Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Food and Drug Administration
Antitrust Division
Federal Aviation 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), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notification of availability.
This document announces the acceptance of a means of compliance with FAA regulations for sUA Category 2 and Category 3 operations over human beings. The Administrator finds that AVSS's “Means of Compliance with §§ 107.120(a) and 107.130(a) for Small Unmanned Aircraft,” revision 6, dated January 7, 2025, provides an acceptable means, but not the only means, of showing compliance with FAA regulations.
The means of compliance is accepted effective October 3, 2025.
Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 107, subpart D, prescribes the eligibility and operating requirements for civil sUA to operate over human beings in the United States. To be eligible for use, the sUA must meet the requirements of § 107.120(a) for Category 2 operations or § 107.130(a) for Category 3 operations. These sections require the sUA to be designed, produced, or modified such that it will not cause injury to a human being above a specified severity limit, does not contain any exposed rotating parts that would lacerate human skin, and does not contain any safety defects. Section 107.155 requires that means of compliance with § 107.120(a) or § 107.130(a) be established and FAA-accepted. Section 107.160 requires an applicant to declare that sUA for Category 2 or Category 3 operations meet an FAA-accepted means of compliance.
This notification of availability serves as a formal acceptance by the FAA of the AVSS's “Means of Compliance with §§ 107.120(a) and 107.130(a) for Small Unmanned Aircraft,” revision 6, as an acceptable means of compliance, but not the only means of compliance with §§ 107.120(a) and 107.130(a). Applicants may also propose alternative means of compliance for FAA review and possible acceptance.
Revisions to AVSS's “Means of Compliance (MOC) with §§ 107.120(a) and 107.130(a) for Small Unmanned Aircraft (sUA),” revision 6, will not be automatically accepted and will require further FAA acceptance for any revisions to be considered an accepted means of compliance.
Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Interim final rule.
This interim final rule (IFR) ensures that the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT or Department) operates its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE) Programs (collectively, Programs) in a nondiscriminatory fashion—in line with law and the U.S. Constitution. The IFR removes race- and sex-based presumptions of social and economic disadvantage that violate the U.S. Constitution.
This IFR is effective October 3, 2025. Comments must be received on or before November 3, 2025. To the extent practicable, DOT will consider late-filed comments.
You may submit comments identified by the docket number DOT-OST-2025-0897 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
A copy of the IFR, all comments received, and all background material may be viewed online at
Peter Constantine, Office of the General Counsel, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 at (202) 658-9670 or
Spanning nearly 40 years, the Department's DBE and ACDBE programs are small business initiatives intended to level the playing field for businesses seeking to participate in federally assisted contracts and in airport concessions. Rooted in a desire to give small businesses a fair shake in the process, the Programs must balance a desire to help the small business community with an overriding government obligation to serve the public. The government must undertake all these efforts consistent with law—including constitutional nondiscrimination requirements that establish the conditions for national harmony and unity. This IFR advances the administration's goals of nondiscrimination, fairness, and excellence in serving the American public.
Although the Programs aim to assist small businesses owned and controlled by “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals,” Congress has mandated by statute that DOT treat certain individuals—women and members of certain racial and ethnic groups—as “presumed” to be disadvantaged.
On September 23, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky determined that the DBE program's statutory race- and sex-based presumptions likely do not comply with the Constitution's promise of equal protection under the law.
On January 20, 2025, the President issued Executive Order 14151,
On March 21, 2025, the Attorney General issued a memorandum to all Federal agencies on implementing these Executive Orders.
On February 19, 2025, the President issued Executive Order 14219,
In accordance with the directives of the President and the Attorney General, DOT and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) have evaluated the DBE and ACDBE programs. DOT and DOJ, consistent with the ruling of the District Court, have determined that the race- and sex-based presumptions of DOT's DBE programs are unconstitutional. In
On May 28, 2025, DOT (represented by DOJ), along with the plaintiffs in the litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, asked the Court to enter a Consent Order resolving a constitutional challenge to the DBE program.
On June 25, 2025, the Solicitor General wrote to the Speaker of the House, consistent with 28 U.S.C. 530D, to advise the Speaker that DOJ had concluded that the DBE program's presumptions violate the U.S. Constitution, that DOJ would no longer defend the presumptions in court, and that DOJ had taken that position in ongoing litigation.
In light of DOT and DOJ's determination that the DBE program's race- and sex-based presumptions are unconstitutional, DOT is issuing this IFR to remove the presumptions from the DBE program regulations set forth in 49 CFR part 26. Because the ACDBE presumptions are functionally identical and suffer the same constitutional infirmity, this IFR also removes the presumptions from the ACDBE regulations set forth in 49 CFR part 23. To ensure a level playing field between existing participants and new applicants, while also eliminating the effects of the unconstitutional presumptions and reliance in whole or in part on claims of disadvantage based on race or sex, this IFR requires each Unified Certification Program (UCP) to reevaluate any currently certified DBE or ACDBE, to recertify any DBE or ACDBE that meets the new certification standards, and to decertify any DBE or ACDBE that does not meet the new certification standards. The IFR includes certain requirements that apply during the pendency of this reevaluation process.
The Department amends § 26.1 to clarify the proper objectives of the DBE program. The Department's amendments replace references to the DBE program being “narrowly tailored” with an objective intended to ensure that the DBE program operates in a nondiscriminatory manner and without regard to race or sex, while maximizing efficiency of service. These amendments center the DBE program's purpose of leveling the playing field for businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals while providing excellent service to the American people.
The Department changes the definition of “socially and economically disadvantaged individual” in § 26.5 to
In furtherance of these legal conclusions, the IFR also replaces the terms “race-neutral” and “race-conscious” in § 26.5 with “DBE-neutral” and “DBE-conscious” and modifies the definitions slightly for the same reasons.
Similarly, the IFR eliminates the requirement in § 26.11(c)(2)(iv) for recipients to obtain bidders list information about the majority owner's race and sex for all DBEs and non-DBEs who bid as prime contractors and subcontractors on each of a recipient's federally assisted contracts, and then renumbers the requirements in current §§ 26.11(c)(v) through (c)(vii) as §§ 26.11(c)(iv) through (c)(vi).
The IFR also eliminates the requirement in § 26.11(e)(1) that recipients report and categorize the percentage of in-State and out-of-State DBE certifications by sex and ethnicity. The IFR also eliminates the requirements in §§ 26.11(e)(5) and (6) that recipients report the number of in-State and out-of-State applications for an “individualized” determination of social or economic disadvantage status, and the number of in-State and out-of-State applicants who made an individualized showing of social and economic disadvantaged status. This IFR requires all applicants to demonstrate social and economic disadvantage affirmatively to participate in the DBE program, which renders these reporting requirements unnecessary. The IFR further renumbers the reporting requirements in current §§ 26.11(e)(2) through (e)(4) as §§ 26.11(e)(1) through (e)(3).
For consistency, the IFR replaces the word “race-neutral” with “DBE-neutral” in § 26.37(b).
For consistency, the IFR replaces the word “race-neutral” with “DBE-neutral” in §§ 26.39(b)(1) and (5).
For consistency, the IFR replaces the phrase “race-neutral DBE program” with “DBE-neutral program” in § 26.45(a)(2).
For consistency, the IFR amends the second sentence of § 26.45(b) to replace the word “discrimination” with “social and economic disadvantage” so it will read as follows: “The goal must reflect your determination of the level of DBE participation you would expect absent the effects of social and economic disadvantage.”
For consistency and to ensure recipients establish overall goals that include only DBEs who are ready, willing, and able to compete for and participate in DOT-assisted contracts, the Department amends § 26.45(c)(3) to clarify that any disparity studies utilized by recipients in setting their goals must provide a detailed capacity analysis, including the methodology used. The Department makes the same clarification regarding the use of disparity studies in § 26.45(d)(ii).
For consistency, the IFR amends § 26.45(f)(3) to remove references to race-neutral and race-conscious measures.
The IFR amends § 26.45(g)(1) to remove consultation requirements for minority and women's contractor groups, as well as the language related to posting proposed overall goals in minority-focused media.
The IFR amends § 26.45(h) by removing the existing language, as there will be no opportunity to create group-specific goals now that race and sex have been removed from the regulation. In its place, the IFR adds new language in § 26.45(h) to indicate that a recipient is not required to update its overall goal until its UCP completes the reevaluation process described in § 26.111.
For consistency, the IFR replaces the words “race-conscious” and “race-neutral” with “DBE-conscious” and “DBE-neutral” in in § 26.47(c)(4) and § 26.47(d).
The IFR adds § 26.47(e) to provide that until a Unified Certification Program (UCP) completes the reevaluation process described in § 26.111, the compliance provisions of § 26.47 will not apply to any recipient covered by that UCP. This requirement ensures fairness to recipients during the transition period.
For consistency, the IFR replaces the words “race-conscious” and “race-neutral” with “DBE-conscious” and “DBE-neutral” throughout § 26.51 and the corresponding examples.
The IFR adds § 26.51(h) to provide that until a UCP completes the reevaluation process described in § 26.111, a recipient covered by that UCP may not set any contract goals. This provision ensures that existing DBEs do not continue to receive any benefits as a result of their certification under the old standards.
The IFR adds § 26.55(i) to provide that until a UCP completes the reevaluation process described in § 26.111, a recipient covered by that UCP may not count any DBE participation toward DBE goals. This provision ensures that existing DBEs do not continue to receive any benefits as a result of their certification under the old standards.
The IFR eliminates § 26.61(b)(2), which imposed a burden of proof on certifiers with respect to individuals subject to the race- and sex-based presumptions that the IFR eliminates.
The IFR revises § 26.67 to implement the removal of unconstitutional race- and sex-based presumptions. The IFR requires all small business concerns to demonstrate social and economic disadvantage based on their own experiences and circumstances without reliance in whole or in part on race or sex.
This IFR adds § 26.111 to require each UCP to reevaluate any currently certified DBE, to recertify any DBE that meets the new certification standards, and to decertify any DBE that does not meet the new certification standards or fails to provide additional information required for submission under the new certification standards. The IFR provides that decertification procedures of 49 CFR 26.87 do not apply to any
The IFR amends the program objectives for the ACDBE program in § 23.1 that are similar to the amendments to the DBE program objectives in § 26.1.
The IFR amends the definition of the phrase “socially and economically disadvantaged individual” in § 23.3 to conform to the definition of the phrase in § 26.5. In addition, the IFR replaces the terms “race-conscious” and “race-neutral” with “ACDBE-conscious” and “ACDBE-neutral” in § 23.3.
For consistency, the IFR replaces the words “race-neutral” and “race-conscious” with “DBE-neutral” and “DBE-conscious” in §§ 23.25(d) and (e).
The IFR adds § 23.25(h) to provide that until a UCP completes the reevaluation process described in § 23.81, a recipient covered by that UCP may not set concession-specific goals or use any of the other methods described in § 23.25(e). This provision ensures that existing ACDBEs do not continue to receive any benefits as a result of their certification under the old standards.
For consistency, the IFR replaces the words “race-neutral” with “DBE-neutral” in § 23.26(b)(1).
For consistency, the IFR replaces the words “minority and women owned” with “socially and economically disadvantaged” in § 23.26(d)(5).
For consistency, the IFR replaces the word “gender” with “sex” in § 23.26(e).
The IFR eliminates the requirement in § 23.27(c)(2)(iv) for recipients to obtain information about the majority owner's race and sex for all ACDBEs and non-ACDBEs who seek to work on each of a recipient's concession opportunities, and then renumbers the requirements in current §§ 23.27(c)(v) through (c)(vii) as §§ 23.27(c)(iv) through (c)(vi). The IFR also eliminates the requirement in § 23.27(d)(1) that recipients report and categorize the percentage of in-State and out-of-State ACDBE certifications by sex and ethnicity. The IFR also eliminates the requirements in §§ 23.27(d)(5) and (6) that recipients report the number of in-State and out-of-State applications for “individualized” determinations of social or economic disadvantage status, and the number of in-State and out-of-State applicants who made an individualized showing of social and economic disadvantaged status. This IFR requires all applicants to demonstrate social and economic disadvantage affirmatively to participate in the ACDBE program, which renders these reporting requirements unnecessary. The IFR further renumbers the reporting requirements in current §§ 23.27(d)(2) through (d)(4) as §§ 23.27(d)(1) through (d)(3).
The IFR amends § 23.41(d) by removing the existing language, as there will be no opportunity to create group-specific goals now that race and sex have been removed from the regulation. In its place, the IFR adds new language to indicate that a recipient is not required to update its overall goal until its UCP completes the reevaluation process described in § 23.81.
The IFR amends § 23.43(b) to remove consultation requirements for minority and women's contractor groups, as well as the language related to posting proposed overall goals in minority-focused media.
For consistency, the Department amends § 23.51(a) to replace the words “discrimination and its effects” with “social and economic disadvantage.” For consistency, the IFR replaces the words “race-neutral” and “race-conscious” with “ACDBE-neutral” and “ACDBE-conscious” in §§ 23.51(f), (g), and (h), and in § 23.51(d)(5).
For consistency and to ensure recipients establish overall goals that include only DBEs who are ready, willing, and able to compete for and participate in DOT-assisted contracts, the Department amends § 23.51(c)(3) to clarify that any disparity studies utilized by recipients in setting their goals must provide a detailed capacity analysis, including the methodology used.
The IFR adds § 23.53(g) and § 23.55(m) to provide that until a UCP completes the reevaluation process described in § 23.81, recipients covered by that UCP, and car rental companies operating at airports covered by that UCP, may not count any ACDBE participation toward ACDBE goals. These provisions ensure that existing ACDBEs do not continue to receive any benefits as a result of their certification under the old standards.
For consistency, the IFR replaces the words “race-conscious” and “race-neutral” with “DBE-conscious” and “DBE-neutral” in in § 23.57(b)(4) and § 23.57(c).
The IFR adds § 23.57(d) to provide that until a UCP completes the reevaluation process described in § 23.81, the compliance provisions of § 23.57 will not apply to any recipient covered by that UCP. This requirement ensures fairness to recipients during the transition period.
This IFR adds § 23.81 to require each UCP to reevaluate any currently certified ACDBE, to recertify any ACDBE that meets the new certification standards, and to decertify any DBE that does not meet the new certification standards or fails to provide additional information required for submission under the new certification standards. The IFR provides that decertification procedures of 49 CFR 26.87 do not apply to any decertification decisions under this process. The IFR requires each UCP to complete the reevaluation process as quickly as practicable following issuance of this IFR. The Department will work with each UCP to minimize the practical impact of this rule change during the pendency of the reevaluation process. This reevaluation
The Administrative Procedure Act generally requires agencies to provide the public with notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity to comment prior to publication of a substantive rule. However, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) authorizes agencies to publish a final rule without first seeking public comment on a proposed rule “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” DOT finds that providing advance notice and an opportunity to comment on these regulatory changes pertaining to the DBE and ACDBE programs would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. Consistent with the letter authored by the Solicitor General and discussed elsewhere in the preamble,
The IFR is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed it under that Executive Order.
