process is critical to ensuring that broadband deployment is actually occurring. Finally, the Commission allowed Auction 903 support recipients that have met all of their deployment and reporting obligations to continue to follow the RDOF's LOC rules, which will allow small and other Auction 903 support recipients that have met their obligations to free up additional capital and more efficiently deploy broadband service.
Accordingly,
Communications common carriers, Health facilities, Infants and children, Internet, Libraries, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Telecommunications, Telephone, Virgin Islands.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 54 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 229, 254, 303(r), 403, 1004, 1302, 1601-1609, and 1752, unless otherwise noted.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) A recipient that has met each of its deployment and reporting obligations may obtain a new letter of credit that follows the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund's rules as set forth in § 54.804(c)(1)(v).
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) That is well capitalized, as defined by Federal bank regulations promulgated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; or
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) That is well capitalized, as defined by Federal bank regulations promulgated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; or
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) That is well capitalized, as defined by Federal bank regulations promulgated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; or
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) That is well capitalized, as defined by Federal bank regulations promulgated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; or
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, an information collection associated with the rules for the Connect America Fund contained in the Commission's
The amendments to 54.313(a) by adding subsection (a)(6)(i),(ii)(iii) and (iv), and revising 54.313(j) and adding subsections 54.313(j)(3), (j)(3)(i) and (j)(3)(ii), published at 89 FR 25147, on April 10, 2024 are effective February 24, 2025.
Jesse Jachman, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991 or via email at
The Commission submitted revised information collection requirements for review and approval by OMB, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, on September 23, 2024. OMB approved the revised information collection requirements on November 5, 2024. The information collection requirements are contained in the Commission's
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the Commission is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on November 5, 2024, for the amendments to 54.313(a) by adding subsection (a)(6)(i),(ii)(iii) and (iv), and revising 54.313(j) and adding subsections 54.313(j)(3), (j)(3)(i) and (j)(3)(ii), published at 89 FR 25147, April 10, 2024.
Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1265.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
Carriers will identify, from among the locations they have already submitted and certified in USAC's High Cost Universal Broadband (HUBB) portal, the locations where they have an active subscriber (deployment locations are reported under OMB Control Number 3060-1228, and active locations will be reported under this control number). From those subscriber locations, USAC will then select a random sample from which the carrier will be required to perform testing for speed and latency. Carriers that do not provide location information in the HUBB will use a randomization tool provided by USAC to select a random sample of locations for testing. Due to the rule changes that the Commission adopted on the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notification of enforcement discretion.
This document announces that FMCSA will not take enforcement action against regulated entities for failing to comply with the final rule and correction titled “Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; Correction” until March 20, 2025.
As of February 24, 2025, enforcement of the final rule and correcting amendment published January 10, 2025, at 90 FR 1908, is delayed until March 20, 2025.
Mr. Nicholas Lockhart, Regulatory Development Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 366-2219;
On November 18, 2024, FMCSA published a final rule titled “Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations” (89 FR 90608) that amended its regulations by making technical corrections throughout the FMCSRs. The rule became effective upon publication but contained two errors. The first error occurred in amendatory instruction no. 107, where the Agency sought to revise § 387.307, which is stayed, without first lifting the stay. The second error occurred in amendatory instruction no. 152, where the Agency sought to revise paragraph (2) of the definition of
On January 20, 2025, the President issued a memorandum titled, “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” (90 FR 8249, Jan. 28, 2025), to direct executive departments and agencies to consider postponing for 60 days the effective date for any rules that had been published in the
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notification of enforcement discretion.
This document announces that FTA will not take enforcement action against regulated entities for failing to comply with the State Safety Oversight final rule, published on October 18, 2024, until March 20, 2025.
For program questions, Melonie Barrington, Office of Safety Review, (202) 366-0332, or
On January 20, 2025, the President issued a memorandum, titled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” 90 FR 8249 (Jan. 28, 2025), to direct the heads of Executive Departments and Agencies to consider postponing for sixty days from the date of the memorandum the effective date for any rules published in the
49 U.S.C. 5329, 1 CFR 1.91.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR72 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 10, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For EASA material identified in this proposed AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 206-231-3220; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Shahram Daneshmandi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 206-231-3220; email:
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2024-0159, dated August 16, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0159) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR72-101, -102, -201, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes. The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the failure of the chemical oxygen mask release system to release the mask when necessary, resulting in possible injury to passengers and crew. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0159, which specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in EASA AD 2024-0159 described previously, as incorporated by reference. Any differences with EASA AD 2024-0159 are identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2024-0159 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2024-0159 through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2024-0159 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2024-0159. Material required by EASA AD 2024-0159 for compliance will be available at
The FAA's process of incorporating by reference MCAI ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs has been limited to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service bulletins as the primary source of information for accomplishing the actions required by the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the process to include MCAI ADs that require a change to airworthiness limitation documents, such as airworthiness limitation sections.
For these ADs that incorporate by reference an MCAI AD that changes airworthiness limitations, the FAA requirements are unchanged. Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new airworthiness limitation document. The airworthiness limitations must be followed according to 14 CFR 91.403(c) and 91.409(e).
The previous format of the airworthiness limitation ADs included a paragraph that specified that no alternative actions (
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 40 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the agency estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA has determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by April 10, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR72-101, -102, -201, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2024-0159, dated August 16, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0159).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the failure of the chemical oxygen mask release system to release the mask when necessary, resulting in possible injury to passengers and crew.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2024-0159.
(1) This AD does not adopt the requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA AD 2024-0159.
(2) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2024-0159 specifies revising “the approved AMP,” within 12 months after its effective date, this AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
(3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2024-0159 is at the applicable “limitations” and “associated thresholds” as incorporated by the requirements of paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2024-0159, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(4) This AD does not adopt the provisions specified in paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2024-0159.
(5) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2024-0159.
After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 206-231-3220; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2024-0159, dated August 16, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2023-26-05, which applies to certain Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. (Pilatus) Model PC-24 airplanes. AD 2023-26-05 requires periodic replacement of affected titanium threaded bolts, a one-time inspection of the rudder mass balance arm and other elements of the rudder trim tab installation for correct attachment, damage (gouges), cracks, deformation, surface finish, and corrosion on any surrounding parts and, depending on findings, the accomplishment of applicable corrective actions. Since the FAA issued AD 2023-26-05, it was determined that some batches of titanium bolts had variations in the microstructure that could affect the fatigue characteristics. This proposed AD would require replacing affected short rudder-trim control rod assemblies with serviceable rudder-trim control rod assemblies having threaded steel bolts and would prohibit the installation of affected parts, as
The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by April 10, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For EASA material identified in this proposed AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
Doug Rudolph, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (816) 329-4059; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Doug Rudolph, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA issued AD 2023-26-05, Amendment 39-22648 (88 FR 90091, December 29, 2023) (AD 2023-26-05), for certain Pilatus Model PC-24 airplanes. AD 2023-26-05 was prompted by an MCAI originated by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued Emergency AD 2023-0219-E, dated December 19, 2023 (EASA Emergency AD 2023-0219-E), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Pilatus Model PC-24 airplanes. If not corrected, the unsafe condition could lead to failure of the titanium threaded bolts with consequent damage to the rudder and rudder trim tab, which could result in loss of rudder control and reduced or loss of control of the airplane. EASA Emergency AD 2023-0219-E identified the affected parts as titanium threaded bolts, part number (P/N) 527.20.24.489, installed on the rudder trim tab short control rods.
AD 2023-26-05 requires periodic replacement of affected titanium threaded bolts, a one-time inspection of the rudder mass balance arm and other elements of the rudder trim tab installation for correct attachment, damage (gouges), cracks, deformation, surface finish, and corrosion on any surrounding parts and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective actions. The FAA issued AD 2023-26-05 to address the unsafe condition on these products.
Since the FAA issued AD 2023-26-05, EASA superseded EASA Emergency AD 2023-0219-E and issued EASA AD 2024-0181R1, dated September 24, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0181R1) (also referred to as the MCAI) for certain Pilatus Model PC-24 airplanes. The MCAI states that the titanium threaded bolts at the forward end of the short rudder trim tab actuating rods may be subject to unexpectedly high oscillating loads due to aerodynamic forces acting on the rudder trim tab. This condition could lead to failure of the bolt and consequent damage to the rudder and rudder trim tab, possibly resulting in loss of rudder control and reduced or loss of control of the airplane. The MCAI also states that variations in the structures of the replacement titanium bolt batches could affect their fatigue characteristics.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0181R1, which specifies replacing an affected part, short rudder-trim control rod assembly P/N 527.20.24.464, which has threaded titanium bolts, with a serviceable part, short rudder-trim control rod assembly P/N 527.20.24.069, which has threaded steel bolts. EASA AD 2024-0181R1 prohibits the installation of an affected part on any airplane.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
These products have been approved by the aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would retain none of the requirements of AD 2023-26-05. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2024-0181R1 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and EASA. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2024-0181R1 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2024-0181R1 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2024-0181R1 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2021-0181R1. Material required by EASA AD 2024-0181R1 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 120 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this proposes AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by April 10, 2025.
This AD replaces AD 2023-26-05, Amendment 39-22648 (88 FR 90091, December 29, 2023) (AD 2023-26-05).
This AD applies to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-24 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2024-0181R1, dated September 24, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0181R1).
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2721, Rudder Tab Control System.
This AD was prompted by a determination that the titanium threaded bolts installed at the forward end of the short rudder trim tab actuating rods could be subject to
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2024-0181R1.
(1) Where EASA AD 2024-0181R1 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where EASA AD 2024-0181R1 requires compliance in terms of flight hours, this AD requires using hours time-in-service.
(3) Where paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2024-0181R1 specifies “as required by EASA AD 2023-0219-E”, this AD requires replacing that text with “as required by AD 2023-26-05.”
(4) Where the material identified in EASA AD 2024-0181R1 specifies to “discard” certain parts, this AD requires replacing that text with “remove from service.”
(5) This AD does not adopt the Remarks section of EASA AD 2024-0181R1.
The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, mail it to the address identified in paragraph (j) of this AD or email to:
For more information about this AD, contact Doug Rudolph, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (816) 329-4059; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2024-0181R1, dated September 24, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Reinstatement of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request the reinstatement of an information collection to conduct the National Animal Health Monitoring System's Equine 2026 Study.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April 25, 2025.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the Equine 2026 Study, contact Ms. Nia Washington-Plaskett, Program Analyst, Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health, VS, APHIS, 2150 Centre Ave., Bldg. B, Fort Collins, CO 80524; phone: (866) 907-8190; email:
In connection with this mission, APHIS operates the National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS), which collects on a national basis statistically valid and scientifically sound data on the prevalence and economic importance of livestock, poultry, and aquaculture disease risk factors.
NAHMS' studies have evolved into a collaborative industry and government initiative to help determine the most effective means of preventing and controlling diseases of livestock. NAHMS is the only Federal statistical agency or unit responsible for collecting statistically representative and valid data on livestock health. Participation in any NAHMS study is voluntary, and all data are confidential.
NAHMS plans to conduct the Equine 2026 Study as part of an ongoing series of NAHMS studies on the U.S. livestock population. This study will support the following objectives: (1) Describe trends in equine care, health management, and disease occurrence over time based on data from 1998, 2005, 2015, and 2026; (2) describe biosecurity and health management strategies related to the control of important equine infectious diseases at equine events
The study will consist of two phases. In phase I, a National Agricultural Statistics Service enumerator will contact and conduct interviews with owner/operators with 5 or more equids in all 50 States. In phase II (APHIS phase), an APHIS-designated data collector (APHIS Veterinary Services, Veterinary Medical Officer or authorized official, such as Animal Health Technicians, State employees, and/or university cooperators) will contact equine event representatives hosting equine events in 30 States.
The information collected through the NAHMS Equine 2026 Study will be analyzed and organized into descriptive reports. Several information sheets will be derived from these reports and disseminated by NAHMS to owner/operators, stakeholders, academia, veterinarians, and other interested parties. The collected data will be used to: (1) Establish national and regional estimates for equine health and management for owner/operator, veterinary, and industry references; (2) predict or detect national and regional trends in disease emergence and movement; (3) address emerging issues; (4) aid in disease preparedness; (5) provide estimates of both outcome (disease or other parameters) and exposure (risks and components) variables that can be used in analytic studies in the future by NAHMS; (6) provide input into the design of surveillance systems for specific diseases; and (7) provide parameters for animal disease spread models.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of public meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that the Hawai'i Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a series of business meetings via Zoom on the following dates and times. The purpose of the meetings is to discuss the Committee's Report on the topic “Overrepresentation of Native Hawaiian Children and Families within Hawai'i's Child Welfare System.”
These business meetings will take place on:
**Friday, March 7, 2025, from 9:00 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Hawai'i Standard Time.
Wednesday, April 16, 2025, from 3:00 p.m.-4:30 p.m. Hawai'i Standard Time.
The meetings will be held via Zoom Webinar.
Kayla Fajota, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at
Committee meetings are available to the public through the videoconference link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Closed captions will be provided for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email Angelica Trevino, Support Services Specialists, at
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Kayla Fajota (DFO) at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via
**
Broward County, grantee of FTZ 25, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) on behalf of Philip Stein Holding, Inc. (Philip Stein) for Philip Stein's facility in Pembroke Park, Florida within FTZ 25. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on February 12, 2025.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished products include: men's stainless steel watches with calf leather bands; men's stainless steel watches with silk bands; men's stainless steel watches with apple peel leather bands; men's stainless steel watches with recycled polyethylene terephthalate bands; men's stainless steel watches with stainless steel bands; men's stainless steel watches with silicone bands; men's stainless steel watches with rubber bands; ladies stainless steel watches with calf leather bands; ladies stainless steel watches with silk bands; ladies stainless steel watches with apple peel leather bands; ladies stainless steel watches with recycled polyethylene terephthalate band; ladies stainless steel watches with stainless steel bands; ladies stainless steel watches with silicone band; ladies stainless steel watches with rubber bands; chronograph stainless steel watches with calf leather bands; chronograph stainless steel watches with apple peel leather bands; chronograph stainless steel watches with stainless steel bands; chronograph stainless steel watches with silicone bands; chronograph stainless steel watches with rubber bands; and imitation jewelry bracelets (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 8%, $.40-.44 per piece).
The proposed foreign-status materials/components include: men's stainless steel watches with no strap; ladies stainless steel watches with no strap, chronograph stainless steel watches with no strap; calf leather bands; silk bands; microfiber bands; apple peel leather bands; pashima bands; recycled polyethylene terephthalate bands; stainless steel bands; silicone bands; rubber bands; and imitation jewelry bracelets (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 8%, $.40-.44 per piece). The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (section 1702) and section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 1702 and section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Kolade Osho at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable February 24, 2025.
Kelsie Hohenberger (Cambodia) or Rachel Jennings (Sri Lanka), AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2517 or (202) 482-1110, respectively.
On November 12, 2024, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of imports of paper file folders from Cambodia and Sri Lanka.
Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in an LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1)(A)(b)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 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 February 11, 2025, the petitioner
For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, Commerce, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations by 50 days (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable February 24, 2025.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) hereby publishes a list of scope rulings and circumvention determinations made during the period October 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. We intend to publish future lists after the close of the next calendar quarter.
Marcia E. Short, AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1560.
Commerce regulations provide that it will publish in the
Interested parties are invited to comment on the completeness of this list of completed scope inquiries and scope/circumvention inquiry combinations made during the period October 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. Any comments should be submitted to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, via email to
This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(o).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the expedited sunset review, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on vertical metal file cabinets (file cabinets) from the People's Republic of China (China) would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Applicable February 24, 2025.
Thomas Martin, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3299.
On December 13, 2019, Commerce published the AD order on file cabinets from China.
On December 2, 2024, the domestic interested party filed a timely substantive response within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).
The merchandise subject to the
All issues raised in this review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the antidumping duty order on file cabinets from China would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail would be weighted-average dumping margins up to 198.50 percent.
This notice serves as the only reminder to interested 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. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The MAFMC will hold a public webinar meeting of its Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Advisory Panel and Bluefish Advisory Panel. This meeting will be held jointly with the respective Advisory Panels of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. See
The meeting will be held on Thursday, March 13, 2025, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Webinar connection information will be posted to the calendar prior to the meeting at
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The purpose of this meeting is for the Advisory Panels to discuss the Recreational Measures Setting Process Framework/Addenda. The Framework/Addenda considers changes to the process used to set recreational bag, size, and season limits for summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, and bluefish. During this meeting, advisors will review the alternatives under consideration in the framework/addenda, a summary of public comments, input from the Fishery Management Action Team/Plan Development Team, and other information. Advisors will then provide their input and recommendations for final action.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to Shelley Spedden, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold its 155th Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), Hawaii Archipelago and Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA) Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) Advisory Panel (AP), and American Samoa Archipelago FEP AP to discuss and make recommendations on fishery management issues in the Western Pacific Region.
The meetings will be held between March 11 and March 18, 2025. For specific times and agendas, see
The Council will hold its 155th SSC, Hawaii Archipelago and PRIA FEP AP, and American Samoa Archipelago FEP AP meetings in a hybrid format with in-person and remote participation (Webex) options available for the members and the public. In person attendance (for members and public) for the SSC and the Hawaii Archipelago and PRIA FEP AP meetings will be hosted at the Courtyard King Kamehameaha's Kona Beach Hotel Kamakahonu Ballroom, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740. In-person attendance for American Samoa Archipelago FEP AP and public will be hosted at the Tedi of Samoa Suite 208B, P8C6+V2F, Fagotogo Village, AS, 96799. Instructions for connecting to the web conference and providing oral public comments will be posted on the Council website at
Contact Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; phone: (808) 522-8220.
The 155th SSC meeting will be held between 8:30 a.m. and 1 p.m. (Hawaii Standard Time [HST]) on March 11, 2025, 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on March 12, 2025, and 9 a.m. and 12 p.m. on March 13, 2025. The Hawaii Archipelago and PRIA FEP AP will be held between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. (HST) on Thursday, March 13, 2025. The American Samoa Archipelago FEP AP will be held between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. (Samoa Standard Time [SST]) on Tuesday, March 18, 2025.
Public Comment periods will be provided in the agendas. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.
These meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC; Council) will hold a meeting of its Citizen Science Projects Advisory Panel (AP) via webinar.
The Citizen Science Projects AP meeting will be held via webinar on Tuesday, March 11, 2025, from 9 a.m. until 12 p.m.
The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Webinar registration, an online public comment form, and briefing book materials will be available 2 weeks prior to the meeting at:
Julia Byrd, Citizen Science Program Manager, SAFMC; phone: (843) 302-8439 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The Citizen Science Projects AP members include representatives from the Council's fishery advisory panels (AP), Habitat & Ecosystem AP, and Outreach and Communications AP. Their responsibilities include identifying citizen science research and data needs across all the Council's fishery management plans; assisting with development of volunteer engagement strategies for recruiting, training, retaining, and communicating with volunteers; and serving as outreach ambassadors for the Program.
Agenda items include: an update on Citizen Science Program and Project activities; discussion on ways to promote the Citizen Science Project Idea Portal; and the Citizen Science Program's initial evaluation plan, including researchers presenting their findings to help establish baseline levels of knowledge about, confidence in, and trust in the citizen science process of collecting data to inform fisheries management with panel discussion on ways to refine the Program based on these results; and other business.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
On February 14, 2025, Cibola Renewables, LLC, filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). The proposed Socorro Energy Park Project would have an installed capacity of up to 3 kilowatts (kW) and would be located on the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District's main canal near Socorro, Socorro County, New Mexico.
A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all the criteria shown in the table below.
Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as comments or motions to intervene, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
On February 12, 2025, California State Water Resources Control Board submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) notice that it received a request for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification as defined in 40 CFR 121.5, from Pacific Gas and Electric Company, in conjunction with the above captioned project on January 21, 2025. Pursuant to section 4.201(e) of the Commission's regulations,
If California State Water Resources Control Board fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before the above date, then the certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
Take notice that on February 3, 2025, Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (Mountain Valley), 2200 Energy Drive, Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 15317, filed an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to amend its Southgate Project authorized by the Commission in Docket No. CP19-14-000.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to William S. Lavarco, NextEra Energy, Inc., 801 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 220, Washington, DC 20004, by phone at (202) 347-7127, or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
Mountain Valley stated that a water quality certificate under section 401 of the Clean Water Act is required for the project from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), Water Division and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Division of Water Resources. When available, Mountain Valley should submit to the Commission a copy of the request for certification for the Commission authorization, including the date the request was submitted to the certifying agency, and either (1) a copy of the certifying agency's decision or (2) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file comments on the project, you can protest the filing, and you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 11, 2025. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments may include statements of support or objections, to the project as a whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Pursuant to sections 157.10(a)(4)
To ensure that your comments or protests are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before March 11, 2025.
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments or protests to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number CP25-60-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website at
(2) You may file your comments or protests electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments or protests by mailing them to the following address below. Your written comments must reference the Project docket number (CP25-60-000).
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1 and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. However, the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding. For instructions on how to intervene, see below.
Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses, municipalities, and other entities,
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP25-60-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below. Your motion to intervene must reference the Project docket number CP25-60-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: William S. Lavarco, NextEra Energy, Inc., 801 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 220, Washington, DC 20004 or by email (with a link to the document) at
All timely, unopposed
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
On February 10, 2025, Washington State Department of Ecology (Washington Ecology) submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) notice that it received a request for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification as defined in 40 CFR 121.5, from Seattle City Light, in conjunction with the above captioned project on January 30, 2025. Pursuant to section 6.1(b) of the Commission's regulations,
If Washington Ecology fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before the above date, then the certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
On November 22, 2024, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) filed an application in Docket No. CP25-24-000, requesting permission to amend the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Armagh and Entriken Replacement Project, issued on October 23, 2023, under Docket No. CP22-486-000 (2023 Order). With the Entriken Amendment Project (Amendment), Texas Eastern proposes to modify the certificated facilities at the Entriken Compressor Station due to uncertainties regarding obtaining the electrical transmission power needed to support the electric-motor driven (EMD) compressor unit approved in the 2023 Order.
On December 9, 2024, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing Federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a Federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's environmental document for the Project.
This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) for the Project and the planned schedule for the completion of the environmental review.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
Under the 2023 Order, the Armagh and Entriken Replacement Project consisted of the abandonment of pipeline facilities, construction of pipeline facilities, and the abandonment of gas-driven compression facilities to be replaced with EMD facilities. With the Amendment Project, Texas Eastern proposes to modify the certificated facilities at the Entriken Compressor Station from a 24,000 horsepower (hp) EMD compressor unit, to a 24,306 hp gas-driven compressor unit.
On January 14, 2025, the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This service provides automatic notification of filings made to subscribed dockets, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (
On February 14, 2025, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL25-50-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, instituting an investigation to determine whether Northwest Ohio Wind, LLC's Rate Schedule is unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential, or otherwise unlawful.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL25-50-000 established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL25-50-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2024), within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFile” link at
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) to address the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's (court) July 16, 2024 opinion finding, as relevant here, that FERC failed to properly assess the cumulative effects of the Commonwealth LNG Project's (Project) nitrogen dioxide (NO
On September 9, 2022, the Commission staff issued a final EIS for the Project.
The Commission mailed a copy of the
The draft supplemental EIS is not a decision document. It presents Commission staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues for
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP19-502) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental document, that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Gulf Coast Storage Expansion Project, involving construction and operation of facilities by Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC (Natural) in Harrison County, Texas. The Commission will use this environmental document in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies regarding the project. As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. This gathering of public input is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the environmental document on the important environmental issues. Additional information about the Commission's NEPA process is described below in the NEPA Process and Environmental Document section of this notice.
By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of issues to address in the environmental document. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 20, 2025. Comments may be submitted in written form. Further details on how to submit comments are provided in the Public Participation section of this notice.
Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the environmental document. Commission staff will consider all written comments during the preparation of the environmental document.
If you submitted comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on January 17, 2025, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP25-52-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, the Natural Gas Act conveys the right of eminent domain to the company. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be determined by a judge in accordance with state law. The Commission does not subsequently grant, exercise, or oversee the exercise of that eminent domain authority. The courts have exclusive authority to handle eminent domain cases; the Commission has no jurisdiction over these matters.
Natural provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” which addresses typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner topics of interest are available for viewing on the FERC website (
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP25-52-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings. Go to
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Natural proposes to construct and operate a new pipeline loop and new compressor station at its existing North Lansing Storage Field, located in Harrison County, Texas. The Gulf Coast Storage Expansion Project would increase the certificated peak withdrawal level at Natural's Lansing Storage Field from 1,240 million cubic feet per day (“Mmcf/day”) to 1,420 Mmcf/day. According to Natural, the project would allow Natural to meet growing demand for natural gas storage to meet seasonal demand requirements and create additional resiliency to withstand supply or demand disruptions.
The Gulf Coast Storage Expansion Project would consist of the following facilities:
• approximately 5.9 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline loop;
• one new pigging tool launcher at the start of the loop; and
• one new compressor unit rated at 12,000 horsepower.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 150.1 acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline. Following construction, Natural would maintain about 35.4 acres for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.
Any environmental document issued by the Commission will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under the relevant general resource areas:
• geology and soils;
• water resources and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• threatened and endangered species;
• cultural resources;
• socioeconomics;
• land use;
• air quality and noise; and
• reliability and safety.
Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your comments will help Commission staff identify and focus on the issues that might have an effect on the human environment and potentially eliminate others from further study and discussion in the environmental document.
Following this scoping period, Commission staff will determine
With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project and includes a mailing address with their comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of the following steps:
(1) Send an email to
(2) Return the attached “Mailing List Update Form” (appendix 2).
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice and request for comment.
EPA is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to make information publicly available and to publish information in the
Comments must be received on or before March 26, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2024-0057 and the specific case number provided in this document for the chemical substance related to your comment, online at
This document provides the receipt and status reports for the period from 12/01/2024 to 12/31/2024. The Agency is providing notice of receipt of PMNs, SNUNs, and MCANs (including amended notices and test information); an exemption application under 40 CFR part 725 (Biotech exemption); TMEs, both pending and/or concluded; NOCs to manufacture a new chemical substance; and a periodic status report on new chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review.
EPA is also providing information on its website about cases reviewed under the amended TSCA, including the section 5 PMN/SNUN/MCAN and exemption notices received, the date of receipt, the final EPA determination on the notice, and the effective date of EPA's determination for PMN/SNUN/MCAN notices on its website at:
Under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601
Any person who intends to manufacture (including import) a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose, or to manufacture or process a chemical substance in a non-exempt manner for a use that EPA has determined is a significant new use, is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, MCAN, or SNUN, as appropriate, before initiating the activity. EPA will review the notice, make a risk determination on the chemical substance or significant new use, and take appropriate action as described in TSCA section 5(a)(3).
TSCA section 5(h)(1) authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application and under appropriate restrictions, to manufacture or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a)(2), for “test marketing” purposes, upon a showing that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of the chemical will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to:
Under TSCA sections 5 and 8 and EPA regulations, EPA is required to publish in the
This action provides information that is directed to the public in general.
No.
1.
2.
In the past, EPA has published individual notices reflecting the status of TSCA section 5 filings received, pending, or concluded. In 1995, the Agency modified its approach and streamlined the information published in the
For the PMN/SNUN/MCANs that have passed an initial screening by EPA during this period, Table I provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not subject to a CBI claim) on the notices screened by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the notice that indicates whether the submission is an initial submission, or an amendment, a notation of which version was received, the date the notice was received by EPA, the submitting manufacturer (
As used in each of the tables in this unit, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G) indicates that this information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI. Submissions which are initial submissions will not have a letter following the case number. Submissions which are amendments to previous submissions will have a case number followed by the letter “A” (
In Table 2 of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the NOCs that have passed an initial screening by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the NOC including whether the submission was an initial or amended submission; the date the NOC was received by EPA; the date of commencement provided by the submitter in the NOC; a notation, if applicable, of the type of amendment (
In Table 3 of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent such information is not subject to a CBI claim) on the test information that has been received during this time period: The EPA case number assigned to the test information; the date the test information was received by EPA, the type of test information submitted, and chemical substance identity.
If you are interested in information that is not included in these tables, you may contact EPA's technical information contact or general information contact as described under
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to publish in the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2024-0159, is available online at
This action provides information that is directed to the public in general.
This document lists the statements of findings made by EPA after review of submissions under TSCA section 5(a) that certain new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This document presents statements of findings made by EPA during the reporting period.
TSCA section 5(a)(3) requires EPA to review a submission under TSCA section 5(a) and make one of several specific findings pertaining to whether the substance may present unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Among those potential findings is that the chemical substance or significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment per TSCA Section 5(a)(3)(C).
TSCA section 5(g) requires EPA to publish in the
Anyone who plans to manufacture (which includes import) a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose and any manufacturer or processor wishing to engage in a use of a chemical substance designated by EPA as a significant new use must submit a notice to EPA at least 90 days before commencing manufacture of the new chemical substance or before engaging in the significant new use.
The submitter of a notice to EPA for which EPA has made a finding of “not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment” may commence manufacture of the chemical substance or manufacture or processing for the significant new use notwithstanding any remaining portion of the applicable review period.
No.
In this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)) on the PMNs, MCANs and SNUNs for which, during this period, EPA has made findings under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) that the new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment:
The following list provides the EPA case number assigned to the TSCA section 5(a) submission and the chemical identity (generic name if the specific name is claimed as CBI).
• P-23-0148, Amylopectin, 2-hydroxypropyl ether, modified (Generic Name).
• SN-24-0005-0006, Dicarboxylic acids, polymers with alkanoic acid, alkanediol, susbtituted-alkylalkanoic acid, substituted alkyl carbomonocyle, alkanedioic acid and alkanediol, alkanolamine blocked, compds with alkanolamine (Generic Name).
To access EPA's decision document describing the basis of the “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” finding made by EPA under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C), look up the specific case number at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of receipt and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.
Comments must be received on or before March 26, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0058, online at
Madison H. Le, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511M), main telephone number: (202) 566-1400, email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
EPA is taking this action pursuant to section 3(c)(4) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4), and 40 CFR 152.102.
EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products that were received during the covered period. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications. For actions being evaluated under EPA's public participation process for registration actions, there will be an additional opportunity for public comment on the proposed decisions. Please see EPA's public participation website for additional information on this process (
1.
2.
This unit provides the following information about the applications received during this period: The EPA File Symbol or Registration number(s); EPA docket ID number for the application; Name and address of the applicant; Name of the active ingredient, product type and proposed uses; and the division to contact for that application. Additional information about the application may also be available in the related docket for the application as identified in this unit.
•
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of receipt and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.
Comments must be received on or before March 26, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0061, online at
Charles Smith, Registration Division (RD) (7505T), main telephone number: (202) 566-1030, email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
EPA is taking this action pursuant to section 3(c)(4) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4), and 40 CFR 152.102.
EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on the applications identified in Unit II. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications. For actions being evaluated under EPA's public participation process for registration actions, there will be an additional opportunity for public comment on the proposed decisions. Please see EPA's public participation website for additional information on this process (
1.
2.
This unit provides the following information about the applications received during this period: The EPA File Symbol or Registration number(s); EPA docket ID number for the application; Name and address of the applicant; Name of the active ingredient, product type and proposed uses; and the division to contact for that application. Additional information about the application may also be available in the related docket for the application as identified in this unit.
•
2.
•
•
•
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of new chemical submissions under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), including information about the receipt of a Premanufacture notice (PMN), Significant New Use Notice (SNUN), Microbial Commercial Activity Notice (MCAN), an amendment to a previously submitted notice; receipt of test information; a biotechnology exemption application; an application for a test marketing exemption (TME); and a notice of commencement of manufacture (including import) (NOC) for a new chemical substance; and a periodic status report on new chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review. This document covers the period from 1/01/2025 to 1/31/2025.
Comments must be received on or before March 26, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2025-0067 and the specific case number provided in this document for the chemical substance related to your comment, online at
This document provides the receipt and status reports for the period from 1/01/2025 to 1/31/2025. The Agency is providing notice of receipt of PMNs, SNUNs, and MCANs (including amended notices and test information); an exemption application under 40 CFR part 725 (Biotech exemption); TMEs, both pending and/or concluded; NOCs to manufacture a new chemical substance; and a periodic status report on new chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review.
EPA is also providing information on its website about cases reviewed under the amended TSCA, including the section 5 PMN/SNUN/MCAN and exemption notices received, the date of receipt, the final EPA determination on the notice, and the effective date of EPA's determination for PMN/SNUN/MCAN notices on its website at:
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601
Any person who intends to manufacture (including import) a new
TSCA section 5(h)(1) authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application and under appropriate restrictions, to manufacture or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a)(2), for “test marketing” purposes, upon a showing that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of the chemical will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to:
Under TSCA sections 5 and 8 and EPA regulations, EPA is required to publish in the
This action provides information that is directed to the public in general.
No.
1.
2.
Information about the TSCA section 5 PMNs, SNUNs, MCANs, and exemption notices received, including the date of receipt, the status of EPA's review, the final EPA determination, and the effective date of EPA's determination, is available online at:
For the PMN/SNUN/MCANs that have passed an initial screening by EPA during this period, Table I provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not subject to a CBI claim) on the notices screened by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the notice that indicates whether the submission is an initial submission, or an amendment, a notation of which version was received, the date the notice was received by EPA, the submitting manufacturer (
As used in each of the tables in this unit, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G) indicates that this information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI. Submissions which are initial submissions will not have a letter following the case number. Submissions which are amendments to previous submissions will have a case number followed by the letter “A” (
In Table 2 of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the NOCs that have passed an initial screening by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the NOC including whether the submission was an initial or amended submission; the date the NOC was received by EPA; the date of commencement provided by the submitter in the NOC; a notation, if applicable, of the type of amendment (
In Table 3 of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent such information is not subject to a CBI claim) on the test information that has been received during this time period: The EPA case number assigned to the test information; the date the test information was received by EPA, the type of test information submitted, and chemical substance identity.
If you are interested in information that is not included in these tables, you may contact EPA's technical information contact or general information contact as described under
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before April 25, 2025.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
Section 73.3700(e)(2) requires all broadcast television station licensees and MVPDs that are eligible to receive payment of relocation costs to file an estimated cost form providing an estimate of their reasonably incurred relocation costs no later than three months following the release of the Channel Reassignment Public Notice. If a broadcast television station licensee or MVPD seeks reimbursement for new equipment, it must provide a justification as to why it is reasonable under the circumstances to purchase new equipment rather than modify its corresponding current equipment in order to change channels or to continue to carry the signal of a broadcast television station that changes channels. Entities that submit their own cost estimates, as opposed to the predetermined cost estimates provided in the estimated cost form, must submit supporting evidence and certify that the estimate is made in good faith. Entities must also update the form if circumstances change significantly.
Section 73.3700(e)(3) requires all broadcast television station licensees and MVPDs that received an initial allocation from the TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund, upon completing construction or other reimbursable changes, or by a specific deadline prior to the end of the Reimbursement Period to be established by the Media Bureau, whichever is earlier, to provide the Commission with information and documentation, including invoices and receipts, regarding their actual expenses incurred as of a date to be determined by the Media Bureau. If a broadcast television station licensee or MVPD has not yet completed construction or other reimbursable changes by the Final Allocation Deadline, it must provide the Commission with information and documentation regarding any remaining eligible expenses that it expects to reasonably incur.
Section 73.3700(e)(4) requires broadcast television station licensees and MVPDs that have received money from the TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund, after completing all construction or reimbursable changes, to submit final expense documentation containing a list of estimated expenses and actual expenses as of a date to be determined by the Media Bureau. Entities that have finished construction and have submitted all actual expense documentation by the Final Allocation Deadline will not be required to file at the final accounting stage.
Section 73.3700(e)(6) requires broadcast television station licensees and MVPDs that receive payment from the TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund to retain all relevant documents pertaining to construction or other reimbursable changes for a period ending not less than 10 years after the date on which it receives final payment from the TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund and to make available all relevant documentation upon request from the Commission or its contractor.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The agency must receive comments on or before April 25, 2025.
Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Rolanda F. Smith, 202-418-2054,
The Media Bureau shall provide notice in the
The full text of these applications is available electronically via Licensing and Management System (LMS),
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” 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.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before March 26, 2025.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) go to the web page
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.”
(1) Name of the carrier;
(2) A detailed description of the revisions;
(3) The amount of the revisions;
(4) The impact of the revisions on the carrier's calculated common line and traffic sensitive revenue requirements; and
(5) The carrier's total annual common line and traffic sensitive revenue requirement. The information is used to compute charges in tariffs for access service (or origination and termination) and to compute revenue pool distributions. Neither process could be implemented without the information.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” 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.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before March 26, 2025.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) go to the web page
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.”
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before April 25, 2025.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The liquidation of the assets for the receivership has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors. Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than 30 days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing, identify the receivership to which the comment pertains, and sent within 30 days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Section, 600 North Pearl, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75201. No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered that are not sent within this time frame.
Thursday, February 27, 2025, 10 a.m.
Hybrid meeting: 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC (12th Floor) and virtual.
The February 27, 2025 Open Meeting has been canceled.
Myles Martin, Deputy Press Officer. Telephone: (202) 694-1221.
Individuals who plan to attend in person and who require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Laura E. Sinram, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040 or
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than March 11, 2025.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of hearing: reconsideration of disapproval.
This notice announces an administrative hearing to be held on April 2, 2025, by way of video, or at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98104 to reconsider CMS' decision to disapprove Idaho's Medicaid SPA 24-0015.
Requests to participate in the hearing as a party must be received by the presiding officer by March 11, 2025.
Benjamin R. Cohen, Presiding Officer,
This notice announces an administrative hearing to reconsider CMS' decision to disapprove Idaho's Medicaid State Plan Amendment (SPA) 24-0015, which was submitted to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on October 11, 2024, and disapproved on January 6, 2025. This SPA proposed to elect the option authorized under section 1902(e)(16) of the Social Security Act (the Act) to provide continuous Medicaid coverage to pregnant Medicaid beneficiaries for the duration of their pregnancies and through the last day of the month in which the 12-month period (beginning on the last day of their pregnancies) ends. Idaho additionally proposed in the SPA to exclude from its scope individuals whose pregnancies end due to abortions “that are not in accordance with Idaho Code 18-622.”
The issues to be considered at the hearing are whether Idaho's SPA 24-0015 is inconsistent with the requirements of section 1902(e)(16) of the Social Security Act (the Act), which provides that, in states that elect the extended postpartum coverage option, the state plan must provide continuous Medicaid coverage to all individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid while pregnant, from the beginning of their pregnancy (or initial enrollment, if already pregnant at that time) through the end of the 12th month following the date their pregnancy ends.