The IFR amends reporting and eligibility requirements for the Department's Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (ACDBE) program and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program. These programs are implemented and overseen by recipients of certain Department funds. The changes to the requirements would affect businesses participating in the programs, recipients of Department funds who oversee the programs, and the Department.
The IFR replaces the race- and sex-based presumptions previously embedded in these programs with a requirement for individualized demonstrations of social and economic disadvantage. The IFR also modifies terminology and data reporting requirements to align with constitutional principles while maintaining the programs' statutory objectives.
The IFR is being issued pursuant to legal determinations by DOT and DOJ that the race- and sex-based presumptions previously embedded in these programs are unconstitutional. In addition to legal compliance, this action corrects a regulatory failure—namely, reliance on presumptions that no longer withstand judicial scrutiny—by shifting to individualized determinations. The IFR aligns the programs with constitutional mandates.
While DOT is unable to quantify all the economic costs and benefits of the IFR, the Department has identified both qualitative and quantitative impacts. Several provisions may lead to increased or decreased burdens for applicants, certifying agencies, and recipients related to transitional documentation requirements, the degree of technical rigor in disparity studies, and changes in program reporting. The magnitude of these costs and benefits would depend on the scope of the change; the likelihood of behavior adjustment; and potential legal, administrative, or programmatic effects.
Key provisions of the IFR and their related cost impacts include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
In addition to the above qualitative costs, the Department has quantified a portion of the expected compliance burdens as part of its Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) package of the rule. These burdens represent the time and resources required to prepare, submit, and review program-related information.
These figures reflect fully loaded labor costs consistent with the Bureau of Labor Statistics data and DOT's standard methodology. One-time burdens primarily reflect transaction costs related to individualized certification requirements, while recurring burdens are associated with ongoing reporting and program administration. Overall, the IFR's primary quantified costs are transitional and one-time, totaling approximately $95 million, with recurring annualized burdens of about $1.8 million.
With respect to benefits, the IFR will enhance constitutional compliance and reduce risks associated with constitutional litigation. It may also improve public trust by reinforcing fairness in eligibility determinations, which, although not easily quantifiable, represent important benefits from improved program integrity.
This interim final rule is considered an E.O. 14219 deregulatory action because the unquantified cost-savings associated with constitutional compliance outweigh the quantified costs.
This IFR has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”), and the rule satisfies the requirements of the Executive Order. While the rule may include provisions that impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments, the Department has determined that consultation with State and local governments prior to promulgation of the rule is not practicable given the urgent need to cure constitutional infirmities with the existing DBE and ACDBE regulations. These changes are required not by statute, but to ensure that the DBE and ACDBE programs do not violate the U.S. Constitution. We seek comment from State and local governments on these burdens during the comment period for this IFR.
This rulemaking has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this rulemaking does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian Tribal
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted annually for inflation with the base year of 1995). This rulemaking would not result in annual State expenditures exceeding the minimum threshold. The Department has determined that the requirements of the Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 therefore do not apply to this rulemaking.
The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 49 U.S.C. 3501, 3507) requires Federal agencies to obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before undertaking a new collection of information imposed on ten or more persons, or continuing a collection previously approved by OMB that is set to expire.
This IFR modifies existing collection instruments in both parts 23 and 26. The following is a description of the sections that contain new and modified information collection requirements, along with the estimated hours and cost to fulfill them.
For purposes of estimating the cost burden on recipients, the State government wage rate was taken from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) estimate of median wages for employees in the category of “Eligibility Interviewer in Government Programs” (OEWS Designation 43-4061). For the purpose of calculating loaded wage rates, these burden estimates assume wages represent 61.9 percent of total compensation, which is consistent with similar loaded wage rate estimates identified by BLS and used by DOT for related purposes. Because wages represent 61.9 percent of total compensation, the appropriate cost multiplier is 1.62 (1/0.619). Accordingly, the wage rate ($25.95) is multiplied by 1.62 to get a fully loaded hourly wage rate of $42.04 to account for the cost of employer-provided benefits.
For purposes of estimating the cost burden on applicant and certified DBE/ACDBE firms, the wage rate was taken from the BLS estimate of median wages for individuals in the category of “Cross-industry, Private Ownership Only” (OEWS Designation 00-0001). Using the same loaded wage rate identified above, the wage rate for DBE/ACDBE applicant firms ($69.20) is multiplied by 1.62 to get a fully loaded hourly wage rate of $112.10 to account for the cost of employer-provided benefits. The Department emphasizes that many of these hour and cost burdens are one-time burdens as a result of the change in the DBE certification eligibility requirements. After the initial transition to the new requirements, increases in annual burdens will be modest. For DOT recipients, reporting burdens are expected to decrease as a result of reduced DBE/ACDBE reporting requirements.
To satisfy the social and economic disadvantage (SED) requirement and ensure all determinations of disadvantage are not based in whole or in part on race or sex, an owner must provide the certifier a Personal Narrative (PN) that establishes the existence of disadvantage by a preponderance of the evidence based on individualized proof regarding specific instances of economic hardship, systemic barriers, and denied opportunities that impeded the owner's progress or success in education, employment, or business, including obtaining financing on terms available to similarly situated persons who did not face barriers in obtaining terms.
The PN must state how and to what extent the impediments caused the owner economic harm, including a full description of type and magnitude, and must establish the owner is economically disadvantaged in fact relative to similarly situated non-disadvantaged individuals.
The owner must attach to the PN a current personal net worth (PNW) statement and any other financial information the owner considers relevant. The total annual burden hours below were calculated based on the average of three stakeholder responses ranging from 240-2,000 hours. The total annual cost burden was calculated based on one stakeholder response of $80,000.
In preparing this estimate, DOT estimated a 10 percent decrease in the number of currently certified firms who will submit documentation to maintain their DBE/ACDBE decertification status. DOT also assumed a 50 percent reduction in the total burden hours compared to the pre-existing estimated burden for completing the full Uniform Certification Application (UCA), as firms will be able to use many of their other existing certification documents for resubmission.
UCPs will need to reevaluate DBE/ACDBE applicant firms based on updated submission of application materials, including the PN and PNW statement. This estimate assumes an average burden of two hours to complete a review and make a disposition for each DBE/ACDBE certification application, including notifications to other jurisdictions.
We estimate that recipients will experience a reduced burden to implement 49 CFR 26.11 as a result of eliminating the race- and sex-based reporting requirements for bidders' lists, in addition to eliminating the requirement to report data related to applications for and determinations of individualized social and economic disadvantage.
We estimate that FAA airport recipients will experience a reduced burden to implement 49 CFR 26.11 as a result of eliminating the race- and sex-based reporting requirements for bidders' lists, in addition to eliminating the requirement to report data related to applications for and determinations of individualized social and economic disadvantage.
The Department estimates a modest increase in burden for setting overall DBE goals as a result of the transition to the new DBE certification requirements and enhanced expectations related to disparity studies used in setting overall goals. These changes may result in increases in the amount of time for recipients to set goals based on the relative availability of certified DBEs.
The Department estimates a one-time increase in the burden for firms to provide evidence of certification to an additional State when a firm certified in its home State applies to another State for certification.
As noted in the Costs and Benefits section of this analysis, these burden hour and cost estimates have been incorporated into the Department's overall assessment of regulatory costs.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to a collection of information unless that collection displays a valid OMB control number.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Administrative practice and procedure, Airports, Civil rights, Government contracts, Grant programs—transportation, Mass transportation, Minority businesses, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Transportation amends 49 CFR parts 23 and 26 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 47107 and 47113; 42 U.S.C. 2000d; 49 U.S.C. 322; E.O. 12138, 44 FR 29637, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 393.
(c) To ensure that the Department's ACDBE program operates in a nondiscriminatory manner and without regard to race or sex, while maximizing efficiency of service;
The additions and revisions read as follows:
The revisions read as follows:
(d) Your ACDBE program must include ACDBE-neutral measures that you will take. You must maximize the use of ACDBE-neutral measures, obtaining as much as possible of the ACDBE participation needed to meet overall goals through such measures. These are responsibilities that you directly undertake as a recipient, in addition to the efforts that concessionaires make, to obtain ACDBE participation. The following are examples of ACDBE-neutral measures you can implement:
(e) Your ACDBE program must also provide for the use of ACDBE-conscious measures when ACDBE-neutral measures, standing alone, are not projected to be sufficient to meet an overall goal. The following are examples of ACDBE-conscious measures you can implement:
(h) Effective October 3, 2025, you may not use any of the measures described in paragraph (e) of this section until the UCP that covers you has completed the reevaluation process described in § 23.81.
(b) This element must be submitted to the FAA for approval as a part of your ACDBE program. As part of this program element, you may include, but are not limited to including, the following strategies:
(1) Establish an ACDBE-neutral small business set-aside for certain concession opportunities. Such a strategy would include the rationale for selecting small business set-aside concession opportunities that may include consideration of size and availability of small businesses to operate the concession.
(d) * * *
(5) You will take aggressive steps to encourage those socially and economically disadvantaged firms eligible for ACDBE certification to become certified; and
(e) A State, local, or other program, in which eligibility requires satisfaction of race, sex, or other criteria in addition to business size, may not be used to comply with the requirements of this part.
(d) Effective October 3, 2025, you are not required to update your overall goals until the UCP that covers you has completed the reevaluation process described in § 23.81.
(b) Stakeholders with whom you must consult include, but are not limited to, business groups, community organizations, trade associations representing concessionaires currently located at the airport, as well as existing concessionaires themselves, and other officials or organizations that could be expected to have information concerning the availability of disadvantaged businesses and the recipient's efforts to increase participation of ACDBEs.
(f) Your submission must include your projection of the portions of your overall goals you propose to meet through use of ACDBE-neutral and ACDBE-conscious means, respectively, and the basis for making this projection (see § 23.51(d)(5)).
(g) FAA may approve or disapprove the way you calculated your goal, including your ACDBE-neutral/ACDBE-conscious “split,” as part of its review of your plan or goal submission. Except as provided in paragraph (h) of this section, the FAA does not approve or disapprove the goal itself (
(h) If the FAA determines that your goals have not been correctly calculated or the justification is inadequate, the FAA may, after consulting with you, adjust your overall goal or ACDBE-neutral/ACDBE-conscious “split.” The adjusted goal represents the FAA's determination of an appropriate overall goal for ACDBE participation in the recipient's concession program, based on relevant data and analysis. The adjusted goal is binding.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) Your objective in setting a goal is to estimate the percentage of the base calculated under §§ 23.47 through 23.49 that would be performed by ACDBEs in the absence of social and economic disadvantage and its effects.
(2) In conducting this goal setting process, you are determining the extent, if any, to which the firms in your market area have been impacted by social and economic disadvantage in connection with concession opportunities or related business opportunities.
(c) * * *
(3) Use data from a disparity study. Use a percentage figure derived from data in a valid, applicable disparity study. Any disparity study utilized must
(d) * * *
(5) Among the information you submit with your overall goal (see § 23.45(e)), you must include description of the methodology you used to establish the goal, including your base figure and the evidence with which it was calculated, as well as the adjustments you made to the base figure and the evidence relied on for the adjustments. You should also include a summary listing of the relevant available evidence in your jurisdiction and an explanation of how you used that evidence to adjust your base figure. You must also include your projection of the portions of the overall goal you expect to meet through ACDBE-neutral and ACDBE-conscious measures, respectively (see §§ 26.51(c) of this chapter).
(g) Effective October 3, 2025, you as a car rental company may not count any ACDBE participation toward the goal that an airport has set for you until the UCP covering that airport has completed the reevaluation process described in part 26, § 23.81
(m) Effective October 3, 2025, you may not count any ACDBE participation toward ACDBE goals until the UCP covering you has completed the reevaluation process described in § 23.81.
The revision and addition read as follows:
(b) * * *
(4) The FAA may impose conditions on the recipient as part of its approval of the recipient's analysis and corrective actions including, but not limited to, modifications to your overall goal methodology, changes in your ACDBE-neutral/ACDBE-conscious split, or the introduction of additional ACDBE-neutral or ACDBE-conscious measures.
(c) If information coming to the attention of FAA demonstrates that current trends make it unlikely that you, as an airport, will achieve ACDBE awards and commitments that would be necessary to allow you to meet your overall goal at the end of the fiscal year, FAA may require you to make further good faith efforts, such as modifying your ACDBE-conscious/ACDBE-neutral split or introducing additional ACDBE-neutral or ACDBE-conscious measures for the remainder of the fiscal year.
(d) Effective October 3, 2025, you are not subject to this section until the UCP that covers you has completed the reevaluation process described in § 23.81.
(a) Effective October 3, 2025, each UCP must:
(1) Identify each currently certified ACDBE;
(2) Provide each firm identified pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section with the opportunity to submit documentation demonstrating its ACDBE eligibility under the standards set forth in this part;
(3) Determine whether each firm identified pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section meets the ACDBE eligibility standards set forth in this part; and
(4) Issue a written decision to each firm reevaluated pursuant to subparagraph (a)(3), indicating that it has either been recertified or is decertified.
(b) The provisions of § 26.87 of this chapter shall not apply to any action taken pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Each UCP must reevaluate each firm identified pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section as quickly as practicable and must promptly notify the Department when it has done so. The Department reserves the right to review a UCP's reevaluation process.
23 U.S.C. 304 and 324; 42 U.S.C. 2000d,
(c) To ensure that the Department's DBE program operates in a nondiscriminatory manner and without regard to race or sex, while maximizing efficiency of service;
The addition and revision read as follows:
(b) A recipient's DBE program must also include a monitoring and enforcement mechanism to ensure that work committed, or in the case of DBE-neutral participation, the work subcontracted, to all DBEs at contract award or subsequently is performed by the DBEs to which the work was committed or subcontracted to, and such work is counted according to the requirements of § 26.55. This mechanism must include a written verification that you have reviewed contracting records and monitored the work site to ensure the counting of each DBE's participation is consistent with its function on the contract. The monitoring to which this paragraph (b) refers may be conducted in conjunction with monitoring of contract performance for other purposes such as a commercially useful function review.
(b) * * *
(1) Establishing a DBE-neutral small business set-aside for prime contracts under a stated amount (
(5) To meet the portion of your overall goal you project to meet through DBE-neutral measures, ensuring that a reasonable number of prime contracts are of a size that small businesses, including DBEs, can reasonably perform.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) If you are an FTA Tier II recipient who intends to operate a DBE-neutral program, or if you are an FAA recipient who reasonably anticipates awarding $250,000 or less in FAA prime contract funds in a Federal fiscal year, you are not required to develop overall goals for FTA or FAA, respectively, for that Federal fiscal year.
(b) Your overall goal must be based on demonstrable evidence of the availability of ready, willing, and able DBEs relative to all businesses ready, willing, and able to participate on your DOT-assisted contracts (hereafter, the “relative availability of DBEs”). The goal must reflect your determination of the level of DBE participation you would expect absent the effects of social and economic disadvantage. You cannot simply rely on either the 10 percent national goal, your previous overall goal, or past DBE participation rates in your program without reference to the relative availability of DBEs in your market.