Section 1116 of the Act and federal regulations at 42 CFR part 430 establish Department procedures that provide an administrative hearing for reconsideration of a disapproval of a state plan or plan amendment. CMS is required to publish in the
Any individual or group seeking to participate in the hearing as a party must petition the presiding officer within 15 days after publication of this notice, in accordance with the requirements contained at 42 CFR 430.76(b)(2). Any interested person or organization seeking to participate as
The notice to Idaho announcing an administrative hearing to reconsider the disapproval of its SPA 24-0015 reads as follows:
I am responding to the January 20, 2025, request for reconsideration of the decision to disapprove Idaho's State Plan amendment (SPA) 24-0015. Idaho SPA 24-0015 was submitted to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on October 11, 2024, and disapproved on January 6, 2025. I am scheduling a hearing on the request for reconsideration to be held on April 2, 2025, by way of a video hearing or at the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98104.
I am designating Mr. Benjamin R. Cohen as the presiding officer. If these arrangements present any problems, please contact Mr. Cohen at
Idaho SPA 24-0015 proposed to elect the option authorized under section 1902(e)(16) of the Social Security Act (the Act) to provide continuous Medicaid coverage to pregnant Medicaid beneficiaries for the duration of their pregnancies and through the last day of the month in which the 12-month period (beginning on the last day of their pregnancies) ends. Idaho additionally proposed in the SPA to exclude from its scope individuals 4-4-5 whose pregnancies end due to abortions “that are not in accordance with Idaho Code 18-622.”
CMS disapproved Idaho SPA 24-0015 because this exclusion is not authorized under section 1902(e)(16) of the Act. As CMS explained in our disapproval letter dated January 6, 2025, under the extended postpartum coverage option at section 1902(e)(16) of the Act, in any state that has elected the option, individuals are entitled to the extended postpartum coverage regardless of the reason their pregnancy ends. CMS referenced in the disapproval letter the CMS state health official (SHO) letter, which explains that “under the extended postpartum option, individuals are entitled to the extended postpartum option regardless of the reason a pregnancy ends.”
The issue to be considered at the hearing is whether Idaho SPA 24-0015 is inconsistent with the requirements of section 1902(e)(16) of the Act, which provides that, in states that elect the extended postpartum coverage option, the state plan must provide continuous Medicaid coverage to all individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid while pregnant, from the beginning of their pregnancy (or initial enrollment, if already pregnant at that time) through the end of the 12th month following the date their pregnancy ends.
Subsequent to the completion of the hearing, all parties will be served with a copy of recommended findings and a proposed decision. The parties will then have 20 days to file exceptions to the recommended findings and proposed decision. I am required to issue a final decision within 60 days of the date the proposed decision was served.
The Acting Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Stephanie Carlton, 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 Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities.
Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Risk Analysis, Planning & Information Directorate, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal Regulations. The currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Risk Analysis, Planning & Information Directorate, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The
These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Risk Analysis, Planning & Information Directorate, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Comments are to be submitted on or before May 27, 2025.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2502, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Risk Analysis, Planning & Information Directorate, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Risk Analysis, Planning & Information Directorate, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notice of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) partial vacatur.
Through this notice, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announces that the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) has decided to partially vacate the June 4, 2024, decision of former Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas regarding the extension of the designation of Haiti for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and the new designation of Haiti for TPS. In the 2024 action, former Secretary Mayorkas again extended the designation of Haiti for TPS for the statutory maximum of 18 months (until February 3, 2026), which covered approximately 199,445 Haitian nationals; and again newly designated Haiti for TPS, which had the effect of allowing approximately 321,349 additional Haitian nationals to qualify for the same 18-month period. For the reasons described in this notice, the Secretary has determined to partially vacate the June 4, 2024, decision by reducing the designation period from 18 months to 12 months. The Secretary is also making a corresponding change to the registration deadline for new applicants under the new designation. Accordingly, by operation of this notice, the Haiti TPS extension and new designation will expire on August 3, 2025, instead of February 3, 2026, and the first-time registration will remain in effect until August 3, 2025, instead of February 3, 2026.
The partial vacatur of the June 4, 2024, decision is effective immediately. Notice of the June 4, 2024, decision was published at 89 FR 54484 (July 1, 2024).
Samantha Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 800-375-5283.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, to designate a foreign state (or part thereof) for TPS if the Secretary determines that certain country conditions exist.
The determination whether to designate any foreign state (or part thereof) for TPS is discretionary, and with respect to an exercise of this discretion, Congress expressly withheld jurisdiction from Federal courts such that there is no judicial review of “any determination of the [Secretary] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state” for TPS.
At least 60 days before the expiration of a foreign state's TPS designation or extension, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, must review the conditions in the foreign state designated for TPS to determine whether they continue to meet the conditions for the TPS designation.
Designations of Haiti for TPS based on “extraordinary and temporary conditions” in that country extend back
In January 2018, DHS announced the termination of the TPS designation of Haiti effective July 22, 2019.
Meanwhile, in August 2021, former Secretary Mayorkas announced that he was newly designating Haiti for 18 months on the basis of “extraordinary and temporary conditions.”
Most recently, in July 2024, DHS issued a notice stating that Secretary Mayorkas once again had determined to extend and newly designate Haiti for TPS for an 18-month period, set to expire on February 3, 2026.
Each new designation allowed additional Haitian nationals who entered the United States, including illegally, to qualify even though these populations were not impacted by the preceding findings of “extraordinary and temporary conditions.” In May 2011, DHS estimated that 57,000 Haitians were eligible to register for TPS.
Further, former Secretary Mayorkas in 2023 reconsidered and rescinded the first Trump Administration's decisions to terminate TPS designations for Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Nepal.
President Trump underscored in Executive Order 14159,
The Secretary of Homeland Security accordingly is reconsidering and partially vacating the June 4, 2024, decision of Secretary Mayorkas to extend the Haiti TPS designation and newly designate Haiti for TPS for an additional 18 months (from Aug. 4, 2024, to Feb. 3, 2026). Specifically, the Secretary has determined that the extension and designation period for Haiti should be reduced from the statutory maximum of 18 months to 12 months. Accordingly, by operation of this notice, the Haiti TPS extension and new designation will expire on August 3, 2025, instead of February 3, 2026.
The Secretary is taking this action for several reasons. First, there is no discussion in the July 1, 2024,
Second, and similarly, the July 1, 2024, notice is bereft of any justification of why permitting the ever-increasing population of Haitian TPS recipients, particularly those who entered the country unlawfully, to remain temporarily in the United States is not contrary to the U.S. national interest. The notice simply states that “it is not contrary to the national interest of the United States.” The administrative record underlying Secretary Mayorkas' June 4, 2024, decision likewise lacks any discussion of the critical national interest criterion. Such conclusory determinations do not accord with the gravity of TPS decisions under the INA. “National interest” is an expansive standard that may encompass an array of broad considerations, including foreign policy, public safety (
Third, although the July 1, 2024, notice cites some country conditions reports that are relatively proximate to the June 4, 2024, decision, several others date back to early 2023, 2022, or even earlier.
Eighteen months is the maximum period of designation or extension authorized under the TPS statute. Neither the 2021 new designation, the 2023 extension and new designation, nor the 2024 extension and new designation contained any discussion of national interest considerations or why the 18-month (vs. 6 or 12-month) periods were granted. Given the protracted duration of the “extraordinary and temporary conditions”-based designation for Haiti, the absence of any meaningful appraisal of national interest factors or justification for the 18-month extension, and the fact that eligible Haitians were able to register for TPS under the July 1, 2024, notice for over seven months, the Secretary has determined that a 12-month period is warranted. Abbreviating the period from 18 to 12 months will allow for a fresh review of country conditions in Haiti and of whether such conditions remain both “extraordinary” and “temporary,” whether Haitian may return in safety, and whether it is contrary to the U.S. national interest to continue to permit the Haitian nationals to remain temporarily in the United States.
Although the statute allows the Secretary to reassess country conditions—including whether allowing the aliens to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to the U.S. national interest—at any time at least 60 days before the end of the extension or designation period, the statute does not preclude this more modest action in the interim.
As the prior Administration concluded, the TPS statute does not limit the Secretary's inherent authority under the INA to reconsider any TPS-related determination, and upon reconsideration, to vacate or amend the determination.
In taking this action, the Secretary has considered putative reliance interests in Secretary Mayorkas' unreasoned granting of the statutory maximum 18-month period.
As a result of the partial vacatur, the 2024 Haiti TPS extension and new designation remains in effect until August 3, 2025, and the initial registration period for new applicants under the 2024 Haiti TPS designation will remain in effect until August 3, 2025. The Secretary, consistent with the statute, intends to review the Haiti TPS designation by June 4, 2025. If she fails to do so, the statute triggers an automatic six-month extension of the current TPS designation.
Pursuant to this partial vacatur, TPS re-registration applications, initial applications, and associated applications for employment authorization filed pursuant to the July 1, 2024, notice that remain pending with USCIS will, if approved, receive an expiration date of August 3, 2025. TPS beneficiaries under the Haiti TPS designation who have already received Employment Authorization Documents (EADs); Forms 1-797, Notice of Action (Approval Notice); and Forms 1-94, Arrival/Departure Record (collectively known as TPS-related documentation) with a February 3, 2026, expiration date do not need to refile applications with USCIS for new TPS-related documentation showing an August 3, 2025, expiration date. USCIS will not recall TPS-related documentation previously issued with February 3, 2026, expiration dates and those documents remain valid through the new TPS Haiti designation period expiring on August 3, 2025. Additionally, USCIS will not issue new TPS-related documentation with the August 3, 2025, expiration date to aliens who have previously received documentation with the February 3, 2026, expiration date.
Employers and Federal, State, and local government agencies (such as Departments of Motor Vehicles) that previously accepted or are presented with an EAD with the TPS category code of A-12 or C-19 that expires on February 3, 2026, must update their records to note that the validity date of the document is through August 3, 2025.
Aliens who have filed TPS applications pursuant to the July 1, 2024, notice that remain pending with USCIS may also choose to withdraw their TPS applications and request a refund of any filing fees by submitting
By the authority vested in me as Secretary under sections 103(a) and 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), 1254a, I am vacating in part the decision announced in the July 1, 2024, notice titled
Information concerning the TPS designation for Haiti will be available at local USCIS offices upon publication of this notice and through the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283. This information will be published on the USCIS website at
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these investigations effective December 29, 2023, following receipt of petitions filed with the Commission and Commerce by the U.S. Glass Producers Coalition, which is comprised of Ardagh Glass Inc. (Indianapolis, Indiana) and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). The Commission scheduled the final phase of the investigations following notification of a preliminary determination by Commerce that imports of glass wine bottles from China were being subsidized by the government of China (89 FR 47533, June 3, 2024). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
Although antidumping duty petitions for Chile, China, and Mexico and a countervailing duty petition for China were filed on the same day, December 29, 2023, the investigation schedules became staggered when Commerce did not align its countervailing duty investigation concerning China with its antidumping duty investigations concerning Chile, China, and Mexico and reached an earlier final countervailing duty determination. On October 9, 2024, the Commission issued a final negative determination in its countervailing duty investigation of glass wine bottles from China (89 FR 83515, October 16, 2024).
On December 10, 2024, counsel for the petitioner filed with Commerce a request to withdraw its petition regarding imports of glass wine bottles from Chile. On December 30, 2024, Commerce published notice in the
Following notification of final determinations by Commerce that imports of glass wine bottles from China and Mexico were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 735(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(a)), notice of the supplemental scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's antidumping duty investigations concerning China and Mexico was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to § 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on February 18, 2025. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5588 (February 2025), entitled
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Longitude Licensing Ltd. and Marlin Semiconductor Limited on February 18, 2025. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain foreign-fabricated semiconductor devices, products containing the same, and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited of Taiwan; Apple Inc. of Cupertino, CA; Broadcom Inc. of Palo Alto, CA; Lenovo Group Limited of China; Motorola (Wuhan) Mobility Technologies Communication Company Limited of China; Motorola Mobile Communication Technology Ltd. of China; OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. of China; and Qualcomm Inc. of San Diego, CA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, members of the public, and interested government agencies are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3809”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
The National Science Board's (NSB) Committee on Science and Engineering Policy (SEP) hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a videoconference for the transaction of National Science Board business pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act.
Thursday, February 27, 2025, from 1 p.m.-1:45 p.m. eastern.
The meeting will be held by videoconference through the National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. Members of the public can observe this meeting through a YouTube livestream. The YouTube link will be available from the NSB meetings web page—
Open.
Chair's opening remarks; Discussion and vote on Detailed Narrative Outline for
Point of contact for this meeting is Chris Blair,
Weeks of February 24, March 3, 10, 17, 24 and March 31, 2025. The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Public.
Members of the public may request to receive the information in these notices electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, at 301-415-1969, or by email at
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 24, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 10, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 17, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 24, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 31, 2025.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Chris Markley at 301-415-6293 or via email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
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 (
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
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.
1.
None.
This Notice will be published in the
On December 19, 2024, the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
On February 14, 2025, OCC withdrew the Proposed Rule Change (SR-OCC-2024-017).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend certain rules in order to increase the position and exercise limits for options on the Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust BTC and the Bitwise Bitcoin ETF, and to permit Flexible Exchange (“FLEX”) Options on such funds. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries,
The Exchange proposes to amend certain rules in order to increase the position and exercise limits for options on the Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust BTC (“BTC”) and the Bitwise Bitcoin ETF (“BITB”) (each a “Fund” and, collectively, the “Funds”), and to permit options on the Funds to trade as FLEX Equity Options (“FLEX Fund options”) as described herein. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to (1) amend Commentary .06(f) to Rule 6.8-O (Position Limits) to increase the position limits for Fund options from 25,000 contracts to 250,000 contracts, and (2) amend Rules 5.32-O(f)(1) (Terms of FLEX) and 5.36-O(b) (Position Limits) to permit FLEX trading of Fund options and, for each Fund, to aggregate FLEX positions with non-FLEX positions on the same underlying Fund.
The Exchange notes that this proposal is competitive. Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE”) recently filed a substantively identical proposal to increase the position and exercise limits for options on the iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (“IBIT”) from 25,000 to 250,000 contracts and permit trading of FLEX options on IBIT.
Each Fund is an ETF that holds bitcoin and is listed on the Exchange.
FLEX Equity Options are not generally subject to position or exercise limits.
Per the Commission, “rules regarding position and exercise limits are intended to prevent the establishment of options positions that can be used or might create incentives to manipulate or disrupt the underlying market so as to benefit the options positions.”
For the reasons discussed below, the Exchange proposes to increase the position (and exercise) limits for BTC and BITB from 25,000 to 250,000 contracts; to allow FLEX trading of options on each Fund; and to aggregate non-FLEX and FLEX positions in the same underlying Fund for purposes of calculating the proposed 250,000-contract limit.
While NYSE American proposed an aggregated 25,000 contract position limit for options on BTC and BITB, it nonetheless believed that evidence existed to support a much higher position limit.
Now that options on BTC and BITB have been trading for more than two months, the Exchange proposes to increase the aggregated position and exercise limits for each Fund to 250,000 contracts. BTC and BITB currently qualify for this increased limit pursuant to Rule 6.8-O Commentary .06(e), which requires that, for the most recent six-month period, trading volume for the underlying security is at least 100,000,000 shares.
As noted above, position and exercise limits are designed to limit the number of options contracts traded on an exchange in an underlying security that an investor, acting alone or in concert with others directly or indirectly, may control. These limits, as described in Rules 6.8-O and 6.9-O, are intended to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impact surrounding the use of options, such as disrupting the market in the security underlying the options. Position and exercise limits must balance concerns regarding mitigating potential manipulation and the cost of inhibiting potential hedging activity that could be used for legitimate economic purposes. To achieve this balance, the Exchange proposes to increase the position and exercise limits for options on BTC and BITB from 25,000 contracts to 250,000 contracts and to apply this aggregated limit to FLEX and non-FLEX options in the same underlying Fund. The Exchange believes this proposed aggregated limit for options on each Fund is appropriate for the reasons set forth below.
First, the Exchange reviewed the Funds' data relative to the market capitalization of the entire bitcoin market in terms of exercise risk and availability of deliverables. As noted above, as of November 25, 2024, there were 19,787,762 bitcoins in circulation.
Next, the Exchange reviewed the proposed position limit by comparing it to position limits for derivative products regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC ”). While the CFTC, through the relevant Designated Contract Markets, only regulates options positions based upon delta equivalents (creating a less stringent standard), the Exchange examined equivalent bitcoin futures position limits. In particular, the Exchange looked to the CME bitcoin futures contract
Finally, the Exchange analyzed a position and exercise limit of 250,000 for BTC and BITB against other options on commodity ETFs, namely SPDR Gold Shares (“GLD”) and iShares Silver Trust (“SLV”).
The Exchange believes that increasing the position and exercise limits, as proposed, would lead to a more liquid and competitive market environment for Fund options, which will benefit customers that trade these options. Further, the reporting requirement for such options would remain unchanged. Thus, the Exchange will still require that each member that maintains same-side positions in Fund options, for its own account or for the account of a customer, report certain information to the Exchange. This information includes, but would not be limited to, the options positions, whether such positions are hedged and, if so, a description of the hedge(s). Market Makers would continue to be exempt from this reporting requirement, however, the Exchange may access Market Maker position information.
The Exchange anticipates that trading volume in Fund options will increase as opportunities for investors to participate in the options markets increase and evolve. The Exchange believes that the current position and exercise limits in Fund options are restrictive and will hamper the listed options markets from being able to compete fairly and effectively with the over-the-counter (“OTC”) markets. OTC transactions occur through bilateral agreements, the terms of which are not publicly disclosed to the marketplace. As such, OTC transactions do not contribute to the price discovery process on a public exchange or other lit markets. The Exchange believes that without the proposed changes to position and exercise limits for options on BTC and BITB, market participants will find the 25,000-contract position limit an impediment to their business and investment objectives as well as an impediment to efficient pricing. As a result, market participants may find the less transparent OTC markets a more attractive alternative to achieve their investment and hedging objectives, leading to a retreat from the listed options markets, where trades are subject to reporting requirements and daily surveillance.
The Exchange believes that the existing surveillance procedures and reporting requirements at the Exchange are capable of properly identifying disruptive and/or manipulative trading activity. The Exchange also represents that it has adequate surveillances in place to detect potential manipulation, as well as reviews in place to identify continued compliance with the Exchange's listing standards. These procedures monitor market activity to identify unusual activity in both options and the underlying equities.
The Exchange also proposes to permit BTC and BITB to trade as “FLEX Fund options,” which would be subject to aggregated position and exercise limits of 250,000 contracts on all such options—both FLEX and non-FLEX Fund options. This proposed aggregated limit effectively restricts a market participant from holding positions that could result in the receipt of more than 25,000,000 shares (if that market participant exercised all its options on the same underlying Fund).
The share creation and redemption process available to each Fund is designed to ensure that an ETF's price closely tracks the value of its underlying asset. For example, if a market participant exercised a long call position for 25,000 contracts and purchased 2,500,000 shares of BTC and this purchase resulted in the value of BTC shares to trade at a premium to the value of the (underlying) bitcoin held by BTC, the Exchange believes that other market participants would attempt to arbitrage this price difference by selling short BTC shares while concurrently purchasing bitcoin. Those market participants (arbitrageurs) would then deliver cash to BTC and receive shares of BTC, which would be used to close out any previously established short position in BTC. Thus, this creation and redemptions process would significantly reduce the potential risk of price dislocation between the value of BTC shares and the value of bitcoin holdings.
The Exchange understands that FLEX Options on ETFs are currently traded in the OTC market by a variety of market participants,
Additionally, the Exchange believes that FLEX Fund options traded on the Exchange would have three important advantages over the contracts that are traded in the OTC market. First, because of greater standardization of contract terms, exchange-traded contracts should develop more liquidity. Second, counter-party credit risk would be mitigated by the fact that the contracts are issued and guaranteed by OCC. Finally, the price discovery and dissemination provided by the Exchange and its members would lead to more transparent markets. The Exchange believes that its ability to offer FLEX Fund options would aid it in competing with the OTC market and at the same time expand the universe of products available to interested market participants. The Exchange believes that an exchange-traded alternative may provide a useful risk management and trading vehicle for market participants and their customers.
The Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and The Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the listing of FLEX Fund options. The Exchange believes any additional traffic that would be generated from the trading of FLEX Fund options would be manageable. The Exchange believes OTP Holders will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposed rule change. The Exchange also represents that it does not believe this proposed rule change will cause fragmentation of liquidity. The Exchange will monitor the trading volume associated with the additional options series listed as a result of this proposed rule change and the effect (if any) of these additional series on market fragmentation and on the capacity of the Exchange's automated systems.
The Exchange represents that the same surveillance procedures applicable to the Exchange's other options products listed and traded on the Exchange, including non-FLEX Fund options, will apply to FLEX Fund options, and that it has the necessary systems capacity to support such options. FLEX options products (and their respective symbols) are integrated into the Exchange's existing surveillance system architecture and are thus subject to the relevant surveillance processes. The Exchange's market surveillance staff (including staff of FINRA who perform surveillance and investigative work on behalf of the Exchange pursuant to a regulatory services agreement) conducts surveillances with respect to BTC and BITB (the underlying ETFs) and, as appropriate, would review activity in BTC and BITB when conducting surveillances for market abuse or manipulation in the FLEX options on each Fund.
The Exchange represents that its existing trading surveillances are adequate to monitor the trading in BTC and BITB and subsequent trading of the proposed FLEX Fund options on the Exchange. Additionally, the Exchange is a member of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) under the Intermarket Surveillance Group Agreement. ISG members work together to coordinate surveillance and investigative information sharing in the stock, options, and futures markets. For surveillance purposes, the Exchange would therefore have access to information regarding trading activity in the pertinent underlying securities. In addition, as referenced above, the Exchange has a regulatory services agreement with FINRA, pursuant to which FINRA conducts certain surveillances on behalf of the Exchange. Further, pursuant to a multi-party 17d-2 joint plan, all options exchanges allocate regulatory responsibilities to FINRA to conduct certain options-related market surveillances.
The proposed rule change is designed to allow investors seeking to trade options on each Fund to utilize FLEX Fund options. The Exchange believes that offering innovative products flows to the benefit of the investing public. A robust and competitive market requires that exchanges respond to member's evolving needs by constantly improving their offerings. Such efforts would be stymied if exchanges were prohibited from offering innovative products such as the proposed FLEX Fund options. The Exchange believes that introducing FLEX Fund options would further broaden the base of investors that use FLEX Options (and options on BTC or BITB, in general) to manage their trading and investment risk, including investors that currently trade in the OTC market for customized options. The proposed rule change is also designed to encourage Market Makers to shift liquidity from the OTC market on the Exchange, which, it believes, will enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow.
The Exchange will announce the implementation date by Trader Update within sixty (60) days of rule approval.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange believes increasing the aggregated position and exercise limits for BTC and BITB options from 25,000 contracts to 250,000 contracts will remove impediments to and perfect the
The Exchange analyzed several data points that supported the appropriateness of the proposed aggregated 250,000-contract position and exercise limit on Fund options. As noted above, a comparison of each Fund's market capitalization to the bitcoin market in terms of exercise risk and availability of deliverables revealed that the exercisable risk of the proposed 250,000-contract limit represented 30.14% of BTC shares outstanding
The Exchange believes that the proposal to permit FLEX options on BTC and BITB would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market. The Exchange believes that offering such FLEX Fund options will benefit investors by providing them with an additional, relatively lower cost investing tool to gain exposure to the price of bitcoin and provide a hedging vehicle to meet their investment needs in connection with a bitcoin-related product. Moreover, the proposal would broaden the base of investors that use FLEX Options to manage their trading and investment risk, including investors that currently trade in the OTC market for customized options. By trading a product in an exchange-traded environment (that is currently being used in the OTC market), the Exchange would be able to compete more effectively with the OTC market. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that it would lead to the migration of options currently trading in the OTC market to trading to the Exchange. Also, any migration to the Exchange from the OTC market would result in increased market transparency and enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow. The Exchange also believes that offering the proposed FLEX Fund options may open up the market for options on these Funds to more retail investors.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest because FLEX Fund options are designed to create greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility. The proposed rule change should also result in enhanced efficiency in initiating and closing out positions and heightened contra-party creditworthiness due to the role of OCC as issuer and guarantor of FLEX Fund options. Further, the proposed rule change would result in increased competition by permitting the Exchange to offer products that are currently used in the OTC market.
The Exchange believes that offering innovative products flows to the benefit of the investing public. A robust and competitive market requires that exchanges respond to member's evolving needs by constantly improving their offerings. Such efforts would be stymied if exchanges were prohibited from offering innovative products such as the proposed FLEX Fund options. The Exchange does not believe that allowing FLEX Fund options would render the marketplace for equity options more susceptible to manipulative practices.
Finally, the Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance program in place to detect manipulative trading in FLEX Fund options. Regarding the proposed FLEX Fund options, the Exchange would use the same surveillance procedures currently utilized for FLEX Options listed on the Exchange (as well as for non-FLEX Fund options). For surveillance purposes, the Exchange would have access to information regarding trading activity in BTC and BITB (the underlying ETF).
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form ID (OMB Control No. 3235-0328) must be completed and submitted to the Commission by individuals, companies, and other organizations that seek access to file electronically on the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system (“EDGAR”). Those seeking access to file on EDGAR typically include those who are required to make certain disclosures pursuant to the federal securities laws. The information provided on Form ID is an essential part of the security of EDGAR. Form ID must be submitted whenever an applicant seeks an EDGAR identification number (Central Index Key or CIK) and/or access codes to file on EDGAR. The currently approved burden includes an estimate of 73,600 Form ID filings annually and a further estimate that it takes approximately 0.6 hours per response for a total annual burden of 44,160 hours.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
2 p.m. on Thursday, February 27, 2025.
The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.
For further information, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) a proposed rule change to list and trade shares of the Bitwise XRP ETF (the “Trust”),
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4),
Since 2017, the Commission has approved or disapproved exchange filings to list and trade series of Trust Issued Receipts, including spot-based Commodity-Based Trust Shares, on the basis of whether the listing exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with a regulated market of significant size related to the underlying commodity to be held (the “Winklevoss Test”).
The Commission recently issued orders granting approval for proposals to list bitcoin- and ether-based commodity trust shares and bitcoin-based, ether-based, and a combination of bitcoin- and ether-based trust issued receipts (these proposed funds are nearly identical to the Trust, but proposed to hold bitcoin and/or ether, respectively, instead of XRP) (“Spot Bitcoin ETPs” and “Spot ETH ETPs”). In both the Spot Bitcoin ETP Approval Order and Spot ETH ETP Approval Order, the Commission found that sufficient “other means” of preventing fraud and manipulation had been demonstrated that justified dispensing with a surveillance-sharing agreement of significant size. Specifically, the Commission found that while the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) futures market for both bitcoin and ether were not of “significant size” related to the spot market, the Exchange demonstrated that other means could be reasonably expected to assist in surveilling for fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in the specific context of the proposals.
As further discussed below, both the Exchange and the Sponsor believe that this proposal and the included analysis are sufficient to establish that the proposal is consistent with the Act itself and, additionally, that there are sufficient “other means” of preventing fraud and manipulation that warrant dispensing of the surveillance-sharing agreement with a regulated market of significant size, as was done with both Spot Bitcoin ETPs and Spot ETH ETPs, and that this proposal should be approved.
XRP is a digital asset that is created and transmitted through the operations of the XRP Ledger, a decentralized ledger upon which XRP transactions are processed and settled. XRP can be used to pay for goods and services, or it can be converted to fiat currencies, such as the U.S. dollar. The XRP Ledger is based on a shared public ledger similar to the Bitcoin network. However, the XRP Ledger differentiates itself from other digital asset networks in that its stated primary function is transactional utility, not store of value. The XRP Ledger is designed to be a global real-time payment and settlement system. As a result, the XRP Ledger and XRP aim to improve the speed at which parties on the network may transfer value while also reducing the fees and delays associated with the traditional methods of interbank payments.
Unlike a centralized system, no single entity controls the XRP Ledger. Instead, a network of independent nodes validates transactions pursuant to a consensus-based algorithm. It is this mechanism, as opposed to the proof-of-work mechanism utilized by the Bitcoin blockchain, that allows the XRP Ledger to be fast, energy-efficient and scalable, and therefore suitable for its most prominent use case, the facilitation of cross-border financial transactions. Unlike proof-of-work systems, which require massive computational power to secure the network, the consensus-based algorithm utilized by the XRP Ledger is extremely lightweight in terms of energy usage, as it relies on trusted validators rather than mining. The XRP Ledger can handle up to 1,500 transactions per second, far more than the Bitcoin or Ethereum blockchain. This makes the XRP Ledger suitable for high-volume use cases, such as cross-border payments. Lastly, because validators do not need to spend resources on mining, transaction fees are extremely low (typically a fraction of a cent per transaction).
Transactions are validated on the XRP Ledger by a network of independent validator nodes. These nodes do not mine new blocks but participate in a consensus process to ensure that transactions are valid and correctly ordered on the ledger. Any node can be a validator, but for practical purposes, the XRP Ledger depends on a list of trusted validators known as the Unique Node List or “UNL.” Validators are entities (which can be individuals, institutions or other organizations) that run nodes to participate in the consensus process. These validators ensure the integrity and accuracy of the ledger. Each node in the network maintains a Unique Node List—a list of other validators that the node trusts to reliably validate transactions. The XRP Ledger's decentralized architecture means that different nodes may maintain different UNLs, but there needs to be some overlap in the UNLs for consensus to work effectively.
Unlike other digital assets such as bitcoin or ether, XRP was not and is not mined gradually over time. Instead, all 100 billion XRP tokens were created at the time of the XRP Ledger's launch in 2012. This means that every XRP token that exists today was generated from the outset, without the need for a mining process. Of the 100 billion XRP generated by the XRP Ledger's code, the founders of Ripple Labs retained 20 billion XRP and the rest, nearly 80 billion XRP, was provided to Ripple Labs Inc. (“Ripple Labs”).
As noted above, this proposal is to list and trade shares of the Trust that would hold spot XRP. Neither the Trust nor the Sponsor or any of their affiliates are affiliates of Ripple Labs or any of its affiliates.
In light of these factors and consistent with applicable legal precedent, particularly as applied in
The Commission has approved numerous series of Trust Issued Receipts,
More recently, the Commission has applied the Winklevoss Test while also recognizing that the “regulated market of significant size” standard is not the only means for satisfying Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. In the specifically providing that a listing exchange could demonstrate that “other means to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices” are sufficient to justify dispensing with the requisite surveillance-sharing agreement.
Over the past several years, U.S. investor exposure to XRP, through OTC XRP Funds and digital asset trading platforms, has grown into billions of dollars with a fully diluted market cap of greater than $300 billion. The Exchange believes that approving this proposal (and comparable proposals) provides the Commission with the opportunity to allow U.S. investors with access to XRP in a regulated and transparent exchange-traded vehicle that would act to limit risk to U.S. investors by: (i) reducing premium and discount volatility; (ii) reducing management fees through meaningful competition; and (iii) providing an alternative to custodying spot XRP.
The policy concerns that the Exchange Act is designed to address are also otherwise mitigated by the fact that the size of the market for the underlying reference asset ($300+ billion fully diluted value) and the nature of the XRP ecosystem reduces its susceptibility to manipulation. The geographically diverse and continuous nature of XRP trading makes it difficult and prohibitively costly to manipulate the price of XRP and, in many instances, the XRP market can be less susceptible to manipulation than the equity, fixed income, and commodity futures markets. There are a number of reasons this is the case, including that there is not inside information about revenue, earnings, corporate activities, or sources of supply; manipulation of the price on any single venue would require manipulation of the global XRP price in order to be effective; a substantial over-the-counter market provides liquidity and shock-absorbing capacity; XRP's 24/7/365 nature provides constant arbitrage opportunities across all trading venues; and it is unlikely that any one actor could obtain a dominant market share.
Further, XRP is arguably less susceptible to manipulation than other commodities that underlie ETPs; there may be inside information relating to the supply of the physical commodity such as the discovery of new sources of supply or significant disruptions at mining facilities that supply the commodity that simply are inapplicable as it relates to certain cryptoassets, including XRP. Further, the Exchange believes that the fragmentation across XRP trading platforms and increased adoption of XRP, as displayed through increased user engagement and trading volumes, and the XRP network make manipulation of XRP prices through continuous trading activity more difficult. Moreover, the linkage between the XRP markets and the presence of arbitrageurs in those markets means that the manipulation of the price of XRP price on any single venue would require manipulation of the global XRP price in order to be effective. Arbitrageurs must
Delaware Trust Company is the trustee (“Trustee”). A third party will be the administrator (“Administrator”) and transfer agent (“Transfer Agent”) and will be responsible for the custody of the Trust's cash and cash equivalents
According to the Registration Statement, each Share will represent a fractional undivided beneficial interest in and ownership of the Trust. The Trust's assets will only consist of XRP, cash, or cash and cash equivalents.
According to the Registration Statement, the Trust will be neither an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended,
The Trust will not acquire and will disclaim any incidental right (“IR”), or IR asset received, for example as a result of forks or airdrops, and such assets will not be taken into account for purposes of determining NAV.
When the Trust sells or redeems its Shares, it will do so in cash transactions in blocks of 10,000 Shares (a “Creation Basket”) at the Trust's net asset value (“NAV”). For creations, authorized participants will deliver cash to the Trust's account with the Cash Custodian in exchange for Shares. Upon receipt of an approved creation order, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust, will submit an order to buy the amount of XRP represented by a Creation Basket. Based off XRP executions, the Cash Custodian will request the required cash from the authorized participant; the Transfer Agent will only issue Shares when the authorized participant has made delivery of the cash. Following receipt by the Cash Custodian of the cash from an authorized participant, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust, will approve an order with one or more previously onboarded trading partners to purchase the amount of XRP represented by the Creation Basket. This purchase of XRP will normally be cleared through an affiliate of the Custodian (although the purchase may also occur directly with the trading partner) and the XRP will settle directly into the Trust's account at the Custodian.
According to the Registration Statement and as further described below, the Trust's investment objective is to seek to track the performance of XRP, as measured by the Pricing Benchmark, adjusted for the Trust's expenses and other liabilities. In seeking to achieve its investment objective, the Trust will hold XRP and will value its Shares daily as of 4:00 p.m. ET using the same methodology used to calculate the Pricing Benchmark. All of the Trust's XRP will be held by the Custodian.
As described in the Registration Statement, The Trust will use the CME CF Ripple-Dollar Reference Rate—New York Variant (the “Pricing Benchmark”) to calculate the Trust's NAV. The Trust will determine the XRP Pricing Benchmark price and value its Shares daily based on the value of XRP as reflected by the Pricing Benchmark. The Pricing Benchmark will be calculated daily and aggregates the notional value of XRP trading across major XRP spot trading platforms.
NAV means the total assets of the Trust (which includes all XRP and cash and cash equivalents) less total liabilities of the Trust. The Administrator determines the NAV of the Trust on each day that the Exchange is open for regular trading, as promptly as practical after 4:00 p.m. ET based on the closing value of the Pricing Benchmark. The NAV of the Trust is the aggregate value of the Trust's assets less its estimated accrued but unpaid liabilities (which include accrued expenses). In determining the NAV, the Administrator values the XRP held by the Trust based on the closing value of the Pricing Benchmark as of 4:00 p.m. ET. The Administrator also determines the NAV per Share. The NAV for the Trust will be calculated by the Administrator once a day and will be disseminated daily to all market participants at the same time.
In addition to the price transparency of the Pricing Benchmark, the Trust will provide information regarding the Trust's XRP holdings as well as additional data regarding the Trust. The website for the Trust, which will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain the following information: (a) the current NAV per Share daily and the prior business day's NAV per Share and the reported BZX Official Closing Price;
The Intraday Indicative Value (“IIV”) will be updated during Regular Trading Hours to reflect changes in the value of the Trust's XRP holdings during the trading day. The IIV disseminated during Regular Trading Hours should not be viewed as an actual real-time update of the NAV, which will be calculated only once at the end of each trading day. The IIV may differ from the NAV because NAV is calculated, using the closing value of the Pricing Benchmark, once a day at 4 p.m. ET, whereas the IIV draws prices from the last trade on each constituent platform in an effort to produce a relevant, real-time price). The Trust will provide an IIV per Share updated every 15 seconds, as calculated by the Exchange or a third-party financial data provider during the Exchange's Regular Trading Hours (9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. E.T.). The IIV will be widely disseminated on a per Share basis every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Regular Trading Hours through the facilities of the CTA and Consolidated Quotation System (CQS) high speed lines. In addition, the IIV will be available through on-line information services, such as Bloomberg and Reuters.
The price of XRP will be made available by one or more major market data vendors, updated at least every 15 seconds during Regular Trading Hours.
As noted above, the Pricing Benchmark is calculated every 15 seconds and information about the Pricing Benchmark and Pricing Benchmark value, including index data and key elements of how the Pricing Benchmark is calculated, will be publicly available at
Quotation and last sale information for XRP is widely disseminated through a variety of major market data vendors, including Bloomberg and Reuters. Information relating to trading, including price and volume information, in XRP is available from major market data vendors and from the trading platforms on which XRP are traded. Depth of book information is also available from XRP trading platforms. The normal trading hours for XRP trading platforms are 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.
Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Information regarding the previous day's BZX Official Closing Price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. Quotation and last-sale information regarding the Shares will be disseminated through the facilities of the CTA.
The Custodian's services (i) allow XRP to be deposited from a public blockchain address to the Trust's XRP account and (ii) allow XRP to be withdrawn from the XRP account to a public blockchain address as instructed by the Trust. The custody agreement requires the Custodian to hold the Trust's XRP in cold storage, unless required to facilitate withdrawals as a temporary measure. The Custodian will use segregated cold storage XRP addresses for the Trust which are separate from the XRP addresses that the Custodian uses for its other customers and which are directly verifiable via the XRP blockchain. The Custodian will safeguard the private keys to the XRP associated with the Trust's XRP account. The Custodian will at all times record and identify in its books and records that such XRP constitutes the property of the Trust. The Custodian will not withdraw the Trust's XRP from the Trust's account with the Custodian, or loan, hypothecate, pledge or otherwise encumber the Trust's XRP, without the Trust's instruction. If the custody agreement terminates, the Sponsor may appoint another custodian, and the Trust may enter into a custodian agreement with such custodian.