(c) * * *
(3) Use data from a disparity study. Use a percentage figure derived from data in a valid, applicable disparity study. Any disparity study utilized must provide a detailed capacity analysis, including the methodology used.
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Evidence from disparity studies conducted anywhere within your jurisdiction, to the extent it is not already accounted for in your base figure. To the extent that the disparity study provides a detailed capacity analysis, include the methodology used;
(3) If you attempt to make an adjustment to your base figure to account for the effects of an ongoing DBE program, the adjustment must be based on demonstrable evidence that is logically and directly related to the effect for which the adjustment is sought.
(f) * * *
(3) You must include with your overall goal submission a description of the methodology you used to establish the goal, including your base figure and the evidence with which it was calculated, and the adjustments you made to the base figure and the evidence you relied on for the adjustments. You should also include a summary listing of the relevant available evidence in your jurisdiction and, where applicable, an explanation of why you did not use that evidence to adjust your base figure. You must also include your projection of the portions of the overall goal you expect to meet through DBE-neutral and DBE-conscious measures, respectively (
(g)(1) In establishing an overall goal, you must provide for consultation and publication. This includes:
(i) Consultation with general contractor groups, community organizations, and other officials or organizations that could be expected to have information concerning the availability of disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged businesses and your efforts to establish a level playing field for the participation of DBEs. The consultation must include a scheduled, direct, interactive exchange (
(ii) A published notice announcing your proposed overall goal before submission to the operating administration on August 1st. The notice must be posted on your official internet website and may be posted in any other sources (
(h) Effective October 3, 2025you are not required to update your overall goals until the UCP that covers you has completed the reevaluation process described in § 26.111.
(c) * * *
(4) FHWA, FTA, or FAA may impose conditions on the recipient as part of its approval of the recipient's analysis and corrective actions including, but not limited to, modifications to your overall goal methodology, changes in your DBE-conscious/DBE-neutral split, or the introduction of additional DBE-neutral or DBE-conscious measures.
(d) If, as recipient, your Uniform Report of DBE Awards or Commitments and Payments or other information coming to the attention of FTA, FHWA, or FAA, demonstrates that current
(e) Effective October 3, 2025, you are not subject to this section until the UCP that covers you has completed the reevaluation process described in § 26.111.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) You must meet the maximum feasible portion of your overall goal by using DBE-neutral means of facilitating DBE-neutral participation. DBE-neutral participation includes any time a DBE wins a prime contract through customary competitive procurement procedures or is awarded a subcontract on a prime contract that does not carry a DBE contract goal.
(b) DBE-neutral means include, but are not limited to, the following:
(c) Each time you submit your overall goal for review by the concerned operating administration, you must also submit your projection of the portion of the goal that you expect to meet through DBE-neutral means and your basis for that projection. This projection is subject to approval by the concerned operating administration, in conjunction with its review of your overall goal.
(d) You must establish contract goals to meet any portion of your overall goal you do not project being able to meet using DBE-neutral means.
(e) * * *
(2) You are not required to set a contract goal on every DOT-assisted contract. You are not required to set each contract goal at the same percentage level as the overall goal. The goal for a specific contract may be higher or lower than that percentage level of the overall goal, depending on such factors as the type of work involved, the location of the work, and the availability of DBEs for the work of the particular contract. However, over the period covered by your overall goal, you must set contract goals so that they will cumulatively result in meeting any portion of your overall goal you do not project being able to meet through the use of DBE-neutral means.
(f) To ensure that your DBE program continues to be narrowly tailored to overcome the effects of social and economic disadvantage, you must adjust your use of contract goals as follows:
(1) If your approved projection under paragraph (c) of this section estimates that you can meet your entire overall goal for a given year through DBE-neutral means, you must implement your program without setting contract goals during that year, unless it becomes necessary in order meet your overall goal.
(2) If, during any year in which you are using contract goals, you determine that you will exceed your overall goal, you must reduce or eliminate the use of contract goals to the extent necessary to ensure that the use of contract goals does not result in exceeding the overall goal. If you determine that you will fall short of your overall goal, then you must make appropriate modifications in your use of DBE-neutral or DBE-conscious measures to allow you to meet the overall goal.
(3) If the DBE participation you have obtained by DBE-neutral means alone meets or exceeds your overall goals for two consecutive years, you are not required to make a projection of the amount of your goal you can meet using such means in the next year. You do not set contract goals on any contracts in the next year. You continue using only DBE-neutral means to meet your overall goals unless and until you do not meet your overall goal for a year.
(4) If you obtain DBE participation that exceeds your overall goal in two consecutive years using contract goals (
(g) In any year in which you project meeting part of your goal through DBE-neutral means and the remainder through contract goals, you must maintain data separately on DBE achievements in those contracts with and without contract goals, respectively. You must report this data to the concerned operating administration as provided in § 26.11.
(h) Effective October 3, 2025, you may not set any contract goals until the UCP that covers you has completed the reevaluation process described in § 26.111.
(i) Effective October 3, 2025, you may not count any DBE participation toward DBE goals until the UCP that covers you has completed the reevaluation process described in § 26.111.
(b) The firm has the burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence,
(a) Non-presumptive Disadvantage. All applicants must demonstrate social and economic disadvantage (SED) affirmatively based on their own experiences and circumstances within American society, and without regard to race or sex.
(1) To satisfy the SED requirement and ensure all determinations of disadvantage are not based in whole or in part on race or sex, an owner must provide the certifier a Personal Narrative (PN) that establishes the existence of disadvantage by a preponderance of the evidence based on individualized proof regarding specific instances of economic hardship, systemic barriers, and denied opportunities that impeded the owner's progress or success in education, employment, or business, including obtaining financing on terms available to similarly situated, non-disadvantaged persons.
(2) The PN must state how and to what extent the impediments caused the owner economic harm, including a full description of type and magnitude, and must establish the owner is economically disadvantaged in fact relative to similarly situated non-disadvantaged individuals.
(3) The owner must attach to the PN a current PNW statement and any other financial information he considers relevant.
(a) Effective October 3, 2025, each UCP must:
(1) Identify each currently certified DBE;
(2) Provide each firm identified pursuant to subparagraph (a)(1) with the opportunity to submit documentation demonstrating its DBE eligibility under the standards set forth in this part;
(3) Determine whether each firm identified pursuant to subparagraph (a)(1) meets the DBE eligibility standards set forth in this part; and
(4) Issue a written decision to each firm reevaluated pursuant to subparagraph (a)(3), indicating that it has either been recertified or is decertified.
(b) The provisions of § 26.87 of this part shall not apply to any action taken pursuant to paragraph (a).
(c) Each UCP must reevaluate each firm identified pursuant to subparagraph (a)(1) as quickly as practicable and must promptly notify the Department when it has done so. The Department reserves the right to review a UCP's reevaluation process.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues regulations to implement management measures described in Amendment 2 to the Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) for Puerto Rico, St. Croix, St. Thomas and St. John FMP (Amendment 2), as prepared by the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council). This final rule prohibits and restricts the use of certain net gear in U.S. Caribbean Federal waters and requires a descending device to be available and ready for use on vessels when fishing for federally managed reef fish species in U.S. Caribbean Federal waters. The purpose of this final rule and Amendment 2 is to protect habitats and species from the potential negative impacts associated with the use of certain net gear and to enhance the survival of released reef fish in U.S. Caribbean Federal waters.
This final rule is effective November 3, 2025, except for the revisions for §§ 622.437(a)(4), 622.477(a)(4), and 622.512(a)(4), which are effective April 1, 2026.
Electronic copies of Amendment 2, which includes a fishery impact statement, an environmental assessment, a regulatory impact review, and a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office website at
Maria Lopez-Mercer, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 727-824-5305,
NMFS, with the advice of the Council, manages the Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John fisheries in U.S. Caribbean Federal waters under the Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John FMPs. The Council prepared the FMPs, which the Secretary of Commerce approved, and NMFS implements the FMPs through regulations at 50 CFR parts 600 and 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
On August 27, 2024, NMFS published a notice of availability for Amendment 2 and requested public comment (89 FR 68572). On September 30, 2024, NMFS published a proposed rule for Amendment 2 and requested public comment (89 FR 79492). NMFS
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and the regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from federally managed fish stocks to ensure that fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems. The Magnuson-Stevens Act authorizes the Council and NMFS to regulate fishing activity to support the conservation and management of federally managed fisheries, which may include regulations that pertain to fishing for non-managed species (
This action is taken under the statutory authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act section 303(a)(1) as necessary and appropriate for the conservation and management of the fishery to prevent overfishing and to promote the long-term health and stability of the fishery.
On September 22, 2020, the Secretary of Commerce approved the Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John FMPs under section 304(a)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The FMPs took effect on October 13, 2022, after NMFS published the final rule to implement the FMPs (87 FR 56204, September 13, 2022). Each FMP contains management measures applicable for Federal waters in the respective island management area, including allowable fishing gear and harvest methods for species managed under each FMP. Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 622, subparts S, T, and U describe management measures for Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John, respectively. Federal waters around Puerto Rico extend seaward from 9 nautical miles (nmi) or 16.7 kilometers (km) from shore to the offshore boundary of the U.S. Caribbean exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Federal waters around St. Croix and St. Thomas and St. John extend seaward from 3 nmi (5.6 km) from shore to the offshore boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ.
In addition to regulations specific to each FMP, Federal regulations at 50 CFR 600.725(v) identify the fishing gear authorized for federally managed and non-federally managed fisheries of each fishery management council (see part V for the Caribbean Fishery Management Council). Employing fishing gear or engaging in fishing in a fishery that is not included on the list of authorized fisheries and authorized gear types is prohibited. However, an individual fisherman may notify the relevant Fishery Management Council of the intent to use a fishing gear or participate in a fishery that is not on the authorized list (50 CFR 600.725(v)). Ninety days after such notification to the Council, the individual may use such fishing gear or participate in the fishery unless regulatory action is taken to prohibit the use of the gear or participation in the fishery.
In Federal waters around Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John, gillnets are listed as an authorized gear type for the commercial federally managed and non-federally managed pelagic fisheries, as well as all other commercial non-federally managed fisheries located in U.S. Caribbean Federal waters. Trawl nets are listed as an authorized gear type for the commercial non-federally managed fisheries, other than the non-managed pelagic fisheries. Purse seines and trammel nets are not listed as authorized fishing gear for any fishery (managed or non-managed) in U.S. Caribbean Federal waters.
At its December 2021 meeting, the Council discussed prohibiting the use of trawl gear, trammel nets, purse seines, and gillnets for all fishing in U.S. Caribbean Federal waters as a precautionary approach to prevent potential negative impacts from the use of these fishing gear types on sensitive habitats present in U.S. Caribbean Federal waters and to eliminate the potential for bycatch associated with each of these types of fishing gear. During the development of Amendment 2, when considering the use of gillnet gear, the Council recommended restricting the use of gillnets such that it would only be allowed for fishing in non-managed fisheries to accommodate fishermen who use gillnet gear at the surface to catch baitfish.
Currently, gear-specific regulations in U.S. Caribbean Federal waters prohibit the use of gillnets and trammel nets in the federally managed reef fish and spiny lobster fisheries. These regulations require that any gillnet or trammel net used to fish for any other species must be tended at all times (50 CFR 622.437(a)(3) and (c)(2); 50 CFR 622.477(a)(3) and (c)(2); 50 CFR 622.512(a)(3) and (c)(2)). Gillnets and trammel nets are also prohibited for use year-round in the seven federally-managed seasonally closed areas: Puerto Rico—(1) Abrir La Sierra Bank (50 CFR 622.439(a)(1)(ii)), (2) Tourmaline Bank (50 CFR 622.439(a)(2)(ii)), (3) Bajo de Sico (50 CFR 622.439(a)(3)(ii)); U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI)—(4) Mutton Snapper Spawning Aggregation Area (50 CFR 622.479(a)(1)(ii)), (5) Red Hind Spawning Aggregation Area east of St. Croix (50 CFR 622.479(a)(2)(ii)), (6) Grammanik Bank (50 CFR 622.514(a)(1)(ii)), and (7) Hind Bank Marine Conservation District (50 CFR 622.514(a)(2)). Though trawl gear, trammel nets, purse seines, and gillnets are used infrequently, if at all, by commercial or recreational fishermen in Federal waters around Puerto Rico, St. Croix, or St. Thomas and St. John, the Council recommended being proactive in protecting marine resources and recommended regulatory action to prohibit or restrict the use of these fishing gear types in U.S. Caribbean Federal waters.
Currently, trawl gear, which includes bottom and mid-water trawls, is listed as an authorized fishing gear type for commercial non-federally managed fisheries, other than the non-managed pelagic fisheries under each FMP (part V of the table to 50 CFR 600.725(v)). As described in Amendment 2, there is no evidence that commercial fishermen use or have ever used trawl gear in Federal waters around any of the island management areas, except for limited exploratory research (
As discussed, the use of trammel net gear is currently prohibited in the federally managed reef fish and spiny lobster fisheries in Federal waters around Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John. Trammel nets are not listed in part V of the table to 50 CFR 600.725(v) as an authorized fishing gear type in any managed or non-managed fisheries in Federal waters around Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John. As described in Amendment 2, some trammel net landings of non-managed species such as baitfish, have been reported from fisheries located in Federal waters around Puerto Rico. There is no evidence of the use of trammel nets in fisheries located in Federal waters around the USVI.
Similar to trammel net gear, purse seine is not identified in part V of the table to 50 CFR 600.725(v) as an authorized fishing gear type for any fishery in any of the island management areas. As discussed in Amendment 2, purse seines are not used in any fishery
As discussed in Amendment 2, the use of gillnets is prohibited in the federally managed reef fish and spiny lobster fisheries, and they are rarely used by commercial fishermen in non-managed fisheries in Federal waters around Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John due to depth and distance from the coast. However, gillnets are allowed and used in Puerto Rico territorial waters to fish for certain non-managed species, including baitfish. Gillnets are prohibited in USVI territorial waters, except for gillnets used at the surface for the harvest of certain species of baitfish.
In addition to impacts associated with the use of certain types of fishing gear discussed above, NMFS and the Council are concerned about the mortality of reef fish that are released after capture by commercial and recreational fishermen, particularly reef fish caught in Federal waters around Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John that experience injuries related to barotrauma. Barotrauma in fish is the rapid expansion of gases inside a fish as it is rapidly retrieved from depth. Barotrauma generally occurs when retrieving fish from depths of 90 feet (27.4 meters) or greater, though it can occur in waters as shallow as approximately 33 feet (10 meters) deep. Fishermen can help increase the survivability of released fish showing signs of barotrauma by using a descending device. A descending device lowers a fish back to a depth where internal gases recompress and the fish can be released unharmed. Descending devices are not currently required to be on any fishing vessels in U.S. Caribbean Federal waters.
This final rule (1) prohibits the use of trawls, trammel nets, and purse seines in all fisheries located in Federal waters around Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John, (2) prohibits the use of gillnets in federally-managed fisheries in Federal waters around Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John and restricts the use of gillnets in non-managed fisheries to a gillnet that meets specified requirements, and (3) requires a descending device to be available and ready for use on each fishing vessel when fishing in federally-managed reef fish fisheries located in Federal waters around Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John.
This final rule takes a precautionary approach to management, as recommended by the Council in Amendment 2 by preventing the future use of trawl, trammel net, and purse seine gear by any sector (
Because this final rule prohibits the use of trawl, trammel net, and purse seine gear for all fishing in Federal waters around Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John, fishermen will not be able to petition the Council to use trawl, trammel net, and purse seine gear in Federal waters.
This final rule prohibits the use of gillnets in all federally managed fisheries located in Federal waters around Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John. The final rule also restricts the use of gillnets in Federal waters around Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John to commercial non-managed fisheries only. In those commercial non-managed fisheries, gillnets may be used only so long as they meet the following specifications and requirements: (1) the gillnet mesh size must be exactly 0.75 inches (1.9 centimeters) square or 1.5 inches (3.8 centimeters) stretched; (2) one gillnet up to 600 feet (182.9 meters) in length is allowed on board a vessel; (3) the gillnet must be used 20 feet (6.1 meters) or more above the bottom; and (4) the gillnet must be tended at all times.
Due to the water depth and distance from the coast, the use of gillnets in the commercial non-managed fisheries located in Federal waters around Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John is minimal. This final rule establishes specific requirements for gillnets used in these fisheries to prevent or minimize potential negative ecological and biological effects (
This final rule requires that a descending device be on board a commercial or recreational vessel and be readily available for use while fishing for or possessing species of reef fish managed under the FMPs. The list of reef fish managed by the Council that will be affected by this final rule is included in each FMP and can be found in table 3 to 50 CFR 622.431 (Puerto Rico), table 2 to 50 CFR 622.471 (St. Croix), and table 2 to 50 CFR 622.506 (St. Thomas and St. John).
For this requirement, a descending device means an instrument that is attached to a minimum of 16-ounces (454-grams) of weight and length of line that will release the fish at the depth from which it was caught, or a minimum of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The descending device attaches to the fish's mouth or is a container that will hold the fish. The device must be capable of releasing the fish automatically, by the actions of the operator of the device, or by allowing the fish to escape on its own. Since minimizing surface time is critical to increasing survival, a descending device must be readily available for use while engaged in fishing for federally managed reef fish.
This final rule is effective 30 days after date of publication in the
In addition to the net gear and descending device measures contained in Amendment 2, this final rule corrects an error from two previous NMFS rulemakings. On June 15, 2020, NMFS published in the
NMFS received five comment submissions during the public comment periods on the notice of availability and the proposed rule for Amendment 2. Comment submissions were from individuals in the general public and a non-profit organization. The majority of the comments were in support of some or all of the actions within Amendment 2 and the proposed rule, and NMFS agrees with those comments. Comments opposing one or more of the proposed actions, and those that requested additional information about the actions contained in the notice of availability and the proposed rule, are summarized by topic area in the following paragraphs, along with NMFS' responses.
Comments received that were outside of the scope of Amendment 2 and the proposed rule included a recommendation for NMFS to prohibit other net gear types used in USVI territorial waters; questions on the applicability of the descending device requirement for small commercial boats in Florida; and a recommendation for NMFS to support a requirement that fishers in Federal waters around Puerto Rico, St. Croix, St. Thomas and St. John mark their gear to assist with tracing the origin of marine fauna entanglements.
Decisions regarding whether to adopt territorial regulations that are compatible or consistent with Federal regulations are solely within the purview of the environmental agency in the government of Puerto Rico and not the Council or NMFS.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with Amendment 2, the FMPs for Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes; therefore, consultation with Tribal officials under E.O. 13175 is not required, and the requirements of sections (5)(b) and (5)(c) of E.O. 13175 do not apply. A Tribal summary impact statement under section (5)(b)(2)(B) and section (5)(c)(2)(B) of E.O. 13175 is not required and has not been prepared.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this final rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting or recordkeeping compliance requirements are introduced in this final rule. This final rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments from the public were received regarding this certification. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
Caribbean, Commercial, Fisheries, Fishing, Recreational.
Caribbean, Commercial, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing gear, Recreational.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR parts 600 and 622 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801
(v) * * *
16 U.S.C. 1801
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The descending device must use a minimum of a 16-ounce (454-gram) weight and a minimum of a 60-ft (18.3-m) length of line.
(a) * * *
(4)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Trawl, trammel net, and purse seine gear are prohibited for use to fish in the EEZ around Puerto Rico. See § 622.9 for additional prohibited gear and methods that apply more broadly to multiple fisheries or in some cases all fisheries.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(c) * * *
(2)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(a) * * *
(4)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Trawl, trammel net, and purse seine gear are prohibited for use to fish in the EEZ around St. Croix. Also see § 622.9 for additional prohibited gear and methods that apply more broadly to multiple fisheries or in some cases all fisheries.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(c) * * *
(2)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(a) * * *
(4)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Trawl, trammel net, and purse seine gear are prohibited for use to fish in the EEZ around St. Thomas and St. John. Also see § 622.9 for additional prohibited gear and methods that apply more broadly to multiple fisheries or in some cases all fisheries.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(c) * * *
(2)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(a) * * *
(4)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; emergency action.
This rule extends the emergency measures to revise portions of the fishing year 2025 provisions in the Northeast multispecies fishery. This action is necessary to address an emergency presented by an absence of approved specifications and other measures for fishing year 2025. This action is intended to mitigate economic harm to the Northeast multispecies fishery participants by establishing fish stock quotas and related measures that allow the fishery to operate while preventing overfishing.
Effective as of October 3, 2025, §§ 648.14 and 648.89 as amended at 90 FR 18804 is extended through April 30, 2026.
NMFS developed a Supplemental Impact Report (SIR) for the Environmental Assessments (EA) for Framework Adjustments 65 and 66 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP that describes the impact that the measures in this temporary rule would have on the human environment. Copies of the SIR and the Regulatory Impact Review of this rulemaking are available on the internet at:
Heather Nelson, Fishery Management Specialist, phone: 978-281-9334; email:
On May 2, 2025, NMFS published an emergency rule to implement fishing year 2025 management measures for the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (90 FR 18804). The emergency rule:
• Set interim fishing year 2025 annual catch limits (ACL) for two stocks of cod—Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod and Georges Bank (GB) cod—as well as for GB haddock;
• Set fishing year 2025 total allowable catches (TAC) for Eastern GB cod and Eastern GB haddock that are shared stocks between the United States and Canada;
• Confirmed projected fishing year 2025 specifications for other Northeast multispecies stocks that were previously published in Framework Adjustments 65 and 66;
• Approved Northeast multispecies (groundfish) sector operations plans and allocated annual catch entitlements (ACE) to the sectors, consistent with the catch limits described above;
• Prohibited recreational fishing vessels from possessing GB cod;
• Prohibited commercial fishing vessels fishing under the common pool management program from possessing GB cod;
• Set trimester TACs and possession limits for commercial vessels fishing in the common pool;
• Allocated zero common pool trips into the Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock Special Access Program (SAP) during fishing year 2025; and
• Closed the Regular B Days-at-Sea (DAS) program and prohibit usage of Regular B DAS in fishing year 2025.
At the time the emergency rule was implemented, NMFS was considering two actions (Amendment 25 and Framework Adjustment 69) submitted by the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) that would have made changes to, and set measures for, the Northeast Multispecies FMP. Pending a final decision on these actions, the emergency rule ensured that the fishery could operate at the start of the fishing year on May 1, 2025, mitigating the adverse economic impact to the groundfish fishery if measures were not put in place.
Following the implementation of the emergency rule, Amendment 25 was disapproved on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce. Framework 69 to the FMP, which recommends the annual specifications necessary to authorize the fishery to operate in the 2025 fishing year beginning on May 1, 2025, and projected specifications for fishing years 2026 and 2027, remains under consideration by NMFS. Framework 69 cannot be implemented when the current emergency rule expires on
The emergency rule is in effect for 180 days, from May 1, 2025, through October 28, 2025. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, an emergency rule can be extended for an additional 186 days. An extension of the emergency rule is necessary to address the continuing emergency arising from the lack of approved specifications and other measures for the full fishing year 2025. Absent an extension of the rule, the lack of measures on October 29, 2025, would create serious conservation and management problems for the fishery and severe economic harm to the Northeast multispecies fishery participants. Without this extension, vessels participating in the groundfish fishery would be unable to fish for the remainder of the 2025 fishing year (through April 30, 2025) unless replaced by other measures (
With this emergency rule extension, all emergency measures remain in place. Sector and common pool allocations are updated in this extension to reflect the final rosters that were not available when the emergency rule was originally implemented, and these updates are provided in Tables 1-8. Additionally, errors in table formatting in the original emergency rule are corrected. The extended emergency measures would remain in place through April 30, 2026, unless replaced by other measures.
NMFS received four comment letters on the emergency rule from: One individual; the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF); the Stellwagen Bank Charter Boat Association (SBCBA); and an attorney on behalf of the Northeast Seafood Coalition (NSC) and the Gloucester Fishing Community Preservation Fund (GFCPF). None of the comments NMFS received compels it to let the emergency rule expire and as such, NMFS has published this extension. The basis for the emergency remains: There are no measures in place or that would be in place, but for an emergency rule extension, that would allow for the continued operation of the groundfish fishery.
NMFS' implementation of this emergency rule and its extension is consistent with NMFS' policy. During the development of Amendment 25 and Framework 69, the Council was informed that NMFS' policy states that an emergency rule may not be based on administrative inaction to solve a long-recognized problem. The inability to implement Amendment 25 and Framework 69 was not due to administrative inaction. The Council developed both actions with the expectation they could be reviewed and approved or disapproved in time for the beginning of the fishing year. NMFS also expected the actions would be reviewable in a timely manner and was acting as quickly as practicable. Throughout the development of Amendment 25 and Framework Adjustment 69, NMFS anticipated that both actions could be reviewed simultaneously in a way that allowed for the Secretary of Commerce to make decisions regarding both interrelated actions at the same time. NMFS' inability to complete the process mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens Act for both Amendment 25 and Framework Adjustment 69 in a coordinated and timely way that would allow for a decision and potential implementation prior to May 1, 2025, was unforeseen and contrary to its plan. At the beginning of the fishing year, the Amendment 25 decision was still pending and Framework 69 remained under NMFS consideration on May 1, necessitating the emergency rule to allow the fishery to operate and provide NMFS with an opportunity to complete, not replace, the Council and rulemaking process. The inability to complete this task was not inaction, however, as evidenced by NMFS' publication of the Amendment 25 notice of availability, reception and consideration of comments on Amendment 25, and its disapproval.
The emergency rule was justified to preserve a significant economic opportunity that otherwise might be foregone. In the absence of Framework Adjustment 69's specifications and other measures, vessels enrolled in groundfish sectors, which comprise the vast majority of the commercial groundfish fleet, would not have been authorized to fish when the fishing year began on May 1 without an emergency rule. Measures for the recreational fishery and the commercial common pool in the emergency rule also were necessary to allow those fisheries to operate while preventing overfishing of Atlantic cod. As discussed in detail in the Regulatory Impact Review included in the Supplemental Information Report (see
As stated in the temporary rule, it was necessary to address the emergency presented by a gap of approved specifications and other measures for
On May 19, 2025, NMFS notified the Council that Amendment 25 was disapproved. As a result, the Northeast Multispecies FMP continues to include two cod stocks: GOM cod and GB cod. However, the BSIA for Atlantic cod remains the June 2024 management track assessments for Eastern Gulf of Maine (EGOM) cod, WGOM cod, GB cod, and SNE cod. The SSC reviewed the four assessments at its July 2024 meeting and recommended overfishing limits (OFL) and acceptable biological catches (ABC) for the four stocks for fishing years 2025, 2026, and 2027. Consistent with National Standard 2, that information must be considered when setting quotas.
As stated in the emergency rule, beginning May 1, 2025, there were no existing approved specifications for the existing two stocks of Atlantic cod for fishing year 2025. The Northeast Multispecies FMP includes provisions, at § 648.90(a)(3), for setting default specifications for up to 6 months. Default catch limits are set at the lesser of 75 percent of the previous year's specifications or the Council's recommended specifications for the current year. As described in detail in the emergency rule, NMFS determined the default allocations of 75 percent would exceed the Council's recommended U.S. ABCs for the proposed four stocks of Atlantic cod in Framework Adjustment 69, and the default allocations of 75 percent would also exceed the Council's recommended 2025 U.S. ABCs when translated to the current two stocks. To ensure the emergency rule prevents overfishing while it is in effect, and to be consistent with the Northeast Multispecies FMP's default specification provisions, NMFS set fishing year 2025 specifications for the existing GB cod and GOM cod stocks based on an application of the Council-recommended four Atlantic cod ABCs, which are based on the BSIA and reflect the biological conditions of the four stocks. This rule extends those specifications through the remainder of fishing year 2025.
Because the four-stock structure for Atlantic cod is the BSIA, new assessments of the old stocks of GB cod and GOM cod would be inconsistent with National Standard 2, and there is insufficient available time or resources to conduct any new cod assessment this fishing year. The Northeast Region Coordinating Council (NRCC) is responsible for coordinating fisheries science resources and scheduling stock assessments. Assessment resources are extraordinarily limited. There is no reasonable way to reassess these stocks as urged given the limited time and resources. To the contrary, these limitations have required postponement of many assessments, including Atlantic cod. At its August 2025 meeting, the NRCC decided not to re-assess Atlantic cod stocks until at least 2027. At that time, the assessment scientists would review available data sets and determine which to include, including the possibility of incorporating the RecBio information and the Commission's Hook and Line Survey.
The National Standard 2 guidelines stipulate that the Council cannot exceed the SSC's recommendations. Thus, the 2025 GB haddock U.S. ABC implemented by the emergency rule is based on the BSIA and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined that this extension to the emergency rule is consistent with the criteria and justifications for use of emergency measures in section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is consistent with the Northeast Multispecies FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and other applicable law.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest and would prevent the positive benefits this rule is intended to provide. This emergency action is necessary to relieve restrictions on the fishing industry and mitigate significant economic harm, while also preventing overfishing as required by statute.
Without additional action, the emergency measures implemented on May 1, 2025, to set management measures for the groundfish fishery for fishing year 2025 would end on October 28, 2025. This includes approval of the groundfish sectors' operations plans. Groundfish sectors constitute 96 percent of all commercial groundfish catch. Any delay in this emergency extension would require all sector vessels to stop fishing, unless and until a future rulemaking provided approval to resume operation. Additionally, the original emergency rule provided 30 days for public comment on the emergency measures. Thus, prior notice and opportunity for public comment for this extension rule would not provide any additional benefit than already provided by the comment opportunity provided by the May 2, 2025, publication. Further, prior notice and opportunity of public comment for this extension of that rule would not provide a benefit that would outweigh the need to avoid unnecessary economic harm on groundfish vessels.