When the Trust sells or redeems its Shares, it will do so in cash transactions in 10,000 Share increments (a Creation Basket) that are based on the amount of XRP held by the Trust on a per Creation Basket basis. According to the Registration Statement, on any business day, an authorized participant may place an order to create one or more Creation Baskets. Purchase orders must be placed by 4:00 p.m. ET, or the close of regular trading on the Exchange, whichever is earlier. The day on which an order is received is considered the purchase order date. The total deposit of cash required is based on the combined NAV of the number of Shares included in the Creation Baskets being created determined as of 4:00 p.m. ET on the date the order to purchase is properly received. The Administrator determines the quantity of XRP associated with a Creation Basket for a given day by dividing the number of XRP held by the Trust as of the opening of business on that business day, adjusted for the amount of XRP constituting estimated accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the Trust as of the opening of business on that business day, by the quotient of the number of Shares outstanding at the opening of business divided by the number of Shares in a Creation Basket.
The authorized participants will deliver only cash to create Shares and will receive only cash when redeeming Shares. Further, authorized participants will not directly or indirectly purchase, hold, deliver, or receive XRP as part of the creation or redemption process or otherwise direct the Trust or a third party with respect to purchasing, holding, delivering, or receiving XRP as part of the creation or redemption process.
The Trust will create Shares by receiving XRP from a third party that is not the authorized participant and the Trust—not the authorized participant—is responsible for selecting the third party to facilitate the delivery of XRP. Further, the third party will not be acting as an agent of the authorized participant with respect to the delivery of the XRP to the Trust or acting at the direction of the authorized participant with respect to the delivery of the XRP to the Trust. When fulfilling a redemption request, the Trust will redeem shares by delivering XRP to a third party that is not the authorized participant and the Trust—not the authorized participant—is responsible for selecting such third party to receive the XRP. Further, the third party will not be acting as an agent of the authorized participant with respect to the receipt of the XRP from the Trust or acting at the direction of the authorized participant with respect to the receipt of the XRP from the Trust.
The procedures by which an authorized participant can redeem one or more Creation Baskets mirror the procedures for the creation of Creation Baskets.
The Sponsor will maintain ownership and control of XRP in a manner consistent with good delivery requirements for spot commodity transactions.
The Shares will be subject to BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4), which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Commodity-Based Trust Shares. The Exchange represents that, for initial and continued listing, the Trust must be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act. A minimum of 100,000 Shares will be outstanding at the commencement of listing on the Exchange. The Exchange will obtain a representation that the NAV will be calculated daily and that the NAV and information about the assets of the Trust
Upon termination of the Trust, the Shares will be removed from listing. The Trustee, Delaware Trust Company, is a trust company having substantial capital and surplus and the experience and facilities for handling corporate trust business, as required under Rule 14.11(e)(4)(E)(iv)(a) and that no change will be made to the trustee without prior notice to and approval of the Exchange. The Exchange also notes that, pursuant to Rule 14.11(e)(4)(F), neither the Exchange nor any agent of the Exchange shall have any liability for damages, claims, losses or expenses caused by any errors, omissions or delays in calculating or disseminating any underlying commodity value, the current value of the underlying commodity required to be deposited to the Trust in connection with issuance of Commodity-Based Trust Shares; resulting from any negligent act or omission by the Exchange, or any agent of the Exchange, or any act, condition or cause beyond the reasonable control of the Exchange, its agent, including, but not limited to, an act of God; fire; flood; extraordinary weather conditions; war; insurrection; riot; strike; accident; action of government; communications or power failure; equipment or software malfunction; or any error, omission or delay in the reports of transactions in an underlying commodity. Finally, as required in Rule 14.11(e)(4)(G), the Exchange notes that any registered market maker (“Market Maker”) in the Shares must file with the Exchange in a manner prescribed by the Exchange and keep current a list identifying all accounts for trading in an underlying commodity, related commodity futures or options on commodity futures, or any other related commodity derivatives, which the registered Market Maker may have or over which it may exercise investment discretion. No registered Market Maker shall trade in an underlying commodity, related commodity futures or options on commodity futures, or any other related commodity derivatives, in an account in which a registered Market Maker, directly or indirectly, controls trading activities, or has a direct interest in the profits or losses thereof, which has not been reported to the Exchange as required by this Rule. In addition to the existing obligations under Exchange rules regarding the production of books and records (see,
The Exchange is able to obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and the underlying XRP or any other XRP derivative through members acting as registered Market Makers, in connection with their proprietary or customer trades.
As a general matter, the Exchange has regulatory jurisdiction over its Members and their associated persons, which include any person or entity controlling a Member. To the extent the Exchange may be found to lack jurisdiction over a subsidiary or affiliate of a Member that does business only in commodities or futures contracts, the Exchange could obtain information regarding the activities of such subsidiary or affiliate through surveillance sharing agreements with regulatory organizations of which such subsidiary or affiliate is a member.
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares. The Exchange will halt trading in the Shares under the conditions specified in BZX Rule 11.18. Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) the extent to which trading is not occurring in the XRP underlying the Shares; or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. Trading in the Shares also will be subject to Rule 14.11(e)(4)(E)(ii), which sets forth circumstances under which trading in the Shares may be halted.
If the IIV or the value of the Pricing Benchmark is not being disseminated as required, the Exchange may halt trading during the day in which the interruption to the dissemination of the IIV or the value of the Pricing Benchmark occurs. If the interruption to the dissemination of the IIV or the value of the Pricing Benchmark persists past the trading day in which it occurred, the Exchange will halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption.
In addition, if the Exchange becomes aware that the NAV with respect to the Shares is not disseminated to all market participants at the same time, it will halt trading in the Shares until such time as the NAV is available to all market participants.
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. BZX will allow trading in the Shares during all trading sessions on the Exchange. The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in BZX Rule 11.11(a) the minimum price variation for quoting and entry of orders in securities traded on the Exchange is $0.01 where the price is greater than $1.00 per share or $0.0001 where the price is less than $1.00 per share. The Shares of the Trust will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria set forth in BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4).
The Exchange represents that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. Trading of the Shares through the Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance procedures for derivative products, including Commodity-Based Trust Shares. FINRA conducts certain cross-market surveillances on behalf of the Exchange pursuant to a regulatory services agreement. The Exchange is responsible for FINRA's performance under this regulatory services agreement.
The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares or any other XRP derivative with other markets and other
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
The Sponsor has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Trust or the Shares to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Exchange Act, the Exchange will surveil for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Trust or the Shares are not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under Exchange Rule 14.12.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (i) the procedures for the creation and redemption of Creation Baskets (and that the Shares are not individually redeemable); (ii) BZX Rule 3.7, which imposes suitability obligations on Exchange members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (iii) how information regarding the IIV and the Trust's NAV are disseminated; (iv) the risks involved in trading the Shares outside of Regular Trading Hours
In addition, the Information Circular will advise members, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to the Shares. Members purchasing the Shares for resale to investors will deliver a prospectus to such investors. The Information Circular will also discuss any exemptive, no-action and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Commission has approved numerous series of Trust Issued Receipts,
More recently, the Commission has applied the Winklevoss Test while also recognizing that the “regulated market of significant size” standard is not the only means for satisfying Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. In the specifically providing that a listing exchange could demonstrate that “other means to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices” are sufficient to justify dispensing with the requisite surveillance-sharing agreement.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is designed to protect investors and the public interest. Over the past several years, U.S. investor exposure to XRP, through OTC XRP Funds and digital asset trading platforms, has grown into billions of dollars with a fully diluted market cap of greater than $300 billion. The Exchange believes that approving this proposal (and comparable proposals) provides the Commission with the opportunity to allow U.S. investors with access to XRP in a regulated and transparent exchange-traded vehicle that would act to limit risk to U.S. investors by: (i) reducing premium and discount volatility; (ii) reducing management fees through meaningful competition; and (iii) providing an alternative to custodying spot XRP.
The Exchange believes that the policy concerns are mitigated by the fact that the size of the market for the underlying reference asset ($300+ billion fully diluted value) and the nature of the XRP ecosystem reduces its susceptibility to manipulation. The geographically diverse and continuous nature of XRP trading makes it difficult and prohibitively costly to manipulate the price of XRP and, in many instances, the XRP market can be less susceptible to manipulation than the equity, fixed income, and commodity futures markets. There are a number of reasons this is the case, including that there is not inside information about revenue, earnings, corporate activities, or sources of supply; manipulation of the price on any single venue would require manipulation of the global XRP price in order to be effective; a substantial over-the-counter market provides liquidity and shock-absorbing capacity; XRP's 24/7/365 nature provides constant arbitrage opportunities across all trading venues; and it is unlikely that any one actor could obtain a dominant market share.
Further, XRP is arguably less susceptible to manipulation than other commodities that underlie ETPs; there may be inside information relating to the supply of the physical commodity such as the discovery of new sources of supply or significant disruptions at mining facilities that supply the commodity that simply are inapplicable as it relates to certain cryptoassets, including XRP. Further, the Exchange believes that the fragmentation across XRP trading platforms and increased adoption of XRP, as displayed through increased user engagement and trading volumes, and the XRP network make manipulation of XRP prices through continuous trading activity more difficult. Moreover, the linkage between the XRP markets and the presence of arbitrageurs in those markets means that the manipulation of the price of XRP price on any single venue would require manipulation of the global XRP price in order to be effective. Arbitrageurs must have funds distributed across multiple XRP trading platforms in order to take advantage of temporary price dislocations, thereby making it unlikely that there will be strong concentration of funds on any particular XRP trading platform. As a result, the potential for manipulation on a particular XRP trading platform would require overcoming the liquidity supply of such arbitrageurs who are effectively eliminating any cross-market pricing differences. For all of these reasons, XRP is not particularly susceptible to manipulation, especially as compared to other approved ETP reference assets.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in Exchange Rule 14.11(e)(4). The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. Trading of the Shares through the Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance procedures for derivative products, including Commodity-Based Trust Shares. The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Trust or the Shares to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Exchange Act, the Exchange will surveil for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Trust or the Shares are not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under Exchange Rule 14.12. The Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and listed XRP derivatives via the ISG, from other exchanges who are members or affiliates of the ISG, or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
In addition to the price transparency of the Pricing Benchmark, the Trust will provide information regarding the Trust's XRP holdings as well as additional data regarding the Trust. The website for the Trust, which will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain the following information: (a) the current NAV per Share daily and the prior business day's NAV per Share and the reported BZX Official Closing Price;
The Intraday Indicative Value (“IIV”) will be updated during Regular Trading Hours to reflect changes in the value of the Trust's XRP holdings during the trading day. The IIV may differ from the NAV because NAV is calculated, using the closing value of the Pricing Benchmark, once a day at 4:00 p.m. Eastern time whereas the IIV draws prices from the last trade on each constituent platform to produce a relevant, real-time price. The IIV disseminated during Regular Trading Hours should not be viewed as an actual real-time update of the NAV, which will be calculated only once at the end of each trading day. The Trust will provide an IIV per Share updated every 15 seconds, as calculated by the Exchange or a third-party financial data provider during the Exchange's Regular Trading Hours (9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. E.T.). The IIV will be widely disseminated on a per Share basis every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Regular Trading Hours through the facilities of the CTA and CQS high speed lines. In addition, the IIV will be available through on-line
The price of XRP will be made available by one or more major market data vendors, updated at least every 15 seconds during Regular Trading Hours.
As noted above, the Pricing Benchmark is calculated every 15 seconds and information about the Pricing Benchmark and Pricing Benchmark value, including index data and key elements of how the Pricing Benchmark is calculated, will be publicly available at
Quotation and last sale information for XRP is widely disseminated through a variety of major market data vendors, including Bloomberg and Reuters. Information relating to trading, including price and volume information, in XRP is available from major market data vendors and from the trading platforms on which XRP are traded. Depth of book information is also available from XRP trading platforms. The normal trading hours for XRP trading platforms are 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.
Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Information regarding the previous day's BZX Official Closing Price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. Quotation and last-sale information regarding the Shares will be disseminated through the facilities of the CTA.
In sum, the Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, that on the whole the manipulation concerns previously articulated by the Commission are sufficiently mitigated to the point that they are outweighed by investor protection issues that would be resolved by approving this proposal.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is, in particular, designed to protect investors and the public interest. The investor protection issues for U.S. investors has grown significantly over the last several years, through premium/discount volatility and management fees for OTC XRP Funds. As discussed throughout, this growth investor protection concerns need to be re-evaluated and rebalanced with the prevention of fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices concerns that previous disapproval orders have relied upon.
For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change, rather will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among both market participants and listing venues, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to amend Rules 4.3, 4.20, and 8.30, to allow the Exchange to list and trade options on the Grayscale Ethereum Trust ETF, the Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust ETF, and the Bitwise Ethereum ETF. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rules [sic] 4.3 regarding the criteria for underlying securities. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4.3, Interpretation and Policy .06(a)(4) to allow the Exchange to list and trade options on Units
The Ethereum Funds are Ethereum-backed commodity ETFs structured as trusts. Similar to any Unit currently
The Exchange's initial listing standards for Units on which options may be listed and traded on the Exchange will apply to the Ethereum Funds. Pursuant to Rule 4.3(a), a security (which includes a Unit) on which options may be listed and traded on the Exchange must be duly registered (with the Commission) and be an NMS stock (as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”)), and be characterized by a substantial number of outstanding shares that are widely held and actively traded.
While not required by the Rules for purposes of options listings, the Exchange believes the Ethereum Funds satisfy the criteria and guidelines set forth in Rule 4.3, Interpretation and Policy .01. Pursuant to Rule 4.3(a), a security (which includes a Unit) on which options may be listed and traded on the Exchange must be duly registered (with the Commission) and be an NMS stock (as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Act, and be characterized by a substantial number of outstanding shares that are widely held and actively traded.
With respect to the Grayscale Fund, the Grayscale Mini Fund, and the Bitwise Fund, the Exchange reviewed the data presented by NYSE American in its filing with respect to shares outstanding (and corresponding market capitalization), number of beneficial holders, and trading volume. As of November 29, 2024, the Ethereum Funds had the following number of shares outstanding (and corresponding market capitalization):
As shown above, each of the Ethereum Funds had significantly more than 7,000,000 shares outstanding, which is the minimum number of shares of a corporate stock that the Exchange generally requires to list options on that stock pursuant to Rule 4.3, Interpretation and Policy .01.
As this table shows, each Ethereum Fund has significantly more than 2,000 beneficial holders (approximately 56, 9, and 3 times more, respectively), which is the minimum number of holders the Exchange generally requires for
The Exchange also believes that, based on trading volume since the Ethereum Funds began trading on July 23, 2024, shares of the Ethereum Funds are actively traded. In particular, the table below sets forth the total trading volume (by shares and notional) from the inception of trading through either November 29, 2024 (for the Grayscale Fund and the Grayscale Mini Fund) or December 31, 2024 (for the Bitwise Fund). In addition, the below table illustrates the average daily volume (“ADV”) over the 30-day period of either October 29, 2024-through November 29, 2024 (for the Grayscale Fund and the Grayscale Mini Fund) or November 29, 2024-through December 31, 2024 (for the Bitwise Fund).
As demonstrated above, even though the Ethereum Funds have been trading for less than one year, the trading volume for each Ethereum Fund is substantially higher than 2,400,000 shares (roughly 178, 72, and 16 times that amount), which is the minimum 12-month volume the Exchange generally requires for a security in order to list options on that security as set forth in Rule 4.3, Interpretation and Policy .01. The Exchange believes this data demonstrates each Ethereum Fund is characterized by a substantial number of outstanding shares that are actively traded.
Options on the Ethereum Funds will also be subject to the Exchange's continued listing standards set forth in Rule 4.4, Interpretation and Policy .06 for Units deemed appropriate for options trading pursuant to Rule 4.3, Interpretation and Policy .06. Specifically, Rule 4.4, Interpretation and Policy .06 provides that Units that were initially approved for options trading pursuant to Rule 4.3, Interpretation and Policy .06 shall be deemed not to meet the requirements for continued approval, and the Exchange shall not open for trading any additional series of option contracts of the class covering that such Units, if the Units cease to be an NMS stock or the Units are halted from trading in their primary market. Additionally, options on Units may be subject to the suspension of opening transactions in any of the following circumstances: (1) in the case of options covering Units approved for trading under Rule 4.3, Interpretation and Policy .06(b)(1), in accordance with the terms of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of Rule 4.4, Interpretation and Policy .01; (2) in the case of options covering Units approved for trading under Rule 4.3 Interpretation and Policy .06(b)(2) (as is the case for the Ethereum Funds), following the initial twelve-month period beginning upon the commencement of trading in the Units on a national securities exchange and are defined as an NMS stock, there are fewer than 50 record and/or beneficial holders of such Units for 30 or more consecutive trading days; (3) the value of the index or portfolio of securities, non-U.S. currency, or portfolio of commodities including commodity futures contracts, options on commodity futures contracts, swaps, forward contracts and/or options on physical commodities and/or financial instruments and money market instruments on which the Units are based is no longer calculated or available; or (4) such other event shall occur or condition exist that in the opinion of the Exchange makes further dealing in such options on the Exchange inadvisable.
Options on each Ethereum Fund will be physically settled contracts with American-style exercise.
Pursuant to Rule 4.5, Interpretation and Policy .07, which governs strike prices of series of options on Units, the interval of strikes prices for series of options on Ethereum Funds will be $1 or greater when the strike price is $200 or less and $5 or greater where the strike price is over $200.
Ethereum Fund options will trade in the same manner as any other Unit options on the Exchange. The Exchange Rules that currently apply to the listing and trading of all Unit options on the Exchange, including, for example, Rules that govern listing criteria, expirations, exercise prices, minimum increments, margin requirements, customer accounts, and trading halt procedures will apply to the listing and trading of Ethereum Funds options on the Exchange in the same manner as they apply to other options on all other Units that are listed and traded on the Exchange, including the precious-metal backed commodity Units and the Bitcoin Funds already deemed appropriate for options trading on the Exchange pursuant to current Rule 4.3, Interpretation and Policy .06(a)(4).
Rule 4.20 currently permits the Exchange to authorize for trading a FLEX option class on any equity security if it may authorize for trading a non-FLEX option class on that equity security pursuant to Rule 4.3. The proposed rule change amends Rule 4.20 to exclude the Ethereum Funds from this provision.
Position and exercise limits for options on ETFs, including options on Ethereum Funds, are determined pursuant to Rules 8.30 and 8.42, respectively. Position and exercise limits for ETF options vary according to the number of outstanding shares and the trading volumes of the underlying ETF over the past six months, where the largest in capitalization and the most frequently traded ETFs have an option position and exercise limit of 250,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market; and smaller capitalization ETFs have position and exercise limits of 200,000, 75,000, 50,000 or 25,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, recapitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 8.30. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 8.30, Interpretation and Policy .10 to provide a position limit of 25,000 same side option contracts for each Ethereum Fund option. Additionally, pursuant to Rule 8.42, Interpretation and Policy .02, the exercise limits for options on each Ethereum Fund will be equivalent to this proposed position limit.
In considering the appropriate position and exercise limits for the Ethereum Funds, the Exchange reviewed the data presented by NYSE American in its filing with respect to the Bitwise Fund, the Grayscale Fund and the Grayscale Mini Fund.
As noted above, Exchange Rules set forth position (and exercise) limits for options, which vary according to the number of shares outstanding and the amount of trading in underlying during the most recent six-month period.
Based on this trading volume, the most-recent trading volume in the Grayscale Fund and the Grayscale Mini Fund well exceeds the requisite minimum of 100,000,000 shares necessary to qualify for the 250,000-contract position and exercise limits.