For the same reasons stated above (in the discussion of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) and the following additional reasons, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date, and implement this action on October 29, 2025 (the day the original emergency would have ended), pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This rule relieves restrictions that would prevent sector fishery members from fishing. Because vessels have already opted to operate in the sector system, they would be legally barred from operating in the groundfish fishery unless and until their sector's operations plan was approved. Commercial fishing vessel and Federal dealer operations benefit from both continuity and certainty. The sector fishery has operated for fifteen years under the sector system that provides them with well-known regulatory exemptions to restrictions that are provided by this action. Vessels do not need time to prepare for the implementation of this emergency rule, and instead need the immediate implementation of these measures to authorize them to fish consistent with their operations over the last 15 years.
This action is being taken pursuant to the emergency provision of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and is exempt from Office of Management and Budget review. This is not a regulatory action pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 14192. This emergency rule is exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This temporary rule for an emergency action contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
I have determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes; therefore, consultation with tribal officials under E.O. 13175 is not required, and the requirements of sections (5)(b) and (5)(c) of E.O. 13175 also do not apply. A tribal summary impact statement under section (5)(b)(2)(B) and section (5)(c)(2)(B) of E.O. 13175 is not required and has not been prepared.
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing changes to regulations promulgated under the Technology Transitions section of the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020, which authorizes the Administrator to restrict the use of particular hydrofluorocarbons in the sectors and subsectors in which they are used. This proposal addresses administrative petitions and other requests from companies and trade associations across a number of subsectors, including refrigerated transport—intermodal containers, industrial process refrigeration and chillers for industrial process refrigeration used in semiconductor manufacturing, retail food refrigeration systems for remote condensing units and supermarkets, cold storage warehouses, refrigerated laboratory centrifuges, laboratory shakers, and condensing units in residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps. This action proposes to allow previously manufactured and imported residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pump equipment to continue to be installed. The Agency is also seeking advance comment on potential actions to address supply chain issues for a refrigerant blend.
Comments must be received on or before November 17, 2025.
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0005, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Joshua Silver, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Protection (Mail Code 6205A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2473; email address:
Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” “the Agency,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA. Acronyms that are used in this rulemaking that may be helpful include:
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0005, at
If a public hearing is requested on or before October 8, 2025, the EPA will post updates, including a link to register to attend the public hearing, at
You may be potentially affected by this rule if you manufacture, import, or use refrigerated transport intermodal containers, chillers and industrial process refrigeration equipment used in the manufacture of semiconductors, retail food refrigeration equipment for remote condensing units and supermarkets, refrigeration systems in cold storage warehouses, refrigerated centrifuge equipment, refrigerated laboratory shakers, condensing units used for residential and light commercial air-conditioning and heat pumps, or residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pump systems. Potentially affected categories, by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code, are:
This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table includes the types of entities that the EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this proposed action. Other types of entities not listed could also be regulated. To determine whether your entity may be regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in the regulatory text at the end of this document. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
This proposal addresses topics raised in administrative petitions and other requests from companies and trade associations with respect to regulatory provisions promulgated in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) pursuant to the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 (AIM Act) subsection (i) (42 U.S.C. 7675(i)). In particular, the EPA received four administrative petitions
1. Change two aspects of the intermodal refrigerated transport provisions at 40 CFR 84.54(a)(6) and 84.54(c)(7) to: (a) adjust the lower bound temperature exclusion threshold of −50 °C to −35 °C, and (b) change the location where that temperature is measured.
2. Extend the compliance date for certain chillers used for industrial process refrigeration and certain industrial process refrigeration equipment used to manufacture semiconductors from January 1, 2026, and January 1, 2028, as applicable, to January 1, 2030.
3. Not make the requested change to the treatment of certain condensing units used to replace existing condensing units in the residential and light commercial air conditioning (AC) and heat pump (AC/HP) subsector.
To address a request from a trade association in the retail food industry,
1. Adjust the GWP threshold for remote condensing units at 40 CFR
2. Adjust the GWP threshold for supermarket systems at 40 CFR 84.54(c)(12) from 150 or 300, as applicable, to 1,400 starting January 1, 2027, with a later adjustment to a GWP threshold of 150 or 300, depending on charge size or whether it is part of the high temperature side of a cascade system, starting January 1, 2032.
To address a request from a coalition in the cold storage industry,
To address requests with supporting information received from two companies that manufacture equipment used in laboratories,
To address concerns about supply chain issues related to R-454B, the EPA proposes to remove the installation deadline for systems in the residential and light commercial AC/HP subsector, where all specified components of such systems were manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2025. The Agency is also seeking information through an advance notice of proposed rulemaking section for other potential actions to address supply chain issues.
This rule also proposes to correct a typographical error at 40 CFR 84.58(b).
The AIM Act authorizes the EPA to regulate hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in three main areas: phasing down the production and consumption of listed HFCs; management of these HFCs and their substitutes; and facilitating the transition to next-generation technologies by restricting use of these HFCs in the sector or subsectors in which they are used. This rulemaking focuses on the third area: the transition to next-generation technologies. Subsection (i) of the AIM Act, titled “Technology transitions,” provides that “the Administrator may by rule restrict, fully, partially, or on a graduated schedule, the use of a regulated substance in the sector or subsector in which the regulated substance is used.” (42 U.S.C. 7675(i)(1)). For additional discussion of the EPA's authorities under subsection (i) of the AIM Act, please refer to the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule (
In addition, subsection (k)(1)(A) of the AIM Act authorizes the EPA to promulgate such regulations as are necessary to carry out its functions under the Act, including its obligations to ensure that the Act's requirements are satisfied (42 U.S.C. 7675(k)(1)(A)). Subsection (k)(1)(C) further provides that Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 113, 114, 304, and 307 apply to the AIM Act and any regulations promulgated thereunder as though the AIM Act were part of title VI of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7675(k)(1)(C)). Accordingly, this rulemaking is subject to the procedural requirements of CAA section 307(d) (
Further, unless provided otherwise by statute, an agency may revise or rescind prior actions so long as it acknowledges the change in position, provides a reasonable explanation for the new position, and considers legitimate reliance interests in the prior position.
The EPA promulgated the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule on October 24, 2023 (
The EPA received four administrative petitions to reconsider certain aspects of the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule.
The EPA also received four requests to make certain adjustments to the restrictions at 40 CFR part 84, subpart B. On February 11, 2025, a trade association in the retail food industry submitted a request to adjust the compliance dates and GWP limits for certain retail food subsectors.
In response to these requests and additional concerns identified within
This proposed rule addresses restrictions in numerous distinct subsectors regulated under subsection (i) of the AIM Act. The EPA is independently considering each of those portions of this proposed rule. If the proposed changes are finalized, the EPA proposes that any changes to restrictions in distinct subsectors are severable. If a court were to review the EPA's final action and invalidate any particular change to a restriction, the EPA proposes that the remaining changes remain effective.
Refrigerated transport—intermodal containers are refrigerated containers with an integrated power source that allow uninterrupted storage during transport on different mobile platforms, including railways, road trucks, and vessels (
In proposing the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule, the EPA originally proposed a GWP limit of 700 for all intermodal refrigerated transport equipment (
Trane Technologies (Trane), a manufacturer of intermodal containers that maintain a range of temperatures, petitioned the EPA to adjust the temperature threshold and temperature location for transport refrigeration—intermodal containers. Trane did not comment on this issue when the proposed 2023 Technology Transitions Rule was open for public comment. In its administrative petition for reconsideration, Trane requested the regulatory text at 40 CFR 84.54(a)(6) and (c)(7) be changed to, “Effective January 1, 2025, refrigerated transport—intermodal containers
In the administrative petition, Trane also requested an adjustment to the location at which the temperature is measured from the “temperature of the refrigerant entering the evaporator (for direct heat exchange systems) or the temperature of the fluid exiting (for chillers)” to the “box temperature” because this measurement is more commonly used in this subsector. The petitioner requested that the EPA clarify that the temperature measurement be based on the lowest temperature at which the equipment is “designed to reach and maintain.” Trane further explained that this subsector uses direct expansion equipment, not chillers, so the reference to chillers in the regulatory text is unnecessary.
The EPA proposes to adjust the temperature threshold and location where the temperature will be measured for restrictions on transport refrigeration—intermodal containers. In particular, the EPA proposes to raise the temperature threshold to −35 °C and adjust the location of the temperature measurement to be the box temperature.
The EPA excluded refrigerated transport—intermodal containers designed to operate at −50 °C and below in the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule based on comments received on the proposal on lower bound temperature thresholds for the refrigerated transport—intermodal containers, IPR, and Chillers for IPR subsectors. While we did not receive a comment from Trane about a lower bound temperature threshold for intermodal refrigerated transport during the comment period, Trane provided information shortly after publication of the final rule indicating that there are
The proposed changes would remove restrictions on certain intermodal containers that carry cargo transported at temperatures below −35 °C, which include blood plasma and pharmaceuticals, and are referred to in this proposal as deep frozen cargo. The EPA evaluated the additional information provided after publication of the final rule and agrees that refrigerants used to reach and maintain such low temperatures in intermodal containers require refrigerants with sufficiently low boiling points and high refrigerating capacities.
The EPA understands that refrigerated transport—intermodal containers that are designed to reach and can achieve temperatures below −35 °C may, at times, also be operated at higher temperatures. The EPA is clarifying that the lowest temperature at which equipment is designed to operate determines whether it is subject to use restrictions. This means that if a refrigerated transport—intermodal container has the capacity to achieve a box temperature below −35 °C, it would not be subject to restrictions even if at times the container is operated at temperatures at or above −35 °C.
While manufacturers and users of such equipment may opt to produce or purchase such equipment that has the capacity to operate at lower temperatures to avoid being subject to restrictions at 40 CFR 84.54, refrigerants and equipment that have the capacity to achieve these lower temperatures are more costly and present additional technical requirements that make operation more difficult. Trane has indicated that refrigerated transport—intermodal containers that transport cargo at temperatures above −35 °C are designed per the ISO 668 standard, while similar equipment that transport cargo at temperatures below −35 °C are designed per the ISO 1496-2 standard.
The EPA is also proposing that the location of the temperature measurement for refrigerated transport—intermodal containers be the box temperature. The EPA did not specifically solicit comment on this issue in proposing the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule because we did not propose a temperature threshold (
The EPA requests comment on the proposed changes discussed in this section concerning intermodal containers, including on any significant reliance interests on the existing GWP limits and mode of measurement and how we should account for any such reliance interests in any final action.
The EPA considers refrigeration equipment used in semiconductor manufacturing to fall within the IPR and Chillers for IPR subsectors (
IPR systems are used to cool process streams at a specific point in manufacturing and other industrial processes (
A chiller is a type of equipment that uses refrigerant to cool water or a brine solution that is then pumped to fan coil units or other air handlers to cool the air that is supplied to the conditioned spaces. The heat absorbed by the water or brine can be used for heating purposes and/or transferred directly to the air (“air-cooled”), to a cooling tower or body of water (“water-cooled”), or through evaporative coolers (“evaporative-cooled”) (
Restrictions on the use of HFCs and HFC blends in IPR and Chillers for IPR, including process equipment used to manufacture semiconductors, are implemented at different GWP thresholds (150, 300, and 700). The restrictions put in place by the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule begin on either January 1, 2026, or January 1, 2028, depending on charge size and the temperature at which the equipment is designed to operate. These restrictions do not include IPR or Chillers used for IPR at temperatures below −50 °C. For the IPR subsector, restrictions can be found at 40 CFR 84.54(a)(12) and 84.54(c)(10). For the Chillers for IPR subsector, restrictions can be found at 40 CFR 84.54(a)(10)(iii) and (iv), and 84.54(c)(5) and (6).
Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International (SEMI) petitioned the EPA on December 22, 2023, to reconsider the compliance dates that affect SMRE for the IPR and Chillers for IPR subsectors. The administrative petition did not include a request for relief from the restrictions at 40 CFR 84.54(a)(12)(i) (IPR with a refrigerant charge capacity of 200 pounds or greater) or 84.54(c)(10)(i) (Chillers for IPR with a refrigerant charge capacity of 200 pounds or
SEMI also requested in their administrative petition either that the semiconductor manufacturing industry be exempted from the relevant restrictions at 40 CFR 84.54 or that the relevant compliance dates be extended.
SEMI asserted that equipment using substitute refrigerants that fit this industry's unique circumstances will not be available by the current compliance dates and estimated that developing and implementing alternatives that are fit for purpose could take five years.
SEMI also explained that using certain alternatives such as R-744,
SEMI has noted that semiconductor manufacturing facilities are typically densely packed and that integrating changes into the facility layout may take additional time. Further, SEMI stated that substitute refrigerants used in this industry require thorough testing to ensure they can meet the safety requirements described above. SEMI also noted that due to the complexity of the manufacturing process and limitations within semiconductor manufacturing facility layouts, testing to verify conformance can result in lengthy qualification timelines and iterative enhancements to meet end process requirements.
The industry is testing substitutes; however, information provided by SEMI and semiconductor equipment suppliers indicates that substitutes will not be available by the current compliance dates. For example, SEMI stated that R-744 offers a potential path, yet some challenges would require further validation and testing, including those challenges listed above.
SEMI has indicated that although R-728
Finally, SEMI noted that SMRE are custom-engineered and that equipment availability is limited to meet the precise temperature and humidity control requirements, particularly in the range between −50 °C and −30 °C. Due to the combination of factors that present unique circumstances for this industry, SEMI asserted that the development of substitutes for SMRE will take more time than for IPR and Chillers for IPR used in other sectors.
SEMI's administrative petition also notes adverse impacts that may occur absent the requested changes. These include, but are not limited to, facility and production line downtime, purchase of legacy equipment for replacement purposes to avoid such downtime, stockpiling legacy equipment, facility redesign, and additional testing of compliant refrigerants.
The EPA proposes to delay the compliance dates for SMRE with charge sizes of 100 pounds or less used in the subsectors indicated at 40 CFR 84.54(a)(10)(iii), (iv), 84.54(a)(12)(ii), (iii), 84.54(c)(5), (6), 84.54(c)(10)(ii), (iii), and (iv) from January 1, 2026, or January 1, 2028, as applicable, until January 1, 2030. Based on the information provided after publication of the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule, the EPA agrees that the semiconductor manufacturing industry faces unique circumstances in manufacturing semiconductors, including ensuring that substitutes can satisfy precise temperature control requirements. The EPA reviewed the latest available information provided by industry, including from semiconductor equipment manufacturers, that indicate that the equipment is highly specialized and requires compact footprints and precise temperature controls, and proposes to find that substitutes will not be developed in time to meet the current compliance dates. Thus, the EPA is proposing revisions to the regulations.
Informed by discussions with and information submitted by SEMI, its members, SMRE manufacturers, and other interested parties, the EPA is not proposing to exempt IPR and Chillers for IPR used in semiconductor manufacturing from the requirements at 40 CFR 84.54. Instead, the EPA agrees with the petitioner that although compliance work is underway, additional time is needed to test and qualify the viability of equipment using compliant refrigerants. The EPA also acknowledges the letters submitted by five semiconductor manufacturing equipment suppliers in 2024 that provided additional details on the time needed to test and validate alternatives, and thus supported SEMI's request to extend the relevant compliance dates to January 1, 2030.