Second, with respect to the outstanding shares of these three Ethereum Funds, the Exchange reviewed NYSE American's data regarding the outstanding shares of each of these Ethereum Funds. NYSE American performed an exercise to demonstrate that if a market participant held the maximum number of contracts possible pursuant to the proposed position and exercise limits (25,000 contracts), the equivalent shares
As this table demonstrates, if a market participant held the maximum permissible options positions in one of the Ethereum Fund options and exercised all of them at the same time, that market participant would control a small percentage of the outstanding shares of the underlying Ethereum Fund. For example, as noted above, a position limit of 25,000 same side contracts effectively restricts a market participant from holding positions that could result in the receipt of no more than 2,500,000 shares of the applicable Ethereum Fund (if that market participant exercised all its options). NYSE American used the number of shares outstanding for each Ethereum Fund as of November 29, 2024, and calculated the approximate number of market participants that could hold the maximum of 25,000 same side positions in each Ethereum Fund that would equate to the number of shares outstanding of that Ethereum Fund:
This means if 71 market participants had 25,000 same side positions in options on the Grayscale Fund, each of them would have to simultaneously exercise all of those options to create a scenario that may put the underlying security under stress. Similarly, this means if 18 market participants had 25,000 same side positions in options on the Grayscale Mini Fund, each of them would have to simultaneously exercise all of those options to create a scenario that may put the underlying security under stress. Finally, this means if 7 market participants had 25,000 same side positions in options on the Bitwise Fund, each of them would have to simultaneously exercise all of those options to create a scenario that may put the underlying security under stress. The Exchange believes it is highly unlikely for this to occur; however, even if such event did occur, the Exchange would not expect any of the Ethereum Fund to be under stress because such an event would merely induce the creation of more shares through the trust's creation and redemption process.
NYSE American also performed an exercise to compare the size of the proposed position limit to the market capitalization of the Ethereum market given that the issuer of each of these three Ethereum Funds may create and redeem shares that represent an interest in Ethereum. NYSE American took the global supply of Ethereum, which was 120.44 million and the price of one Ethereum, which was approximately $3,593.49,
Therefore, if a market participant with the maximum 25,000 same side contracts in options on the Grayscale Fund, the Grayscale Mini Fund, or the Bitwise Fund exercised all positions at one time, such an event would have no practical impact on the Ethereum market.
The Exchange also reviewed NYSE American's data regarding the market capitalization of each of these three Ethereum Funds relative to the market
As this data gathered by NYSE American demonstrates, the Ethereum Funds collectively represent approximately 1.71% of the global supply of Ethereum (120,440,000).
NYSE American compared the proposed position limits to the position limit of CME Ethereum futures. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) imposes a position limit of 8,000 futures (for the initial spot month) on its ethereum futures contract.
The approximate number of option contracts for each Ethereum Fund that would equate to the notional value of CME Ethereum futures is significantly higher than the proposed limit of 25,000 options contract for each Ethereum Fund option. The fact that many options ultimately expire out-of-the-money and thus are not exercised for shares of the underlying, while the delta of an Ethereum future is 1, further demonstrates how conservative the proposed limits of 25,000 options contracts are for the Ethereum Fund options.
The Exchange notes, again, unlike options contracts, CME position limits are calculated on a net futures-equivalent basis by contract and include contracts that aggregate into one or more base contracts according to an aggregation ratio(s).
Consistent with its position regarding the irrelevance of bitcoin supply to position limits for options on bitcoin ETPs, the Exchange likewise believes the available supply of Ethereum is not relevant to the determination of position and exercise limits for Ethereum Fund options.
The Exchange notes that a Registration Statement on Form S-1 was filed with the Commission for each Ethereum Fund, each of which described the supply of Ethereum as being unlimited.
All of the above information demonstrates that the proposed position and exercise limits for the Ethereum Fund options are more than reasonable and appropriate. The trading volume, ADV, and outstanding shares of each Ethereum Fund demonstrate that these funds are actively traded and widely held, and proposed position and exercise limits are well below those of other ETFs with similar market characteristics. The proposed position and exercise limits are the lowest position and exercise limits available for equity options in the industry, are extremely conservative, and are more than appropriate given each Ethereum Fund's market capitalization and ADV. The proposed position and exercise limits reasonably and appropriately balance the liquidity provisioning in the market against the prevention of manipulation. The Exchange believes these proposed limits are effectively designed to prevent an individual customer or entity from establishing options positions that could be used to manipulate the market of the underlying Ethereum Funds as well as the Ethereum market.
Today, the Exchange has an adequate surveillance program in place for options. Cboe intends to apply those same program procedures to options on the Ethereum Funds that it applies to the Exchange's other options products, including options on the Bitcoin Funds.
The underlying shares of spot Ethereum ETPs, including the Ethereum Funds, are also subject to safeguards related to addressing market abuse and manipulation. As the Commission stated in its order approving proposals of several exchanges to list and trade shares of spot Ethereum-based ETPs, “[e]ach Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with the [CME] via their common membership in the Intermarket Surveillance Group. This facilitates the sharing of information that is available to the CME through its surveillance of its markets, including its surveillance of the CME ethereum futures market.”
Finally, quotation and last sale information for ETFs is available via the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) high speed line. Quotation and last sale information for such securities is also available from the exchange on which such securities are listed. Quotation and last sale information for options on Ethereum Funds will be available via OPRA and major market data vendors.
The Exchange has also analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes the Exchange and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the listing of new series that may result from the introduction of options on Ethereum Funds up to the number of expirations currently permissible under the Rules.
The Exchange believes that offering options on Ethereum Funds will benefit investors by providing them with an additional, relatively lower cost investing tool to gain exposure to the price of Ethereum and hedging vehicle to meet their investment needs in connection with Ethereum-related products and positions. The Exchange expects investors will transact in options on Ethereum Funds in the unregulated over-the-counter (“OTC”) options market,
Finally, the Exchange notes that applicable Exchange rules will require that customers receive appropriate disclosure before trading options in Ethereum Funds.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposal to list and trade options on the Ethereum Funds will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors because offering options on the Ethereum Funds will provide investors with a greater opportunity to realize the benefits of utilizing options on an ETF based on spot Ethereum, including cost efficiencies and increased hedging strategies.
The Exchange believes that offering options on a competitively priced ETF based on spot Ethereum will benefit investors by providing them with an additional, relatively lower-cost risk management tool, allowing them to manage, more easily, their positions and associated risks in their portfolios in connection with exposure to spot Ethereum. Additionally, the Exchange's offering of Ethereum Fund options will provide investors with the ability to
The Exchange also believes the proposal to permit options on the Ethereum Funds will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, because options on the Ethereum Funds will comply with current Exchange Rules. Options on the Ethereum Funds must satisfy the initial listing standards and continued listing standards currently in the Rules, applicable to options on all ETFs, including options on other commodity ETFs already deemed appropriate for options trading on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 4.3, Interpretation and Policy .06(a)(d). Additionally, as demonstrated above, the Ethereum Funds are characterized by a substantial number of shares that are widely held and actively traded. Further, Rules that currently govern the listing and trading of options on ETFs, including permissible expirations, strike prices, minimum increments, position and exercise limits (as proposed herein), and margin requirements, will govern the listing and trading of options on the Ethereum Funds.
The Exchange believes the proposed position and exercise limits are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and promote just and equitable principles of trade, as they are designed to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impacts surrounding the use of options, such as disrupting the market in the security underlying the options. The proposed position and exercise limits for options on each of the Ethereum Funds is 25,000 contracts. These position and exercise limits are the lowest position and exercise limits available in the options industry, are extremely conservative and more than appropriate given each Ethereum Fund's market capitalization, ADV, and high number of outstanding shares. The proposed position limit, and exercise limit, is consistent with the Act as it addresses concerns related to manipulation and protection of investors because, as demonstrated above, the position limit (and exercise limit) is extremely conservative and more than appropriate given the Ethereum Funds are actively traded. In support of the proposed position and exercise limits for options on the Ethereum Funds are 25,000 contracts, the Exchange is citing the in depth analysis NYSE American did in their filing. As noted above, in NYSE American Proposal, NYSE American considered the: (1) applicable Ethereum Fund's market capitalization and ADV, and proposed position limit in relation to other securities; (2) market capitalization of the entire Ethereum market in terms of exercise risk and availability of deliverables; (3) proposed position limit by comparing it to position limits for derivative products regulated by the CFTC; and (4) supply of Ethereum. Based on the Exchange's review of these analyses, the Exchange believes that the setting position and exercise limits for options on each of the Ethereum Funds is 25,000 contracts is more than appropriate. The proposed position and exercise limits reasonably and appropriately balance the liquidity provisioning in the market against the prevention of manipulation. The Exchange believes these proposed limits are effectively designed to prevent an individual customer or entity from establishing options positions that could be used to manipulate the market of the underlying as well as the Ethereum market.
The Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the new Ethereum Fund options. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that its existing surveillance and reporting safeguards are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior which might arise from listing and trading Unit options, including Ethereum Fund options. The Exchange's existing surveillance and reporting safeguards are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior which might arise from listing and trading options on ETFs and ETPs, such as (existing) precious metal-commodity backed ETP options as well as the proposed options on Ethereum Funds. The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of options on Ethereum Funds in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules. Specifically, the Exchange's market surveillance staff will have access to surveillances that it conducts, and that FINRA conducts on its behalf, with respect to the Ethereum Funds and, as appropriate, would review activity in the underlying Funds when conducting surveillances for market abuse or manipulation in the options on the Ethereum Funds. Additionally, the Exchange is a member of the ISG under the Intermarket Surveillance Group Agreement. ISG members work together to coordinate surveillance and investigative information sharing in the stock, options, and futures markets. In addition, the Exchange has a Regulatory Services Agreement with the FINRA and as noted herein, pursuant to a multi-party 17d-2 joint plan, all options exchanges allocate regulatory responsibilities to FINRA to conduct certain options-related market surveillances. Further, the Exchange will implement any new surveillance procedures it deems necessary to effectively monitor the trading of options on the Ethereum Funds.
The underlying shares of spot Ethereum ETPs, including the Ethereum Funds, are also subject to safeguards related to addressing market abuse and manipulation. As the Commission stated in its order approving proposals of several exchanges to list and trade shares of spot Ethereum-based ETPs, “[e]ach Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with the CME via their common membership in the Intermarket Surveillance Group. This facilitates the sharing of information that is available to the CME through its surveillance of its markets, including its surveillance of the CME ether futures market.”
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to exclude the Ethereum Funds from being eligible for trading as FLEX options is consistent with the Act, because it will permit the Exchange to continue to participate in ongoing discussions with the Commission regarding appropriate position limits for ETF options.
Finally, the Exchange notes that this proposal will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors because applicable Exchange rules will require that customers receive appropriate disclosure before trading options in Ethereum Funds
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as the Ethereum Fund options will be equally available to all market participants who wish to trade such options and will trade generally in the same manner as other options. The Rules that currently apply to the listing and trading of all Unit options on the Exchange, including, for example, Rules that govern listing criteria, expirations, exercise prices, minimum increments, margin requirements, customer accounts, and trading halt procedures will apply to the listing and trading of Ethereum Funds options on the Exchange in the same manner as they apply to other options on all other Fund Shares that are listed and traded on the Exchange. Also, and as stated above, the Exchange already lists options on other commodity-based Units (including Bitcoin-based).
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal to list and trade options on Ethereum Funds will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the extent that the advent of Ethereum Fund options trading on the Exchange may make the Exchange a more attractive marketplace to market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are free to elect to become market participants on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that listing and trading Ethereum Fund options on the Exchange will subject such options to transparent exchange-based rules as well as price discovery and liquidity, as opposed to alternatively trading such options in the OTC market.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change may relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition, as it is designed to increase competition for order flow on the Exchange in a manner that is beneficial to investors by providing them with a lower-cost option to hedge their investment portfolios. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues that offer similar products. Ultimately, the Exchange believes that offering Ethereum Fund options for trading on the Exchange will promote competition by providing investors with an additional, relatively low-cost means to hedge their portfolios and meet their investment needs in connection with Ethereum prices and Ethereum-related products and positions on a listed options exchange.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Clearing Agency proposes to revise its schedule of fees, effective February 14, 2025, to implement an increase in clearing fees.
The proposed rule change, including the Clearing Agency's statement of the purpose of, and statutory basis for, the proposed rule change, is available on the Clearing Agency's website at
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, February 26, 2025, at 10 a.m. (ET).
The meeting will be held in Auditorium LL-002 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 and will be simultaneously webcast on the Commission's website at
This meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at
1. The Commission will consider whether to extend the compliance dates for Rule 17ad-22(e)(18)(iv)(A) and (B) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), and whether to issue a temporary exemption for U.S.
For further information, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to list and trade Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options,
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to introduce a new index options product, Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options. This product would enable retail and institutional investors to obtain a precise price for bitcoin. Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options is represented by the CME CF Bitcoin Real Time Index, a precise spot market source for bitcoin pricing and a leading price benchmark for real time valuations. The CME CF Bitcoin Real Time Index is a Registered Benchmark under EU BMR.
The CME CF Bitcoin
A trading venue is eligible as a Constituent Exchange in any of the CME CF Cryptocurrency Pricing Products if it offers a market that facilitates the spot trading of the relevant cryptocurrency base asset against the corresponding quote asset, including markets where the quote asset is made fungible with Accepted Assets (the “Relevant Pair”) and makes trade data and order data available through an Automatic Programming Interface (“API”) with sufficient reliability, detail and timeliness. Furthermore, it must meet certain criteria.
When calculated, the Relevant Order Book of each Constituent Exchange is added to a joint list of order books,
Using the above notation, the ask price-volume curve is defined as
The utilized depth is calculated as the maximum cumulative volume for which the mid spread-volume curve does not exceed a certain percentage deviation from the mid price.
The mid price-volume curve is weighted by the normalized probability density of the exponential distribution up to the utilized depth. The CME CF Cryptocurrency Real Time Index is then given by the sum of the weighted mid price-volume curve obtained in the previous step.
The order size cap is calculated from the uncapped consolidated order book. Using the above notation, the dynamic order size cap is derived as follows:
The order size cap as of the effective time
If the Retrieval Time of the Relevant Order Book of a Constituent Exchange is at least 30 seconds older than the Calculation Time, the Constituent Exchange is disregarded in the calculation of the CME CF Cryptocurrency Real Time Index for that Calculation Time. If the Retrieval Times of the Relevant Order Books of all Constituent Exchanges are each at least 30 seconds older than the Calculation Time, a CME CF Cryptocurrency Real Time Index calculation failure occurs for that Calculation Time. All Relevant Order Books are subject to an automated screening for erroneous data.
Bitcoin is a digital asset that is created and transmitted through the operations of the peer-to-peer bitcoin network, a decentralized network of computers that operates on cryptographic protocols (the “Bitcoin network”). No single entity owns or operates the Bitcoin network, the infrastructure of which is collectively maintained by its user base. The Bitcoin network allows people to exchange tokens of value, called bitcoin, which are recorded on a public transaction ledger known as the Bitcoin blockchain (the “Bitcoin blockchain”). Bitcoin can be used to pay for goods and services, or it can be converted to fiat currencies, such as the U.S. dollar, at rates determined on bitcoin platforms that enable trading in bitcoin or in individual end-user-to-end-user transactions under a barter system.
The Bitcoin network is commonly understood to be decentralized and does not require governmental authorities or financial institution intermediaries to create, transmit or determine the value of bitcoin. Rather, bitcoin is created and allocated by the Bitcoin network protocol through a “mining” process. The value of bitcoin is determined by the supply of and demand for bitcoin-on-bitcoin platforms or in private end-user-to-end-user transactions.
New bitcoins are created and rewarded to the miners of a block in the Bitcoin blockchain for verifying transactions. The Bitcoin blockchain is a shared database that includes all blocks that have been solved by miners and it is updated to include new blocks as they are solved. Each bitcoin transaction is broadcast to the Bitcoin network and, when included in a block, recorded in the Bitcoin blockchain. As each new block records outstanding bitcoin transactions, and outstanding transactions are settled and validated through such recording, the Bitcoin blockchain represents a complete, transparent and unbroken history of all transactions of the Bitcoin network.
The Bitcoin network was initially contemplated in a whitepaper that also described bitcoin and the operating software to govern the Bitcoin network. The whitepaper was purportedly authored by Satoshi Nakamoto. However, no individual with that name has been reliably identified as bitcoin's creator, and the general consensus is that the name is likely a pseudonym for the actual inventor or inventors. The
In order to own, transfer or use bitcoin directly on the Bitcoin network (as opposed to through an intermediary, such as an exchange), a person generally must have internet access to connect to the Bitcoin network. Bitcoin transactions may be made directly between end-users without the need for a third-party intermediary. To prevent the possibility of double-spending bitcoin, a user must notify the Bitcoin network of the transaction by broadcasting the transaction data to its network peers. The Bitcoin network provides confirmation against double-spending by memorializing every transaction in the Bitcoin blockchain, which is publicly accessible and transparent. This memorialization and verification against double-spending is accomplished through the Bitcoin network mining process, which adds “blocks” of data, including recent transaction information, to the Bitcoin blockchain.
Prior to engaging in bitcoin transactions directly on the Bitcoin network, a user generally must first install on its computer or mobile device a Bitcoin network software program that will allow the user to generate a private and public key pair associated with a bitcoin address commonly referred to as a “wallet.” The Bitcoin network software program and the bitcoin address also enable the user to connect to the Bitcoin network and transfer bitcoin to, and receive bitcoin from, other users.
Each Bitcoin network address, or wallet, is associated with a unique “public key” and “private key” pair. To receive bitcoin, the bitcoin recipient must provide its public key to the party initiating the transfer. This activity is analogous to a recipient for a transaction in U.S. dollars providing a routing address in wire instructions to the payor so that cash may be wired to the recipient's account. The payor approves the transfer to the address provided by the recipient by “signing” a transaction that consists of the recipient's public key with the private key of the address from where the payor is transferring the bitcoin. The recipient, however, does not make public or provide to the sender its related private key.
Neither the recipient nor the sender reveals their private keys in a transaction because the private key authorizes transfer of the funds in that address to other users. Therefore, if a user loses his or her private key, the user may permanently lose access to the bitcoin contained in the associated address. Likewise, bitcoin is irretrievably lost if the private key associated with them is deleted and no backup has been made. When sending bitcoin, a user's Bitcoin network software program must validate the transaction with the associated private key. The resulting digitally validated transaction is sent by the user's Bitcoin network software program to the Bitcoin network to allow transaction confirmation.
Some bitcoin transactions are conducted “off-blockchain” and are therefore not recorded in the Bitcoin blockchain. Some “off-blockchain transactions” involve the transfer of control over, or ownership of, a specific digital wallet holding bitcoin or the reallocation of ownership of certain bitcoin in a digital wallet containing assets owned by multiple persons, such as a digital wallet maintained by a digital assets platform. In contrast to on-blockchain transactions, which are publicly recorded on the Bitcoin blockchain, information and data regarding off-blockchain transactions are generally not publicly available. Therefore, off-blockchain transactions are not truly bitcoin transactions in that they do not involve the transfer of transaction data on the Bitcoin network and do not reflect a movement of bitcoin between addresses recorded in the Bitcoin blockchain. For these reasons, off-blockchain transactions are subject to risks as any such transfer of bitcoin ownership is not protected by the protocol behind the Bitcoin network or recorded in, and validated through, the blockchain mechanism.
In a bitcoin transaction directly on the Bitcoin network between two parties (as opposed to through an intermediary, such as a custodian), the following circumstances must initially be in place: (i) the party seeking to send bitcoin must have a Bitcoin network public key, and the Bitcoin network must recognize that public key as having sufficient bitcoin for the transaction; (ii) the receiving party must have a Bitcoin network public key; and (iii) the spending party must have internet access with which to send its spending transaction.
The receiving party must provide the spending party with its public key and allow the Bitcoin blockchain to record the sending of bitcoin to that public key. After the provision of a recipient's Bitcoin network public key, the spending party must enter the address into its Bitcoin network software program along with the number of bitcoin to be sent. The number of bitcoin to be sent will typically be agreed upon between the two parties based on a set number of bitcoin or an agreed upon conversion of the value of fiat currency to bitcoin. Since every computation on the Bitcoin network requires the payment of bitcoin, including verification and memorialization of bitcoin transfers, there is a transaction fee involved with the transfer, which is based on computation complexity and not on the value of the transfer and is paid by the payor with a fractional number of bitcoin.
After the entry of the Bitcoin network address, the number of bitcoin to be sent and the transaction fees, if any, to be paid, will be transmitted by the spending party. The transmission of the spending transaction results in the creation of a data packet by the spending party's Bitcoin network software program, which is transmitted onto the decentralized Bitcoin network, resulting in the distribution of the information among the software programs of users across the Bitcoin network for eventual inclusion in the Bitcoin blockchain.
As discussed in greater detail below, Bitcoin network miners record transactions when they solve for and add blocks of information to the Bitcoin blockchain. When a miner solves for a block, it creates that block, which includes data relating to (i) the solution to the block, (ii) a reference to the prior block in the Bitcoin blockchain to which the new block is being added and (iii) transactions that have occurred but have not yet been added to the Bitcoin blockchain. The miner becomes aware of outstanding, unrecorded transactions through the data packet transmission and distribution discussed above.
Upon the addition of a block included in the Bitcoin blockchain, the Bitcoin network software program of both the spending party and the receiving party will show confirmation of the transaction on the Bitcoin blockchain and reflect an adjustment to the bitcoin balance in each party's Bitcoin network public key, completing the bitcoin transaction. Once a transaction is
New bitcoins are created through the mining process. The process by which bitcoin is “mined” results in new blocks being added to the Bitcoin blockchain and new bitcoin tokens being issued to the miners. Computers on the Bitcoin network engage in a set of prescribed complex mathematical calculations in order to add a block to the Bitcoin blockchain and thereby confirm bitcoin transactions included in that block's data. The Bitcoin network is designed in such a way that the reward for adding new blocks to the Bitcoin blockchain decreases over time. In the future, once new bitcoin tokens are no longer awarded for adding a new block, miners will only have transaction fees to incentivize them, and as a result, it is expected that miners will need to be better compensated with higher transaction fees to ensure that there is adequate incentive for them to continue mining.
Under the source code that governs the Bitcoin network, the supply of new bitcoin is mathematically controlled so that the number of bitcoin grows at a limited rate pursuant to a pre-set schedule. The number of bitcoin awarded for solving a new block is automatically halved after every 210,000 blocks are added to the Bitcoin blockchain, approximately every 4 years. The fixed reward for solving a new Bitcoin block is currently 3.125 BTC per block. This amount is the result of the most recent Bitcoin halving event, which occurred in April 2024. The next Bitcoin halving is anticipated in 2028 when Bitcoin will halve to 1.5625. This deliberately controlled rate of bitcoin creation means that the number of bitcoin in existence will increase at a controlled rate until the number of bitcoin in existence reaches the pre-determined 21 million bitcoin. However, the 21 million supply cap could be changed in a hard fork. A hard fork could change the source code to the Bitcoin network, including the 21 million bitcoin supply cap.
The proposed product is a cash-settled index option that permits holders to receive U.S. dollars representing the difference between the current bitcoin spot market and the exercise price of the option and would not involve holding physical bitcoin similar to the approved Bitcoin-Based Commodity-Based Trust Shares and Trust (collectively “Spot Bitcoin ETPs”)
In 2006, Phlx received approval to list and trade foreign currency index options.
Foreign currency options established precedent to list and trade index options overlying an underlying that is not a security, such as proposed herein. Like foreign currency markets, the bitcoin market is liquid and is characterized by a significant degree of volume and turnover. As a result, the Exchange believes that sufficient venues exist to provide investors with ready access to reliable information on the spot market price of bitcoin for purposes of this product.
The final settlement value for Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options would be the CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate—New York Variant (BRRNY) on the expiration date (usually a Friday). BRRNY will be divided by a factor of one hundred (100) to create a new settlement value to arrive at the settlement value for Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options, which will be published as BRRNY—NOS (Nasdaq Options Settlement). BRRNY is a once-a-day benchmark index price for bitcoin that aggregates trade data from multiple bitcoin-USD markets operated by major cryptocurrency exchanges that conform to the CME CF Constituent Exchange Criteria. It is synchronized to the traditional U.S. financial market close of 1600 New York Time and is calculated every single day of the year. The index is a Registered Benchmark under UK BMR and as such is a Third Country benchmark under the EU BMR Regime.
The BRRNY index is methodologically identical to the regulated CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate (BRR), the most widely used benchmark price for Bitcoin, that settles the Bitcoin-USD derivatives complex listed by CME Group, and which serves as the NAV for exchange listed investment products from WisdomTree Europe, Evolve ETFs (CAN) and QR Asset Management (BRZ). The only difference between the CME CF BRRNY and the CME CF BRR, is that BRRNY references the price of bitcoin at the closing time of U.S. markets, 16:00 New York Time, rather than the price at 16:00 London Time, referenced by the BRR.
The purpose of BRRNY is to provide a replicable, manipulation-resistant and representative Bitcoin benchmark that synchronizes with the traditional U.S. market close. The CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate—New York Variant is a regulated Benchmark under the UK Benchmarks Regulation (BMR) regime. The BRRNY calculation methodology aggregates transactions of Bitcoins in U.S. dollars that are only conducted on the most liquid markets for which data is publicly available and operated by
BRRNY is a valid and robust benchmark that is calculated from input data of sufficient volume so that it is representative of the market it seeks to measure. Additionally, BRRNY has volume sufficiency which permits it be replicated by institutional market participants and product providers that need to warehouse price risk. The below table summarizes the total number of transactions and average number of transactions per day observed each month for BRRNY.
This trading activity exhibits volatility that is not substantially different from that shown in traditional asset markets. The volume observed and the reliability of that volume are clearly evident to be sufficient for the calculation of a robust and reliable benchmark.
Phlx believes that Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options will be utilized for a wide range of activities such as asset valuation, settlement of financial risk, risk management, NAV calculation, unit creation and unit redemption. To that end, the index design is fair and transparent. CF Benchmarks exclusively sources input data from Constituent Exchanges that meet published criteria as set out in its Constituent Exchanges Criteria and conducts a thorough review of any exchange under consideration for inclusion as a Constituent Exchange.
BRRNY's methodology incorporates a procedure for potentially erroneous data. Although volume-weighted medians of transaction prices from individual data sources are not part of the benchmark determination process, they are calculated as a means of quality control and manipulation resistance. In the event of an instance of index calculation in which a Constituent Exchange's volume-weighted median transaction price exhibits an absolute percentage deviation from the volume-weighted median price of other Constituent Exchange transactions greater than the Potentially Erroneous Data Parameter (10%), then transactions from that Constituent Exchange are deemed potentially erroneous and excluded from the index calculation. All instances of data excluded from a calculation trigger a Benchmark Surveillance Alert that is investigated. By way of example, between February 28, 2022, and January 31, 2024, the Potentially Erroneous Data Parameter of the methodology for the CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate—New York Variant has never been triggered. Analysis of the max volume-weighted median per exchange during the observation period produced the results in the table. The results illustrate that during the observation period, no Constituent Exchange's input data needed to be excluded due to exhibiting potential manipulation and indeed no individual cryptocurrency exchange exhibits a deviation percentage above 2.41% during this period.
CF Benchmarks has implemented a benchmark surveillance program for the investigation of alerts. Instances of suspected benchmark manipulation are escalated through appropriate regulatory channels in accordance with CF Benchmarks' obligations under the UK Benchmarks Regulation (UK BMR). As a regulated Benchmark Administrator, CF Benchmarks is subject to supervision by the UK FCA.
In terms of correlation, an analysis was undertaken of the pair-wise correlation of prices from Constituent Exchanges on a per-minute basis (the price difference between transactions for each minute at each exchange) during the observation period. The results are shown in the below table.
With respect to replicability, a simple replication simulation was thereby conducted of BRRNY to demonstrate the extent of slippage that implementation of the BRR would probably encounter. The methodology was as follows for weekdays only.
Trades are executed on
One trade is executed every second and the price achieved is assumed to be the last execution price observed in that second. Its associated volume is assumed to be the volume executed during that second.
If no trade is completed in any single-second period, then the price achieved is assumed to be the price achieved in the previous second, but the associated volume from the previous second is not added to the volume executed in the latest second.
The results of this simulation are displayed below.
Summary data for the above simulation is provided below.
As evidenced above, the BRRNY can be replicated with a high degree of confidence and usually with slippage of no more than 1 basis point (0.01%). On only 6.76% of days would slippage have been greater than 5 basis points (0.05%). Indeed, even on the most volatile day, slippage was approximately one half of one percent, 51.6 basis points (0.516%). Furthermore, in the 24-month period under observation slippage would have been in double-digit basis points only 10 times.
As evidenced by the foregoing data, Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options are representative of the underlying market, resistant to manipulation, and replicable by market participants.
The proposal is designed to ensure that Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options are listed and traded under the same terms that apply to other index options that are currently traded on the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to create a new Options 4D, titled “Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options,” with rules that would apply specifically to the listing and trading of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options.
The proposed Options 4D Rules would be applicable to Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options. All Options Rules shall apply to Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options, in addition to the Options 4D Rules, however where the Options 4D Rules disagree with another Options Rule not within Options 4D a conflict shall be resolved in favor of the Options 4D Rule as it applies to Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options.
The Exchange proposes to define certain terms for the trading of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options in Options 4D, Section 2, titled “Definitions.” The Exchange proposes to utilize certain defined terms in Options 4A, Section 1, such as “aggregate exercise price,” “current index value,” “exercise price,” “European-style index option,” “index multiplier,” and “reporting authority.”
Specifically, the term “aggregate exercise price” shall be as defined within Options 4A, Section 2(a).
The Exchange proposes to adopt a new term, “Constituent Exchange,” in Options 4D, Section 2(a)(2) which shall be defined as a cryptocurrency trading venue approved by the CME CF Cryptocurrency Pricing Products Oversight Committee to serve as pricing source for the calculation of a CME CF Cryptocurrency Reference Rate-New York Variant or CME CF Cryptocurrency Real Time Index, collectively known as the CME CF Cryptocurrency Pricing Products.
The Exchange also proposes to note in Supplementary Material .01 to Options
Options 4D, Section 3, titled “Trading Sessions,” notes that Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options may be effected on the Exchange between the hours of 9:30 a.m. (Eastern time) and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern time), except that on the last trading day, transactions in expiring in Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options may be effected on the Exchange between the hours of 9:30 a.m. (Eastern time) and 4:00 p.m. (Eastern time). As is the case for all index options listed on Phlx, General 3, Rule 1030 governs the days the Exchange will be open for business.
Unlike other index options, Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options need not meet the requirements of Options 4, Section 3 or Options 4A, Section 3.
As proposed, Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options would have a minimum increment of $0.01 for all series.
Generally, Options 9, Section 13 shall govern position limits for Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options, except as modified by this Options 4D, Section 6. Position Limits for Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options shall be equal to 250,000 contracts on the same side of the market, restricted to no more than 150,000 near-term contracts.
Each member or member organization that maintains a position on the same side of the market in excess of 100,000 contracts for its own account or for the account of a customer in excess of 100,000 contracts for its own account or for the account of a customer in Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options, would be required to file a report with the Exchange that includes, but is not limited to, data related to the option positions, whether such positions are hedged and if applicable, a description of the hedge and information concerning collateral used to carry the positions. Market Makers would be exempt from this reporting requirement.
As noted herein, the Exchange proposes to provide for the listing and trading of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options, a new index that reflects the price of bitcoin as represented by the CME CF Bitcoin Real Time Index, a once a second benchmark index price for bitcoin that aggregates order data from Bitcoin-USD markets operated by major cryptocurrency exchanges that conform to the CME CF Constituent Exchange Criteria.
Similar to other index options at Options 4A, Section 12(a)(1), bids and offers on Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options would be expressed in terms of dollars and cents per unit of the index.
As proposed, strike price intervals of no less than $2.50 are generally permitted for Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options, if the strike price is less than $200. This is the case today for XND, which is based on 1/100th of the value of the Nasdaq-100 Index.
Additional series of the same class of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options may be opened for trading on the Exchange when the Exchange deems it necessary to maintain an orderly market, to meet customer demand or when the underlying Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options moves substantially from the initial exercise price or prices. To the extent that any additional strike prices are listed by the Exchange, such additional strike prices shall be within thirty percent (30%) above or below the closing value of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options. The Exchange may also open additional strike prices that are more than 30% above or below the current Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options value provided that demonstrated customer interest exists for such series, as expressed by institutional, corporate or individual customers or their brokers. Market-Makers trading for their own account shall not be considered when determining customer interest under this provision. In addition to the initial listed series, the Exchange may list up to sixty (60) additional series per expiration month for each series in Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options.
The Exchange shall not list LEAPS on Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options at intervals less than $5.
With respect to delisting, Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options added pursuant Options 4D, Section 7(a)(3)(A) and (B) will be reviewed by the Exchange on a monthly basis. The Exchange will review series that are outside a range of five (5) strikes above and five (5) strikes below the current value Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options, and delist series with no open interest in both the put and the call series having a: (i) strike higher than the highest strike price with open interest in the put and/or call series for a given expiration month; and (ii) strike
Notwithstanding any other provision regarding strike prices in Options 4D, Section 6, non-Short Term Options that are on Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options that have been selected to participate in the Short Term Option Series Program (referred to as a “Related non-Short Term Option series”) shall be opened during the month prior to expiration of such Related non-Short Term Option series in the same manner as permitted in Supplementary .01 of Options 4D, Section 6 and in the same strike price intervals that are permitted in Supplementary .01 of Options 4D, Section 6.
As is the case for index options at Options 4A, Section 12(a)(4), the Exchange proposes to state that Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options contracts may expire at three (3)-month intervals, in consecutive weeks or in consecutive months. The Exchange may list: (i) up to six (6) standard monthly expirations at any one time in a class of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options, but will not list Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options that expire more than twelve (12) months out.
Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options would be European-style index options.
Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options would be P.M.-settled and the exercise settlement value would be derived from closing prices on the expiration day. The last day of trading for P.M.-settled index options would be the business day of expiration, or, in the case of a Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options contract expiring on a day that is not a business day, on the last business day before its expiration date. The current index value at expiration of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options is determined by the last reported sale price of each component. In the event that the underlying does not open for trading on the expiration date, the price of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options shall be the last reported sale price prior to the expiration date.
Similar to index options at Options 4A, Section 12(b), after a particular class of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options has been approved for listing and trading on the Exchange, the Exchange shall from time to time open for trading series of options therein. Within each approved class of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options, the Exchange shall open for trading a minimum of one expiration month and series for each class of approved Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options and may also open for trading series of options having not less than twelve and up to 60 months to expiration (“Long-Term Index Options Series”).
Also, similar to index options at Options 4A, Section 12(b)(1), additional series of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options of the same class may be opened for trading on the Exchange when the Exchange deems it necessary to maintain an orderly market, to meet customer demand or when the market price of the underlying index moves more than five strike prices from the initial exercise price or prices. The opening of a new series of options shall not affect the series of options of the same class previously opened. New series of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options may be added until the beginning of the month in which the options contract will expire. Due to unusual market conditions, the Exchange, in its discretion, may add a new series of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options until the fourth business day prior to the business day of expiration, or, in the case of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options contract expiring on a day that is not a business day, up to the fifth business day prior to expiration.
The Exchange would also list Long-Term Option Series or “LEAPs.” Similar to index options at Options 4A, Section 12(b)(2), the Exchange proposes that it may list LEAPs on Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options that expire from twelve (12) to sixty (60) months from the date of issuance. There may be up to ten (10) expiration months, none further out than sixty (60) months. Strike price intervals and continuity Rules shall not apply to such options series until the time to expiration is less than twelve (12) months. Bid/ask differentials for LEAPs are specified within Options 2, Section 4(b)(4)(i)(A).
Similar to index options at Options 4A, Section 12(d), the reported level of the underlying index that is calculated by the reporting authority for purposes of determining the current index value at the expiration of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options may differ from the level of the index that is separately calculated and reported by the reporting authority and that reflects trading activity subsequent to the opening of trading in the underlying.
The Exchange proposes to note in Supplementary .01 to Options 4D, Section 7 that the Short Term Options Series Program listing rules at Options 4A, Section 12(b)(4) shall be applicable to Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options. The Monthly Options Series Program at Options 4A, Section 12(b)(5) shall be applicable to Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options. Finally, the Quarterly Options Series Program at Options 4A, Section 12(b)(3) shall be applicable to Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options. These listing rules shall be applicable to an underlying as defined in proposed Options 4D, Section 2(a)(7).
The Exchange proposes to describe the settlement of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options in Options 4D, Section 9, titled
The Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options final settlement value would be the CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate—New York Variant (BRRNY) on the expiration date (usually a Friday). BRRNY would be divided by a factor of one hundred (100) and published as BRRNY—NOS (Nasdaq Options Settlement). Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options will have a multiplier of $100.
Settlement is calculated by combining all Relevant Transactions on a joint list and recording the trade price and size for each transaction. That list is partitioned into a number of equally-sized time intervals, of 5 minutes. For each partition
The CME CF BRRNY is then given by the equally weighted average of the volume-weighted medians of all partitions.
Delayed data and missing data are subject to certain rules. Any Relevant Transaction for a given Calculation Day that is not available from a Constituent Exchange's API by the Retrieval Time is disregarded in the calculation of the CME CF Cryptocurrency Reference Rate for that Calculation Day. If no Relevant Transaction occurs on a Constituent Exchange on a given Calculation Day or one or more Relevant Transactions occur but for any reason cannot be retrieved by the Calculation Agent, the Constituent Exchange is disregarded in the calculation of the CME CF Cryptocurrency Reference Rate for that Calculation Day. If, for any of the K partitions of the TWAP Period, no Relevant Transaction occurs on any Constituent Exchange or one or more Relevant Transactions occur but for any reason cannot be retrieved by the Calculation Agent, the partition remains empty and will be disregarded in the calculation of the CME CF Cryptocurrency Reference Rate for that Calculation Day. The denominator in Eq. 2 above will then be decremented by the number of empty partitions. If one or more Relevant Transactions occur but for any reason no Relevant Transaction can be retrieved from any Constituent Exchange API by the Calculation Agent, a CME CF Cryptocurrency Reference Rate calculation failure occurs for that Calculation Day. All Relevant
Similar to other index options,
The Exchange proposes to adopt “Disclaimers” at Options 4D, Section 9. As noted herein, CF Benchmarks shall be the reporting authority for Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options.
The Exchange proposes to provide at Options 4D, Section 9 that no reporting authority, and no affiliate of a reporting authority (each such reporting authority, its affiliates, and any other entity identified in Options 4D, Section 9 are referred to collectively as a “Reporting Authority”), makes any warranty, express or implied, as to the results to be obtained by any person or entity from the use of an index it publishes, any opening, intra-day or closing value therefor, or any data included therein or relating thereto, in connection with the trading of any options contract based thereon or for any other purpose. The Reporting Authority shall obtain information for inclusion in, or for use in the calculation of, such index from sources it believes to be reliable, but the Reporting Authority does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of such index, any opening, intra-day or closing value therefor, or any date included therein or related thereto. The Reporting Authority hereby disclaims all warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or use with respect to such index, any opening, intra-day, or closing value therefor, any data included therein or relating thereto, or any options contract based thereon. The Reporting Authority shall have no liability for any damages, claims, losses (including any indirect or consequential losses), expenses, or delays, whether direct or indirect, foreseen or unforeseen, suffered by any person arising out of any circumstance or occurrence relating to the person's use of such index, any opening, intra-day or closing value therefor, any data included therein or relating thereto, or any options contract based thereon, or arising out of any errors or delays in calculating or disseminating such index.