The EPA understands that IPR and Chillers for IPR used in the semiconductor manufacturing industry may operate at one temperature while being designed to reach lower temperatures. As stated in section IV.A. of this preamble, the lowest temperature at which equipment is designed to operate determines whether it is subject to use restrictions.
The EPA requests comment on the proposed changes for SMRE, and specifically on the proposed compliance date for SMRE of January 1, 2030, for all affected equipment. We also request comment on the charge size threshold applicable to this use. Although we are not proposing to exempt this equipment from the restrictions at 40 CFR 84.54, we request comment on such an exemption. Finally, we request comment on whether there are any legitimate reliance interests on the current requirements and, if so, how the EPA should account for them in any final action.
Remote condensing units are a type of retail food refrigeration equipment with refrigerating capacities typically ranging from 1 kW to 20 kW (0.3 to 5.7 refrigeration tons) and are composed of one (and sometimes two) compressor(s), one condenser, and one receiver assembled into a single unit, normally located external to the sales area. This equipment is connected to one or more nearby evaporator(s) used to cool food and beverages stored in display cases and/or walk-in storage rooms. A cascade system might be used, for example, to reach low temperatures in a long-term storage room. A supermarket often uses remote condensing units in food retail environments such as dairy and deli displays. Remote condensing units are also commonly installed in convenience stores and specialty shops, such as bakeries and butcher shops (
Supermarket systems, also known as multiplex or centralized systems, operate with racks of compressors installed in a machinery room where different compressors turn on to match the refrigeration load necessary to maintain temperatures in display cases in the sales area. Two main designs are used: direct and indirect systems. In a direct system, the refrigerant circulates from the machinery room to the sales area, where it evaporates in display-case heat exchangers, and then returns in vapor phase to the suction headers of the compressor racks.
The 2023 Technology Transitions Rule established restrictions on the use of HFCs in new remote condensing unit systems and new supermarket systems installed starting January 1, 2026, and January 1, 2027, respectively. For both, the GWP limit is 150 for systems with refrigerant charge capacities greater than or equal to 200 pounds, and 300 for systems with refrigerant charge capacities less than 200 pounds or for the high temperature side of cascade systems irrespective of the total charge capacity. The EPA distinguished between larger and smaller remote condensing units and supermarket systems by their refrigerant charge capacity based on a distinction between charge sizes in the safety standards (
Certain food retailers and the Food Industry Association (FMI) expressed concerns about the limited number and types of substitutes that the EPA determined in the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule would be available for use in remote condensing units and supermarket systems by the January 1, 2026, and January 1, 2027, compliance deadlines, respectively. Specifically, they stated that the rule restricts the food industry to a handful of refrigerant alternatives, including R-744, A2Ls, A3s, and ammonia, which they stated are either impractical, infeasible, or create safety concerns.
These food retailers asserted that R-744 technologies in their current state expend a significant amount of energy to function at a cooling level comparable to commonly used HFCs,
FMI also recently requested clarifications and potential changes to the codified regulations at 40 CFR 84.54(e)(2) and (3) to ensure that routine store refreshes, remodels, or layout changes do not trigger the requirements for new systems.
• When an existing system's cooling capacity is increased as measured in British Thermal Units (BTU) per hour, and
• When replacing 75 percent or more of evaporators (by number) and 100 percent of the compressor racks, condensers, and connected evaporator loads of an existing system.
FMI stated that “when grocery stores undergo remodeling activities, it is normal and routine for stores to modestly expand the cooling capacity of existing systems to accommodate additional products and layouts.” FMI gave a specific example in which expanding a refrigerated case by 60 inches could trigger the need for a store to install an entirely new system using compliant refrigerant because it might increase the overall cooling capacity of the system. In the same correspondence, FMI also stated that to address this concern, the EPA should allow supermarkets to increase the cooling capacity measured in BTU per hour by up to 25 percent before the equipment is considered a new system. Finally, FMI raised concerns about whether the Agency considers modifications of an existing system to count as “retrofits” under the AIM Act.
The EPA is proposing to revise the restrictions finalized at 40 CFR part 84, subpart B, to provide a graduated schedule for the use of HFCs in new remote condensing units and supermarket systems. Specifically, we propose an interim GWP limit of 1,400 starting January 1, 2026, for new remote condensing units and starting January 1, 2027, for new supermarket systems. Starting January 1, 2032, the GWP limit for both remote condensing units and supermarket systems would fall back to 150 or 300, depending on certain characteristics of the system. Consistent with the existing restrictions, the GWP limit of 150 would apply to systems with 200 or more pounds of refrigerant charge, excluding the high temperature side of a cascade system, and the GWP limit of 300 would apply to systems with less than 200 pounds of refrigerant charge, or for the high temperature side of a cascade system. The EPA anticipates widespread adoption of lower-GWP HFC or non-HFC refrigerants in these two subsectors—but not before the current compliance dates of January 1, 2026, and January 1, 2027. An increase in the GWP limit would temporarily extend the use of currently available mid-GWP HFC refrigerants, limit the use of the highest-GWP HFC refrigerants, and ease the transition to new substitutes as they penetrate the marketplace. This proposal would not prevent anyone from choosing to use the lower-GWP refrigerants that the EPA has previously identified and that continue to be deployed in new systems throughout the United States.
The first step of this proposed approach would be to establish a GWP limit of 1,400 starting January 1, 2026, for remote condensing unit systems, and January 1, 2027, for supermarket systems, lasting until 2032. The EPA is proposing an interim GWP limit on the existing compliance dates instead of just extending those dates. Historically, refrigeration systems in these subsectors have used refrigerants with higher GWPs, including R-404A, R-407A, R-507A, and R-22. These refrigerants' GWPs are 3,922, 2,107, 3,985, and 1,810, respectively, and additionally, R-22 is an ozone depleting substance that has been phased out consistent with the requirements of Title VI of the CAA and its implementing regulations. By maintaining a GWP limit in 2026 and 2027 for remote condensing units and supermarket systems, respectively, the installation of such higher-GWP refrigerants in new systems can be eliminated while providing optionality and flexibility in the near term. Retaining the January 1, 2026, and January 1, 2027, deadlines would align with subsection (i)(4)(D) of the AIM Act by preventing new demand for high-GWP refrigerants (42 U.S.C. 7675(i)(4)(D)).
The EPA is proposing a GWP limit of 1,400 for 2026 and 2027. This GWP limit would allow for the continued use of R-448A and R-449A, which are HFC blends with GWPs of 1,386 and 1,396, respectively. Many supermarkets have transitioned to R-448A or R-449A,
R-448A and R-449A are classified under ASHRAE as A1 refrigerants, meaning they are non-flammable and non-toxic. Some industry stakeholders have expressed a need for local building codes to be updated before A2L refrigerants can be used in designs for new remote condensing unit and supermarket systems. At the time of the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule, a majority of states (41) had made updates to state codes or passed state legislation to allow for the use of these refrigerants. At the time of this proposed rulemaking, 49 states have taken action allowing for the use of A2L refrigerants.
By proposing these changes to the compliance schedule, the EPA is recognizing regional differences that may affect the adoption of substitutes. As discussed in the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule, the EPA is aware that lower-GWP substitutes are currently used in some supermarkets. However, we acknowledge that the impacted subsectors are large and varied and that additional time will smooth the transition for these subsectors that have diverse needs and circumstances.
Supermarkets and grocery stores—and the businesses that run them—range from big to small and are located in all climates. Some supermarkets and grocery stores may prefer one option over another due to capital costs or energy efficiency considerations. For example, installing R-744 systems in stores in colder climates may be preferable given the energy efficiency benefits of R-744 systems in such climates as compared to HFC-containing refrigerants. The EPA understands that certain retailers may choose to use R-744 in warmer climates, too. However, the EPA received information indicating that installing R-744 systems in stores in warmer climates may be less preferred because the energy efficiency benefits can be lower.
Many supermarkets across the United States are already using compliant, lower-GWP substitute refrigerants such as R-744.
The EPA indicated in the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule that several lower-GWP substitutes, including R-744 and some A1 and A2L refrigerants, were available or would soon be available in time for the remote condensing unit or supermarket subsector compliance dates of 2026 or 2027, respectively (
The last step of this proposed approach would therefore be to establish a GWP limit of 150 or 300, depending on certain characteristics of the systems, starting January 1, 2032, for both remote condensing units and supermarket systems. The GWP limit of 150 is for systems with 200 or more pounds of refrigerant charge, excluding the high temperature side of a cascade system. The GWP limit of 300 is for systems with less than 200 pounds of refrigerant charge, or for the high temperature side of a cascade system. In other words, the existing compliance obligations that are in 2026 or 2027 would move to 2032 for both subsectors. Available substitutes in 2032 for these subsectors would be limited to lower-GWP options, including R-744 and a host of A1 and A2L refrigerants, including those described above.
The EPA anticipates that by January 1, 2032, any remaining building code issues would be fully resolved, given that the UL safety standard updates addressing these refrigerants will have been published more than a decade prior (
We also expect that other forces will continue to encourage the ongoing transition of equipment used in these subsectors. The HFC phasedown established by Congress in the AIM Act will continue to limit the production and consumption of HFCs, with a significant stepdown in 2029 (42 U.S.C. 7675(e)(2)(C)).
The EPA requests information regarding challenges associated with local building codes as well as information on the suitability of lower-GWP refrigerants in certain climates and for certain store designs, including whether R-744 is suitable for refrigeration systems in large supermarkets and in warmer climates.
Separately, the EPA understands that although supermarkets routinely refresh, remodel, or make changes to their store layouts, moving refrigerated aisles within a store from one location to another would be a rather significant change. During the hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) phaseout, the CAA and our implementing regulations limited the use of newly produced R-22 only for the servicing of existing equipment, which generated similar questions about what was considered a new system versus an existing system. Through scenarios provided on its website at the time, the EPA explained that virgin R-22 may not be used in a system that has become a newly-manufactured system through an increase in cooling capacity (
To address concerns raised by stakeholders that the provisions at 40 CFR 84.54(e)(2) and (3) may result in supermarkets having to replace legacy systems before the end of their useful life, the EPA is requesting comment on whether expansion of cooling capacity in BTU/hour (
For clarity, the EPA also notes that a “retrofit” is distinct from a store “refresh,” “remodel,” or “layout change.” The AIM Act states that for purposes of regulations issued under subsection (i), the term “retrofit” “means to upgrade existing equipment where the regulated substance is changed, which (1) includes the conversion of equipment to achieve system compatibility; and (2) may include changes in lubricants, gaskets, filters, driers, valves, o-rings, or equipment components for that purpose” (42 U.S.C. 7675(i)(7)(A)). Thus, a retrofit, for purposes of the restrictions at 40 CFR part 84, subpart B, requires a change in the type of refrigerant used in a system (
Cold storage warehouses are refrigerated facilities used for the storage of temperature-controlled substances. Refrigeration systems within cold storage warehouses can be divided into two categories: packaged systems and central plant systems. Central plants are custom-built refrigeration systems that are typically used in large, refrigerated warehouses with cooling capacities that range from 20 to 5,000 kW. Central plant systems deliver cool air to the refrigerated space through evaporators, which are typically suspended from the ceiling in the refrigerated space. The evaporators are connected through a piping network to multiple compressors located in a central machine room, and a condenser, which is typically mounted outside near the compressors. Central plant systems may have a direct or indirect (secondary loop) design. Direct systems circulate a primary refrigerant throughout the refrigerated space. In an indirect system, a primary refrigerant cools a secondary refrigerant in the machine room, and the secondary refrigerant is then circulated throughout the refrigerated space (
The 2023 Technology Transitions Rule established restrictions on the use of HFCs in new cold storage warehouses installed starting January 1, 2026. The GWP limit is 150 for systems with
The EPA identified R-717, or ammonia, a 2L refrigerant, as a widely used substitute in the cold storage warehouses subsector that has been used for decades (
The Coalition for the Use of Safe and Efficient Refrigerants, Inc. (CUSER) submitted a request to the Agency on March 6, 2025, for the EPA to adjust the GWP limits at 40 CFR 84.54(c)(9)(i), (ii), and (iii) from 150 or 300, as applicable, to 700.
In the request, CUSER highlighted that ammonia, a higher toxicity and flammable refrigerant, can present potential safety concerns particularly when cold storage warehouses are not located in isolated, unpopulated areas. CUSER cited a number of recent examples of fatalities, injuries, and facility evacuations related to the use of ammonia as a refrigerant in cold storage warehouses in the United States.
CUSER's particular request was for an adjustment of the restriction for cold storage warehouses more in keeping with other regulated subsectors that primarily use large equipment with large charge sizes, and specifically, to increase the GWP limit to allow for the use of R-513A, which CUSER identified as a refrigerant in this subsector that met their safety, commercial availability, energy efficiency, and usability requirements. CUSER indicated that in its view, some of the other substitutes identified by the EPA in the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule would not necessarily be available in every situation due to flammability or toxicity concerns, commercial availability, decreased energy efficiency, not being mechanically practical due to excessive displacement, building codes not being updated, and economic costs.
The EPA is proposing to revise the restrictions at 40 CFR 84.54(c)(9)(i), (ii), and (iii) to provide a graduated schedule for the use of HFCs in new cold storage warehouses. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to raise the GWP limit to 700 starting January 1, 2026. The GWP limit for cold storage warehouses would become 150 or 300, depending on certain characteristics of the system, starting January 1, 2032. Consistent with the existing restrictions, the GWP limit of 150 would be for systems with 200 or more pounds of refrigerant charge, excluding the high temperature side of a cascade system, and the GWP limit of 300 would be for systems with less than 200 pounds of refrigerant charge, or for the high temperature side of a cascade system.
The EPA's proposal does not limit industry from using lower-GWP refrigerants that we previously identified, including ammonia, which is already the most widely used refrigerant in this subsector for large systems.
The EPA acknowledges that the use of ammonia in a system containing thousands of pounds of refrigerant charge could pose a safety risk in densely populated areas if a leak were to occur, or if such a system were to be handled improperly. As noted above, there is widespread use of compliant refrigerants in this subsector in the United States; however, based on information that we received after finalizing the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule, we acknowledge that in some situations, there may be continued limitations that could hinder compliance with the current requirements for cold storage warehouses.
The EPA understands that other substitutes that were previously identified as available to meet the upcoming January 1, 2026, GWP limit for this subsector may need additional time to develop commercial availability. Based on the EPA's review of the information submitted by industry stakeholders, we agree that adjusting the restriction for cold storage warehouses to a GWP of 700 beginning January 1, 2026, which would allow for the use of R-513A and R-450A in cold storage warehouses in the near-term, would address the availability concerns raised by CUSER regarding the availability of substitutes. In particular, this would address concerns about safety considerations in densely populated areas and availability of sufficient compliant refrigerant options across the subsector.