The Exchange proposes to apply margin requirements for the purchase and sale of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options that are identical to those applied for its broad-based index options. Therefore, purchases of puts or calls with 9 months or less until expiration must be paid for in full. Writers of uncovered puts or calls must deposit/maintain 100% of the option proceeds plus 15% of the underlying index value less out-of-the-money amount, if any, to a minimum of option proceeds plus 10% of underlying index value for calls; 10% of the put exercise price for puts.
The trading of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options would be subject to the same rules that presently govern the trading of index options on Phlx, including sales practice rules and trading rules. Options 10, Section 6, “Opening of Accounts,” is designed to protect public customer trading and shall apply to trading in Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options. Specifically, Options 10, Section 6(a) prohibits members and member organizations from accepting a customer order to purchase or write an option, including Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options, unless such customer's account has been approved in writing by an Options Principal. Additionally, Phlx Options 10, Section 8, “Suitability of Recommendations,” is designed to ensure that options, including Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options, are only sold to customers capable of evaluating and bearing the risks associated with trading in this instrument. Further, Phlx Options 10, Section 9, “Discretionary Accounts,” permits members and member organizations to exercise discretionary power with respect to trading options, including Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options, in a customer's account only if the customer has given prior written authorization and the account has been accepted in writing by a Registered Options Principal. Phlx Options 10, Section 9 also requires a record to be made of every option transaction for an account in respect to which a member or member organization or a partner, officer or employee of a member organization is vested with any discretionary authority, such record to include the name of the customer, the designation, number of contracts and premium of the option contracts, the date and time when such transaction took place and clearly reflecting the fact that discretionary authority was exercised. Finally, Phlx Options 10, Section 7, “Supervision of Accounts,” Phlx Options 10, Section 10, “Confirmations to Customers,” and Phlx Options 10, Section 13, “Delivery of Options Disclosure Documents and Prospectus,” will also apply to trading in Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options.
The trading of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options will be subject to the trading halt procedures applicable to other index options traded on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that all Phlx and OCC members will be able to accommodate trading, clearance and settlement of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options without alteration.
In 2024, the Commission approved various rule changes to list and trade Spot Bitcoin ETPs.
[B]ased on the record before the Commission and the improved quality of the correlation analysis in the record, including the Commission's own analysis, the Commission is able to conclude that fraud or manipulation that impacts prices in spot bitcoin markets would likely similarly impact CME bitcoin futures prices. And because the CME's surveillance can assist in detecting those impacts on CME bitcoin futures prices, the Exchanges' comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with the CME—a U.S. regulated market whose bitcoin futures market is consistently highly correlated to spot bitcoin, albeit not of “significant size” related to spot bitcoin—can be reasonably expected to assist in surveilling for fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in the specific context of the [Spot Bitcoin ETPs].
As described in the Spot Bitcoin ETPs Approval Order, there is currently a regulated U.S. market with respect to spot bitcoin, the CME bitcoin futures (“Bitcoin Futures”) market.
Specifically, the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with the CME via its common membership in ISG, which facilitates the sharing of information that is available to the CME through its surveillance of its markets, including its surveillance of the Bitcoin Futures market. Similar to the Spot Bitcoin ETPs previously approved by the SEC, Nasdaq's ability to obtain information regarding trading in the Bitcoin Futures market from other markets that are members of the ISG (specifically the CME) would assist Nasdaq in detecting and deterring misconduct.
Further, the exchanges that list Spot Bitcoin ETPs comprehensively surveil market conditions and price movements on a real time and ongoing basis in order to detect and prevent price distortions, including price distortions caused by manipulative efforts. Thus, the CME's surveillance as well as Nasdaq's surveillance and other equity markets that list Spot Bitcoin ETPs can reasonably be relied upon to capture the effects on the Bitcoin Futures market and Spot Bitcoin ETPs, as applicable, that are caused by a person attempting to manipulate the futures ETP or Spot Bitcoin ETPs by manipulating the price of bitcoin futures contracts or Spot Bitcoin ETPs, whether that attempt is made by directly trading on the Bitcoin Futures market or Spot Bitcoin ETPs, or indirectly by trading outside of the Bitcoin Futures market or Spot Bitcoin ETPs.
The Exchange would have an adequate surveillance program in place for Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options as it intends to apply the same program procedures that it applies to the Exchange's other index options products.
The Exchange, in its normal course of surveillance, will monitor for any potential manipulation of the Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options settlement value according to the Exchange's current procedures. The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures currently in place will allow it to adequately surveil for any potential manipulation in the trading of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options.
The Exchange represents that it has the necessary system capacity to support additional quotations and messages that will result from the listing and trading Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options. Finally, the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) has the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the listing of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options. The proposal is limited to one new class and the additional traffic that would be generated from the introduction of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options would be manageable and well within any systems capacity capabilities.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In 2006, Phlx received approval to list and trade foreign currency index options.
Foreign currency options established precedent to list and trade index options overlying an underlying that is not a security, such as proposed herein. Like foreign currency markets, the bitcoin market is liquid and is characterized by a significant degree of volume and turnover. As a result, the Exchange believes that sufficient venues exist to provide investors with ready access to reliable information on the price of bitcoin for purposes of this product.
The introduction of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options will provide investors with an additional tool to manage their portfolio, whether by hedging or through diversification and will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors because offering this new product will provide investors with a greater opportunity to realize the benefits of utilizing index options based on spot bitcoin, including cost efficiencies and increased hedging strategies. In particular, the Exchange believes that offering options Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options will benefit investors by providing them with an additional, relatively lower cost risk management tool allowing them to manage, more easily, their positions and associated risks, in their portfolios in connection with exposure to spot bitcoin. Additionally, this cash-settled index that permits holders to receive U.S. dollars representing the difference between the current bitcoin spot market and the exercise price of the option eliminates risks associated with physical settlement such as volatility and movement in the underlying at expiration. Today, the CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate—New York Variant for the Bitcoin—U.S. Dollar trading pair (the “CF Benchmarks Index”) constitutes the index for the following products: iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF, Franklin Bitcoin ETF, Bitwise Bitcoin ETF, Valkyrie Bitcoin Fund and ARK 21Shares Bitcoin ETF.
For the reasons which follow, the Exchange believes that Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and promote just and equitable principles of trade. Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options are representative of the underlying market, resistant to manipulation, and replicable by market participants, to be able to foster further institutional participation in the underlying market that is being measured. The final settlement value for Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options would be the CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate—New York Variant (BRRNY) on the expiration date (usually a Friday). BRRNY will be divided by a factor of one hundred (100) to create a new settlement value to arrive at the settlement value for Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options and will be published as BRRNY—NOS (Nasdaq Options Settlement). BRRNY is a once-a-day benchmark index price for bitcoin that aggregates trade data from multiple bitcoin-USD markets operated by major cryptocurrency exchanges that conform to the CME CF Constituent Exchange Criteria. It is synchronized to the traditional U.S. financial market close of 1600 New York Time and is calculated every single day of the year. The index is a Registered Benchmark under UK BMR and as such is a Third Country benchmark under the EU BMR Regime.
The BRRNY index is methodologically identical to the regulated CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate (BRR), the most widely used benchmark price for Bitcoin, that settles the Bitcoin-USD derivatives complex listed by CME Group, and which serves as the NAV for exchange listed investment products from WisdomTree Europe, Evolve ETFs (CAN) and QR Asset Management (BRZ). The only difference between the CME CF BRRNY and the CME CF BRR, is that BRRNY references the price of bitcoin at the closing time of U.S. markets, 16:00 New York Time, rather than the price at 16:00 London Time, referenced by the BRR.
The purpose of BRRNY is to provide a replicable, manipulation-resistant and representative bitcoin benchmark that synchronizes with the traditional U.S. market close. The CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate—New York Variant is a regulated Benchmark under the UK Benchmarks Regulation (BMR) regime. The BRRNY calculation methodology aggregates transactions of Bitcoins in U.S. dollars that are only conducted on the most liquid markets for which data is publicly available and operated by exchanges that meet the CME CF Constituent Exchange Criteria.
BRRNY is a valid and robust benchmark that is calculated from input data of sufficient volume so that it is representative of the market it seeks to measure. Additionally, BRRNY has volume sufficiency which permits it be replicated by institutional market participants and product providers that need to warehouse price risk. The below table summarizes the total number of transactions and average number of transactions per day observed each month for BRRNY.
This trading activity exhibits volatility that is not substantially different from that shown in traditional asset markets. The volume observed and the reliability of that volume are clearly evident to be sufficient for the calculation of a robust and reliable benchmark.
Phlx believes that Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options will be utilized for a wide range of activities such as asset valuation, settlement of financial risk, risk management, NAV calculation, unit creation and unit redemption. To that end, the index design is fair and transparent. CF Benchmarks exclusively sources input data from Constituent Exchanges that meet published criteria as set out in its Constituent Exchanges Criteria and conducts a thorough review of any exchange under consideration for inclusion as a Constituent Exchange.
BRRNY's methodology incorporates a procedure for potentially erroneous data. Although volume-weighted medians of transaction prices from individual data sources are not part of the benchmark determination process, they are calculated as a means of quality control and manipulation resistance. In the event of an instance of index calculation in which a Constituent Exchange's volume-weighted median transaction price exhibits an absolute percentage deviation from the volume-weighted median price of other Constituent Exchange transactions greater than the Potentially Erroneous Data Parameter (10%), then transactions from that Constituent Exchange are deemed potentially erroneous and excluded from the index calculation. All instances of data excluded from a calculation trigger a Benchmark Surveillance Alert that is investigated. By way of example, between February 28, 2022, and January 31, 2024, the Potentially Erroneous Data Parameter of the methodology for the CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate—New York Variant has never been triggered. Analysis of the max volume-weighted median per exchange during the observation period produced the results in the table. The results illustrate that during the observation period, no Constituent Exchange's input data needed to be excluded due to exhibiting potential manipulation and indeed no individual cryptocurrency exchange exhibits a deviation percentage above 2.41% during this period.
CF Benchmarks has implemented a benchmark surveillance program for the investigation of alerts. Instances of suspected benchmark manipulation are escalated through appropriate regulatory channels in accordance with CF Benchmarks' obligations under the UK Benchmarks Regulation (UK BMR). As a regulated Benchmark Administrator, CF Benchmarks is subject to supervision by the UK FCA.
In terms of correlation, an analysis was undertaken of the pair-wise correlation of prices from Constituent Exchanges on a per-minute basis (the price difference between transactions for each minute at each exchange) during the observation period. The results are shown in the below table.
With respect to replicability, a simple replication simulation was thereby conducted of BRRNY to demonstrate the extent of slippage that implementation of the BRR would probably encounter. The methodology was as follows for weekdays only.
Trades are executed on
One trade is executed every second and the price achieved is assumed to be the last execution price observed in that second. Its associated volume is assumed to be the volume executed during that second.
If no trade is completed in any single-second period, then the price achieved is assumed to be the price achieved in the previous second, but the associated volume from the previous second is not added to the volume executed in the latest second.
The results of this simulation are displayed below.
Summary data for the above simulation is provided below.
As evidenced above, the BRRNY can be replicated with a high degree of confidence and usually with slippage of no more than 1 basis point (0.01%). On only 6.76% of days would slippage have been greater than 5 basis points (0.05%). Indeed, even on the most volatile day, slippage was approximately one half of one percent, 51.6 basis points (0.516%). Furthermore, in the 24-month period under observation slippage would have been in double-digit basis points only 10 times.
In 2024, the Commission approved various rule changes to list and trade Spot Bitcoin ETPs.
[B]ased on the record before the Commission and the improved quality of the correlation analysis in the record, including the Commission's own analysis, the Commission is able to conclude that fraud or manipulation that impacts prices in spot bitcoin markets would likely similarly impact CME bitcoin futures prices. And because the CME's surveillance can assist in detecting those impacts on CME bitcoin futures prices, the Exchanges' comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with the CME—a U.S. regulated market whose bitcoin futures market is consistently highly correlated to spot bitcoin, albeit not of “significant size” related to spot bitcoin—can be reasonably expected to assist in surveilling for fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in the specific context of the [Spot Bitcoin ETPs].
As described in the Spot Bitcoin ETPs Approval Order, there is currently a regulated U.S. market with respect to spot bitcoin, the CME bitcoin futures (“Bitcoin Futures”) market.
Specifically, the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with the CME via its common membership in ISG, which facilitates
Further, the exchanges that list Spot Bitcoin ETPs comprehensively surveil market conditions and price movements on a real time and ongoing basis in order to detect and prevent price distortions, including price distortions caused by manipulative efforts. Thus, the CME's surveillance as well as Nasdaq's surveillance and other equity markets that list Spot Bitcoin ETPs can reasonably be relied upon to capture the effects on the Bitcoin Futures market and Spot Bitcoin ETPs, as applicable, that are caused by a person attempting to manipulate the futures ETP or Spot Bitcoin ETPs by manipulating the price of bitcoin futures contracts or Spot Bitcoin ETPs, whether that attempt is made by directly trading on the Bitcoin Futures market or Spot Bitcoin ETPs, or indirectly by trading outside of the Bitcoin Futures market or Spot Bitcoin ETPs.
The Exchange would have an adequate surveillance program in place for Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options as it intends to apply the same program procedures that it applies to the Exchange's other index options products.
The Exchange, in its normal course of surveillance, will monitor for any potential manipulation of the Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options settlement value according to the Exchange's current procedures. The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures currently in place will allow it to adequately surveil for any potential manipulation in the trading of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options.
The Exchange believes that the proposed contract specifications will be attractive to market participants, and will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. The proposal is designed to ensure that Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options are listed and traded under the same terms that apply to other index options that are currently traded on the Exchange. Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options will be subject to the same rules that presently govern the trading of index options, including sales practice rules, margin requirements, trading rules, and position and exercise limits. The proposed product is a cash-settled index option that permit holders to receive U.S. dollars representing the difference between the current bitcoin spot market and the exercise price of the option and would not involve holding physical bitcoin similar to the Spot Bitcoin ETPs, which entailed the custody of bitcoin assets. The Exchange's proposal to have a minimum increment of $0.01 for all series, similar to XND, which is also based on 1/100th of the value of the Nasdaq-100 Index, will enable traders to make the most effective use of the product for trading and hedging purposes. Nasdaq Bitcoin Index options would be P.M.-settled and the exercise settlement value would be derived from closing prices on the expiration day. The Exchange believes that providing P.M.-settlement will make this product more attractive to market participants and help garner additional support for this new index options product. In particular, retail investors, prefer P.M.-settled index options. P.M.-settlement is preferred by retail investors as it allows market participants to hedge their exposure for the full week. A.M.-settled options by contrast are based on opening prices on the day of expiration and therefore stop trading on the day prior, leaving residual risk on the day of expiration. Weekly expirations and EOMs should create greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility, and provide customers with the ability to tailor their investment objectives more closely. Additionally, position limits for Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options would be equal to 250,000 contracts on the same side of the market, restricted to no more than 150,000 near-term contracts.
Finally, the Exchange represents that it and OPRA have the necessary system capacity to support additional quotations and messages that will result from the listing and trading Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options.
This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an index option product with a novel structure that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options would be subject to Exchange rules that currently govern the listing and trading of index options, including permissible expirations, strike prices, minimum increments, position and exercise limits, and margin requirements. Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options will be equally available to all market participants who wish to trade such options.
The Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the extent that permitting Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options to trade on the Exchange may make Phlx a more attractive marketplace to market participants, such market participants are free to elect to become market participants on the Exchange. Additionally, other options exchanges are free to amend their rules, as applicable, to permit them to list and trade index options that track the value of bitcoin. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change may relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition, as it is designed to increase competition for order flow on the Exchange in a manner that is beneficial to investors by providing them with a
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of California (FEMA-4856-DR), dated January 8, 2025.
Issued on February 18, 2025.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of California, dated January 8, 2025, is hereby amended to update the incident period for this disaster as beginning January 7, 2025 and continuing through January 31, 2025.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of California (FEMA-4856-DR), dated January 15, 2025.
Issued on February 18, 2025.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative disaster declaration of a rural area for the State of Missouri dated February 18, 2025.
Issued on February 18, 2025.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration of a rural area, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 20975C and for economic injury is 209760.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration is Missouri.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a renewed information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by March 26, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Charles Huet by email at
Issued in Washington, DC.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of actions on special permit applications.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has granted or denied the special permits described herein.
Comments must be received on or before March 26, 2025.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC.
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for modification of special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the applications for modifications of existing special permits described herein.
Comments must be received on or before March 11, 2025.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: (1) Motor vehicle, (2) Rail freight, (3) Cargo vessel, (4) Cargo aircraft only, (5) Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the applications described herein.
Comments must be received on or before March 26, 2025.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: (1) Motor vehicle, (2) Rail freight, (3) Cargo vessel, (4) Cargo aircraft only, (5) Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC.
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
(a) The term “employees” shall have the meaning given that term in section 2105 of title 5, United States Code.
(b) The term “independent regulatory agency” shall have the meaning given that term in section 3502(5) of title 44, United States Code. This order shall not apply to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or to the Federal Open Market Committee in its conduct of monetary policy. This order shall apply to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System only in connection with its conduct and authorities directly related to its supervision and regulation of financial institutions.
(c) The term “independent regulatory agency chairman” shall mean, with regard to a multi-member independent regulatory agency, the chairman of such agency, and shall mean, with regard to a single-headed independent
(d) The term “head” of an independent regulatory agency shall mean those appointed to supervise independent regulatory agencies and in whom the agencies' authorities are generally vested, encompassing the chairman, director, or other presiding officer, and, as applicable, other members, commissioners, or similar such officials with responsibility for supervising such agencies.
“(b) “Agency,” unless otherwise indicated, means any authority of the United States that is an “agency” under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), and shall also include the Federal Election Commission. This order shall not apply to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or to the Federal Open Market Committee in its conduct of monetary policy. This order shall apply to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System only in connection with its conduct and authorities directly related to its supervision and regulation of financial institutions.”.
(b) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) shall provide guidance on implementation of this order to the heads of executive departments and agencies newly submitting regulatory actions under section 3(b) of Executive Order 12866. Agency submissions by independent regulatory agencies under such section shall commence within the earlier of 60 days from the date of this order, or completion of such implementation guidance.
(a) review independent regulatory agencies' obligations for consistency with the President's policies and priorities; and
(b) consult with independent regulatory agency chairmen and adjust such agencies' apportionments by activity, function, project, or object, as necessary and appropriate, to advance the President's policies and priorities. Such adjustments to apportionments may prohibit independent regulatory agencies from expending appropriations on particular activities, functions, projects, or objects, so long as such restrictions are consistent with law.
(b) The heads of independent regulatory agencies shall establish a position of White House Liaison in their respective agencies. Such position shall be in grade 15 of the General Schedule and shall be placed in Schedule C of the excepted service.
(c) Independent regulatory agency chairmen shall submit agency strategic plans developed pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 to the Director of OMB for clearance prior to finalization.
(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(c) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.