In the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule, the EPA acknowledged that siting cold storage warehouses in close proximity to densely populated areas might limit the availability of ammonia (
SNAP Rule 26 listed seven A2L substitutes as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new cold storage warehouses (
CUSER also noted that A2L substitutes that were identified in the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule, and many that were listed as acceptable subject to use conditions in SNAP Rule 26, including HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-457A, R-516A, R-454C, and R-454A, may still face availability challenges. In particular, CUSER noted these availability challenges arise from concerns in certain settings due to their status as mildly flammable refrigerants or because there are certain mechanical concerns related to their use.
The EPA recognizes there are challenges associated with using 2Ls, or mildly flammable refrigerants, in certain settings, including allowing for the necessary amount of time for equipment utilizing these refrigerants to become commercially available. However, given similarities to equipment in other subsectors with large charge sizes that uses 2L refrigerants (
The EPA is also aware that the industry has a history of changing refrigerants every few years in response to customers' requests. For example, CUSER noted that many cold storage warehouses initially used R-507A, transitioned to R-134a in the 2010s, and then transitioned to R-513A in the early 2020s. Given the industry's adeptness to transition, the EPA expects that a transition to another alternative by 2032 will not cause undue burden.
The EPA is thereby proposing a graduated schedule for the use of HFCs in cold storage warehouses. The EPA proposes an increase to the GWP limit of 700 starting January 1, 2026, and becoming 150 or 300, depending on certain characteristics of the system, starting January 1, 2032. The GWP limit of 150 would be for systems with 200 or more pounds of refrigerant charge, excluding the high temperature side of a cascade system. The GWP limit of 300 would be for systems with less than 200 pounds of refrigerant charge, or for the high temperature side of a cascade system. The January 1, 2032, compliance date provides additional time for substitutes to be safely used in all circumstances, and for additional lower-GWP substitutes to become commercial availability. This proposed adjustment would not apply to any other equipment. The proposal would allow for the use of additional refrigerant options in the near-term, including but not limited to R-513A and R-450A. The EPA requests comment on whether there are other limitations to transitioning to lower-GWP alternatives in cold storage warehouses other than those mentioned in this section.
The 2023 Technology Transitions Rule established restrictions on the use of HFCs in the residential and light commercial AC/HP subsector. This subsector includes many types of equipment, from self-contained products such as packaged terminal air conditioners and window AC units to unitary split systems such as ducted and non-ducted mini-splits, multi-splits, and ducted air conditioners and heat pumps. This section pertains only to the treatment of certain condensing units used in unitary split AC/HP systems and thus does not discuss other types of equipment in this subsector. Unitary split systems are field assembled and charged. Unitary split systems include an outdoor unit with a condenser and a compressor, refrigerant lines, an indoor unit with an evaporator, and ducts to carry cooled or heated air throughout a building. Mini-split air conditioners or heat pump systems is another type of unitary split system that includes an outdoor unit with a condenser and a compressor, refrigerant lines, and a single indoor unit with an evaporator and air handler. Non-ducted mini-splits provide cooled or heated air directly from the indoor unit rather than being carried through ducts.
The unit in which the condenser and compressor are packaged together is called a “condensing unit.” The condensing unit discharges heat and is typically located outside. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) defines a condensing unit as a “machine designed to condense refrigerant vapor to a liquid by compressing the vapor in a positive displacement compressor and rejecting heat to a cooling medium. A condensing unit usually consists of one or more positive displacement compressors and motors, condensing coils, liquid receivers, and other devices mounted on a common base.”
In proposing the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule (
The EPA received many comments on the proposal about the effect of restricting components and subcomponents as products. The comments varied depending on the type of restriction placed on the component, including: manufacture and import; sale and distribution; and the purchase and use to maintain existing equipment. Most comments addressed the refrigeration systems context, although one commenter expressed concern about its ability to honor warranties for existing AC systems. Based on these comments, we removed components and subcomponents from the final definition of “product.” Instead, we classified condensing units as one of five “specified components” at 40 CFR 84.52 that were not subject to restrictions on manufacture, import, sale, distribution, or export.
The EPA received two administrative petitions, one from Chemours and the other from the Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy, and Heating, Air-conditioning, & Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI) (hereafter AHRI et al.), requesting that the Agency reconsider aspects of the finalized regulations at 40 CFR part 84, subpart B, as they apply to the residential and light commercial AC/HP subsector. The two administrative petitions requested reconsideration of separate provisions of the regulations as means to achieve a similar outcome, that is, reconsideration of the treatment of condensing units that use or are intended for use with HFC or HFC blend refrigerants with GWPs above 700.
The administrative petition from Chemours requested that the EPA remove provisions that allow the continued use of specified components that use regulated substances with a GWP at or above 700 in the residential and light commercial AC/HP subsector. The petitioner stated that the EPA did not propose a definition of “specified component,” nor did it propose to exempt specified components from the GWP prohibitions. The petitioner noted that the EPA proposed the opposite by including components and subcomponents in the list of products subject to the proposed restrictions. The petitioner stated that the final rule allows for unlimited replacement of condensers, evaporators, and compressors in this subsector, thereby extending the life of existing systems beyond their designed lifetimes without taking comment on the impacts of such extended use. In meetings with the EPA regarding the petition, Chemours clarified that its concern was limited to the replacement of condensing units used in split AC systems in the residential and light commercial AC/HP subsector, not the other four specified components, nor condensing units used in refrigeration subsectors.
The administrative petition from AHRI et al. requested that the EPA make a determination that replacing a condensing unit in the residential and light commercial AC/HP subsector would be considered the installation of a new system under 40 CFR 84.54(e). The administrative petition is limited to condensing units in this subsector that are designed for use with a single condenser and a single evaporator. The administrative petition requested that the EPA not restrict condensing units used in variable refrigerant flow (VRF) systems,
The EPA is proposing to retain the current requirements regarding the treatment of condensing units used in the residential and light commercial AC/HP subsector. This proposal provides an opportunity for the public to comment on the treatment of condensing units in this subsector. In doing so, the EPA is addressing one petitioner's concerns about the inability to comment on changes made between proposal and finalization of the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule regarding the treatment of components.
The EPA is proposing no change to the existing provisions at 40 CFR part 84, subpart B, pertaining to the treatment of certain condensing units used in the residential and light commercial AC/HP subsector. This would include no change to the definitions at 40 CFR 84.52, the installation restriction at 40 CFR 84.54(c)(1), the list of actions that the EPA considers an installation of a new system at 40 CFR 84.54(e), the exemption for components at 40 CFR 84.56(b), or the labeling, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements applicable to specified components. As summarized at the beginning of this section, the EPA finalized provisions of the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule that allow equipment owners to repair their existing AC/HP systems and that such repairs could include the replacement of a condensing unit. In doing so, the EPA was mindful of the cost of replacing an entire system due to the failure of a single component.
Under the existing rules, new residential and light commercial AC/HP systems using legacy refrigerants, such as equipment that uses R-410A, can continue to be installed until January 1, 2026, using condensing units manufactured in the United States or imported into the United States before January 1, 2025. There may be scenarios in which a recently installed residential AC system using a refrigerant with a GWP above 700 has a damaged or defective condensing unit, where a repair of the system would be inadequate or infeasible. In such scenarios, under existing regulations, the owner would be able to replace just the condensing unit. If restrictions were to be placed on replacing the condensing unit, the owner's only recourse would be to replace the entire system. Installing a new system is more costly than replacing just the condensing unit, and in some instances, warranties or insurance will only cover the replacement of like equipment. If R-410A-containing condensing units are not available for replacement due to regulatory restrictions, that homeowner may have to purchase two entirely new AC systems within a short timeframe.
The EPA's proposal to not change the existing treatment of condensing units is in alignment with subsection (i)(7)(B) of the AIM Act and consistent with the Agency's standard practice with regard to allowing repair of legacy equipment. This proposal is also consistent with the Presidential Memorandum titled
A refrigerated centrifuge is a laboratory device that spins samples at a high speed while keeping them at a low, controlled temperature. Refrigerated centrifuges are a niche subset of equipment used in laboratories and have narrow technical requirements which limit the refrigerants that can be used. The EPA understands that refrigerated centrifuges are critical for blood processing and other essential pharmaceutical and medical industries.
The 2023 Technology Transitions Rule included refrigerated laboratory equipment within the IPR subsector.
The 2023 Technology Transitions Rule excluded centrifuges with charge sizes above the threshold indicated in UL 61010-2-011 while using a refrigerant with a GWP lower than the IPR HFC use restrictions. To summarize, in the final rule, the EPA recognized that refrigerated centrifuges that contain less than 150 g of flammable refrigerant charge (or 370 g of nonflammable refrigerant charge) can meet the UL standards using refrigerants with a GWP below the limits for IPR and are subject to the HFC use restriction. Conversely, the EPA recognized that refrigerated centrifuges that require more refrigeration capacity than can be achieved using refrigerants that meet the HFC use restrictions while meeting the charge size limits in UL 61010-2-011 are not restricted. This is because the refrigerants that meet the IPR restrictions are either flammable, higher toxicity, or high pressure and as such either require an upper limit on charge size to meet the UL standard's safety requirements or are outside the current scope of the UL standard altogether.
After issuance of the 2023 Technology Transition Rule, the EPA was contacted by a manufacturer concerning refrigerated centrifugal equipment with a NAICS code of 333998 that follows UL 61010-2-011 or UL 61010-2-020. The manufacturer stated that refrigerated centrifuges need to be tested to ANSI/UL standards 61010-2-011 or 61010-2-020 before mass production. The manufacturer described how UL 61010-2-020 requires a particular test for refrigerated centrifuges called the Maximum Credible Accident (MCA) test which assesses the safety of centrifugal equipment in a worst-case mechanical failure. The test simulates an accident scenario where the rotor assembly, a high-speed spinning part of the centrifuge, experiences catastrophic failure or becomes detached during rotation. This test ensures that the design and structure of the equipment are robust enough to contain debris and prevent personnel from hazardous exposure to such an event. The manufacturer explained that the MCA test itself is currently not designed in a manner that allows for testing of flammable or high-pressure refrigerants. We understand that the UL standards committee is currently updating UL 61010-2-020 so the standard can appropriately test refrigerated centrifuges to the MCA test using flammable and high-pressure refrigerants.
The EPA understands that this update to the UL safety testing procedure impacts all centrifuge manufacturers. The manufacturer noted that the MCA test was expected to be updated in 2025, before the January 1, 2026, compliance date, but that additional time would be needed for manufacturers to redesign, test, and certify centrifuges to the revised standards. The manufacturer later stated in a meeting that they anticipate that standards and equipment will be updated by January 1, 2028.
The EPA has reviewed information provided by the manufacturer and the UL 61010-2-020 standard for laboratory centrifuges. Based on this review, the Agency agrees that the MCA test required in UL 61010-2-020 cannot be performed until modifications are made to accommodate the safety risks associated with fire hazards, ballistic threats, or toxicity hazards and understands such efforts are underway and that the standards and equipment updates are expected to be completed by January 1, 2028. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to extend the compliance date to January 1, 2028, for refrigerated centrifuges within the IPR subsector. This extension applies to refrigerated centrifuges only and does not apply to other types of equipment within the IPR subsector. This extension is to allow additional time for the industry standard setting process to finalize updated test procedures specific to refrigerated centrifuges. The EPA requests comment on the proposed extension of the compliance date to January 1, 2028, including on whether there are any significant reliance interests in the existing compliance date that should be taken into account in any final action.
Laboratory shakers are specialized pieces of equipment used in scientific and medical laboratories to continuously agitate liquid biological samples at controlled temperatures. These devices are designed for applications that require temperature-sensitive conditions, such as growing microbial cell cultures or eukaryotic tissue cultures. The temperature range can span in some applications from around 4 °C to 80 °C.
As described in section IV.F.1.a. of this preamble, the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule indicated that refrigerated laboratory equipment that use an HFC or blend containing HFC(s) are regulated within the IPR subsector.
Under the regulations at 40 CFR 84.54, IPR equipment with refrigerants entering the evaporator at temperatures at or above −30 °C) have a compliance date of January 1, 2026. Further information about the requirements for the IPR subsector can be found in section IV.F.1. of this preamble.
After issuance of the 2023 Technology Transition Rule, a manufacturer contacted the EPA regarding refrigerated laboratory shaker equipment. The manufacturer stated that there are currently limited alternatives for small, compact IPR systems, such as laboratory shakers.
Since laboratory shakers are used in various cell culture applications, the manufacturer also described how a wide temperature operation range and precise temperature control are crucial to ensure optimal cell growth conditions and experimental accuracy. A temperature operation range that extends as low as 4 °C and up to 80 °C allows for a range of biological laboratory research applications. Currently R-134a is one of the only refrigerants used that can achieve such a wide temperature range. Not all shakers have this wide temperature range, and in particular, some do not extend as high as 80 °C. Shakers that use R-600a
Further, the manufacturer noted that temperature accuracy to within 0.1 °C is required to maintain the integrity of the cell cultures and reliability of results in certain research applications.
The manufacturer noted that one feasible alternative that could achieve desired temperature specifications is R-744, but that current IPR systems for this refrigerant are primarily designed for large-scale industrial refrigeration systems and that there are limited solutions for small-scale laboratory equipment. Systems are currently in development but are not expected to be available until mid-2027 at the earliest.
The EPA is proposing to extend the compliance date to January 1, 2028, for refrigerated laboratory shakers within the IPR subsector. This extension does not apply to other refrigerated laboratory equipment not discussed in this proposal. This extension is to allow additional time for the development of lower-GWP refrigerants and not-in-kind substitutes (
The EPA is aware that several refrigerants are currently being used in refrigerated laboratory shakers, but that they do not all have the same temperature operation range or temperature control capacity. The EPA received information from one manufacturer that R-134a, with a GWP of 1,430, is the only refrigerant that is currently being used to meet the wide temperature range and fine temperature control requirements of manufacturers and researchers. It is capable of operating at temperatures as low as 4 °C, and up to 80 °C, with temperature control capability in increments of 0.1 °C. R-600a, with a GWP of 1, is being used in equipment capable of operating at temperatures as low as 4 °C, and up to 60 °C, with a temperature control capability of 0.3 °C increments. One shaker product utilizes Peltier cooling to achieve a temperature range of 5 °C to 60 °C with a temperature control capability of 0.3 °C increments.
While a range of options are used to control temperature in laboratory shakers, including compliant refrigerants that can meet the requirements in some refrigerated laboratory shaker applications, there remain some use cases in which refrigerants with a GWP of lower than 700 are unable to meet the requirements. This includes achieving temperatures between 60 °C and 80 °C in shakers that also have a temperature control capability as fine as 0.1 °C increments. In addition, based on industry estimation, the EPA understands that new IPR products using R-744 as the refrigerant are currently in development and are not expected to be available around mid-2027. As such, the EPA is proposing to extend the compliance date from January 1, 2026, to January 1, 2028, for all laboratory shakers, to provide additional time for compliant refrigerant options to be developed for all refrigerated laboratory shaker use cases.
The EPA requests comment on the proposed extension of the compliance date to January 1, 2028, as explained in this section, including on whether there are any significant reliance interests in the current requirements that should be taken into account in any final action.
The current requirements at 40 CFR part 84, subpart B, restrict the use of certain HFCs in systems in the residential and light commercial AC/HP subsector. Systems in this subsector include unitary split systems such as ducted and non-ducted mini-splits, multi-splits, and ducted air conditioners and heat pumps. This section pertains to the treatment of residential and light commercial AC/HP systems only.
The 2023 Technology Transitions Rule restricted the installation of residential and light commercial AC/HP systems using refrigerants with a GWP higher than 700 beginning January 1, 2025. After the 2023 rule was finalized, the EPA received new information including data concerning how the January 1, 2025, restriction on installation would result in substantial stranded inventory for residential new construction, including both single-family and multi-family dwellings, where builders order heating and cooling equipment well in advance of
The U.S. air conditioning manufacturers are manufacturing new residential and light commercial split AC systems using R-454B (a blend of HFC-32 and HFO-1234yf), and to a lesser extent, HFC-32. While systems using other refrigerants (
The EPA recognizes that many trade associations and individual companies have been working to address the supply chain issues for R-454B. These entities cited a number of contributing factors including higher than anticipated demand, shortages of the 20-lb cylinders, and global economic factors as contributing to this unexpected situation. Contractors and technicians have been the most impacted because of how refrigerant is distributed. The original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), which typically receive refrigerant in larger containers (
Despite these actions to make R-454B more available, the EPA understands that in some parts of the country, access to R-454B remains challenging. To provide relief to consumers, the EPA considered extending the installation date for systems using refrigerants with a GWP higher than 700, including R-410A, to January 1, 2027. However, noting the Agency does not have information about the extent of equipment that may remain in company inventories as of January 1, 2026, removing the installation compliance date altogether may be the more appropriate approach. Either of these approaches would also respond to a second concern that has been brought to the EPA's attention. Since publication of the interim final rule on December 26, 2023, some entities have requested additional time beyond January 1, 2026, to install residential and light commercial AC/HP systems.
The EPA is proposing to remove the installation compliance date for systems in the residential and light commercial AC/HP subsector, using components manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2025. In light of current supply chain issues, the potential for future supply chain issues, as well as the fact that current rules do not allow for additional import or manufacture of equipment for new systems, the EPA no longer believes that limiting the ability to install new systems is warranted. Removing the installation compliance date allows industry to sell through remaining inventory of R-410A equipment that has been previously manufactured or imported. In light of the supply chain issues related to R-454B experienced this summer, the EPA seeks to provide consumers and contractors with an additional option. The EPA remains mindful, however, of potential impacts to companies that have relied upon the installation compliance date. The EPA does not expect there will be discernible economic impacts from those already modeled in our analysis for the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule since the total number of systems installed using legacy refrigerants would still match what the Agency modeled for that rule.
The EPA is also proposing to correct an erroneous citation in the regulatory text at 40 CFR 84.58(b). The regulatory text should direct the reader to paragraph (d), not to paragraph (c), as currently written. The proposed regulatory text for this rulemaking corrects this to accurately describe the intended labeling requirements.
The EPA is proposing to make this rule effective 30 days after publication of the final rule in the
The 2023 Technology Transitions Rule described the EPA's interpretation of this provision as applying to the establishment of restrictions on use of HFCs under subsection (i)(1) of the AIM Act. Based on this interpretation, we established compliance dates for the restrictions on the manufacture and
Since finalizing the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule, the EPA has issued two rules adjusting existing restrictions based on new information. In those rules, we maintained that changes to the requirements under subsection (i) of the AIM Act, including extending compliance dates, must be finalized at least one year prior to the restriction taking effect (
The EPA requests comment on this proposed statutory interpretation that the one-year effective date requirement of subsection (i)(6) not apply to rules relaxing or removing existing restrictions, particularly whether there are any reliance interests that would be negatively affected by a shorter effective date requirement.
Prior to proposing a rule under subsection (i) of the AIM Act, subsection (i)(2)(A) directs the EPA to consider negotiating with stakeholders in the sector or subsector subject to the potential rule in accordance with negotiated rulemaking procedures established under 5 U.S.C. chapter 5, subchapter III (commonly known as the “Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990”). If the EPA makes a determination to use negotiated rulemaking procedures, subsection (i)(2)(B) of the AIM Act requires that the EPA, to the extent practicable, give priority to completing that rulemaking over completing rulemakings under subsection (i) that are not using that procedure. If the EPA does not use the negotiated rulemaking process, subsection (i)(2)(C) requires that we publish an explanation of the decision not to use that procedure before commencement of the rulemaking process.
The EPA noted in the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule that, where appropriate, we will consider recent Agency actions and decisions related to restrictions on the use of HFCs in sectors and subsectors when considering using negotiated rulemaking procedures. We provided the example of not issuing a separate notice to consider using negotiated rulemaking for four petitions submitted under (i)(4) of the AIM Act that the EPA received after a first round of petitions had been subject to public notice and comment. We reasoned that these (i)(4) petitions were received well ahead of the final action and that the requested restrictions were in the same sectors and subsectors addressed in petitions for which a determination had already been made. The EPA stated that nothing in those four (i)(4) petitions caused us to reconsider that decision and that it was unnecessary for us to reconsider whether to use negotiated rulemaking procedures.
Upon reconsidering the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule, the EPA has determined that this proposed rulemaking does not merit revisiting our prior determination not to use negotiated rulemaking procedures.
The actions proposed in this rule are inherently deregulatory in that the compliance deadlines would be extended and, in some cases, GWP thresholds would be increased. As noted in each of the discussions in section IV. of this preamble, stakeholders are, in many cases, requesting that the EPA relax certain requirements, citing difficulties in compliance due to a variety of reasons including lack of technically achievable alternatives or other barriers, such as building codes. Entities requesting changes to the restrictions provided new information indicating barriers to meeting the existing requirements and implied there would be savings associated with these changes. The requesters of these changes find that these barriers are preventing them from fully complying with the current restrictions at 40 CFR part 84, subpart B. The EPA also received information indicating that relaxing restrictions in the retail food refrigeration (supermarkets and remote condensing units) subsectors would result in disbenefits for companies that have invested in alternative technologies.
The EPA does not have all the information necessary to quantify the potential net cost savings associated with alleviating the anticipated difficulties raised by entities. The EPA notes such net cost savings would be difficult to quantify with existing data, as they could vary substantially from entity to entity based on a variety of factors. These factors include access to capital, supply agreements, locations of operations, supply chain logistics, short- and long-term agreements or contracts, training practices, availability of personnel trained on new technologies, investments made to develop new technologies, stranded assets from delayed transitions, and more. The EPA welcomes information from stakeholders that is sufficiently quantitative, of sufficient quality, and relevant, which would assist us in quantifying such economic effects.
Further discussion regarding the economic impacts of this proposed rule, as well as a detailed list of additional information that the EPA is seeking in
The EPA notes that it is not able to evaluate the following factors with existing data and welcomes additional information from the regulated community and general public that could be used to evaluate and estimate such costs and cost savings:
• Cost savings resulting from updated transition pathways where changes result in the avoidance of burden not previously assessed by the EPA. Petitioners and requesters indicate that compliance with the requirements at 40 CFR part 84, subpart B, would pose challenges for specific parts of industry related to technical feasibility or commercial readiness. Without the adjustments proposed in this rulemaking, specific entities may incur additional costs due to supply bottlenecks of alternative refrigerants and technologies, accelerated uptake of nascent and costly technologies, the need to stockpile legacy equipment, engage in costly repairs of legacy equipment in order to extend its useful life in lieu of replacement, and more. The EPA did not quantify such costs for the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule, and the EPA does not have the data to quantify the avoidance of such costs through the changes proposed in this rulemaking. However, the EPA notes that a primary benefit of this proposed rulemaking is to avoid such costs by providing a smoother transition path for the specific subsectors included in this rulemaking.
• Costs resulting from the proposed rulemaking for cases where relaxing compliance requirements result in stranded assets for companies that had made capital and investment planning decisions based on the requirements at 40 CFR part 84, subpart B, finalized in 2023. For example, OEMs may have made capital investments in additional manufacturing capacity for technology necessary to meet the existing requirements in the retail food subsector. These sunk costs may be more difficult to recoup to the extent that future demand for these technologies changes as a result of the proposed changes.
If the EPA acquires the additional information discussed here and in the Economic Analysis memo, and it is sufficiently quantitative, rigorous, complete, and relevant to this rulemaking, the information could be used to evaluate the economic impacts of this proposed rulemaking.
While the EPA does not have sufficient information to quantify aspects of the costs and savings of this proposed rule, the EPA did conduct an analysis of updated market transition assumptions and resulting changes to HFC consumption. To derive the results, the EPA re-ran the analysis it originally completed for the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule, adjusting the proposed changes to compliance dates and thresholds in this rule. The EPA is taking comment on whether the updated pathways to transition included in this analysis, discussed in detail in the Economic Analysis memo, are realistic and reflective of current market conditions.
Overall, the preliminary analysis of the EPA's updated assumptions—including later transitions to alternatives or transitions to a higher-GWP alternative—result in an estimated 2.9 percent increase in HFC consumption (
For more detailed information, see the Economic Analysis memo included in the docket for this rulemaking.
In addition to the instances in which the EPA has requested comment above, the EPA is requesting comment on the following:
1. Data regarding which refrigerants are being considered or adopted in new refrigeration equipment for remote condensing units, supermarket systems, and cold storage warehouses.
2. Data about the commercial availability and timeline for adoption of new refrigeration equipment using lower-GWP substitutes in remote condensing units, supermarket systems, and cold storage warehouses as it relates to the second step of the proposed compliance dates which begin in 2032 for these subsectors.
3. Data about costs and savings resulting from the extension of compliance timelines for manufacturers and servicing companies, which are investing in U.S. production of new raw materials, refrigerants, equipment and other technologies, intended to support companies' transition and compliance, across the subsectors in this rule.
4. The EPA requests comment on the proposed removal of the installation compliance date for residential and light commercial AC systems. The EPA is also seeking comment on whether an extension of the installation compliance date by one or more years would be appropriate, noting the Agency does not have information about the extent of equipment that may remain in inventory as of January 1, 2026, as well as any significant reliance interests that should be taken into account in any final action.
As stated in section IV.G., the EPA is aware of recent challenges related to the availability of the refrigerant R-454B, causing potential increases in price, scarcity, and stockpiling. Most U.S. OEMs have chosen to transition to R-454B for use in residential AC systems compliant with the Technology Transitions regulations at 40 CFR part 84, subpart B. As discussed in section IV.G., these OEMs typically purchase refrigerants in larger containers (
The EPA is seeking advance comment on possible actions that the U.S. government could consider. The EPA is interested in information and data that may be used to inform future actions that could be taken by the EPA or by other parts of the federal government to address this issue. The EPA acknowledges that many of the topics listed below could involve regulatory changes for which the statutory authority may be vested in other departments or agencies of the federal government. However, in those cases, the EPA would share information with the relevant departments and agencies. The EPA is also interested in advance comment on any significant reliance interests.
Specifically, the EPA is seeking comments and additional information that could be used to inform potential future actions that include but are not limited to:
• A price cap or other mechanisms on R-454B or other refrigerants experiencing supply chain issues to prevent price gouging;
• A requirement that equipment manufacturers provide the necessary amount of R-454B or other refrigerants experiencing shortages for installation of equipment, particularly when contractors and technicians are unable to acquire the refrigerants readily;
• Options for potential revisions to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) requirements which regulate the types of cylinders that can be used to transport the relevant chemicals (49 CFR parts 106, 107 and 171 to 180);
• Options to increase cylinder production in the United States, including by encouraging new market entrants or additional production lines for current cylinder manufacturers, to ensure a sufficient supply of cylinders for the U.S. market;
• Options for increasing reclamation of R-454B and information concerning how this might comport or conflict with any relevant patent protections; and
• Options that would require compulsory licensing agreements allowing more entities to blend R-454B or other refrigerants experiences shortages at least on a temporary basis.
The EPA is seeking comments to gain public input and additional information on these topics, including their feasibility, relevant authorities, and to what extent any additional actions would be considered beneficial. The EPA reiterates that there is no concrete proposal in this section as it is solely intended to elicit advance comment.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action.
This action is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action. This proposed rule is expected to provide burden reduction by providing industry with additional time and/or flexibility to transition to next-generation technologies, without adversely affecting the phasedown goals under the AIM Act.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because it does not contain any information collection activities.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, EPA concludes that the impact of concern for this proposed rule is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities and that the Agency is certifying that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the proposed rule would relieve regulatory burden on the small entities subject to the rule. EPA is making this determination based on the small business screening analysis that was done for the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule which found that there that there was no significant impact on
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or Tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is narrowly tailored to prevent the stranding of certain air conditioning and heat pump equipment using variable refrigerant flow technology while not affecting the demand for HFCs. Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. Since this action does not concern human health, EPA's Policy on Children's Health also does not apply.
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action applies to certain subsectors that use regulated substances, none of which are used to supply or distribute energy.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Climate change, Emissions, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 84 as follows:
Pub. L. 116-260, Division S, Sec. 103.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(6) Effective 30 days after publication of the final rule, refrigerated transport—intermodal containers with a box temperature of −35 °C (−31 °F) or higher using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential of 700 or greater;
(10) * * *
(v) Chillers subject to paragraphs (iii) or (iv) with a refrigerant charge capacity less than 100 pounds that are used in the manufacture of semiconductors must comply with the restrictions of those paragraphs by January 1, 2030.
(12) * * *
(iv) Products subject to paragraphs (ii) or (iii) with a refrigerant charge capacity less than 100 pounds that are used in the manufacture of semiconductors must comply with the restrictions of those paragraphs by January 1, 2030;
(v) Refrigerated centrifuges and laboratory shaker tables subject to paragraphs (i) or (ii) must comply with the restrictions of those paragraphs by January 1, 2028.
(c) * * *
(1) Effective January 1, 2025, residential or light commercial air-conditioning or heat pump systems using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential of 700 or greater, except for variable refrigerant flow air-conditioning and heat pump systems. New residential and light commercial air-conditioning and heat pump systems using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential of 700 or greater may continue to be installed where all specified components of that system are manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2025.
(5)(i) Effective January 1, 2026, chillers for industrial process refrigeration where the temperature of the fluid exiting the chiller is greater than −30 °C (−22 °F) using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential of 700 or greater;
(ii) Effective January 1, 2030, chillers for industrial process refrigeration with a refrigerant charge capacity less than 100 pounds that are used in the manufacture of semiconductors where the temperature of the fluid exiting the chiller is greater than −30 °C (−22 °F) using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential of 700 or greater;
(6)(i) Effective January 1, 2028, chillers for industrial process refrigeration where the temperature of the fluid exiting the chiller is greater than or equal to −50 °C (−58 °F) and less than or equal to −30 °C (−22 °F) using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential of 700 or greater;
(ii) Effective January 1, 2030, chillers for industrial process refrigeration with a refrigerant charge capacity less than 100 pounds that are used in the manufacture of semiconductors where the temperature of the fluid exiting the chiller is greater than or equal to −50 °C (−58 °F) and less than or equal to −30 °C (−22 °F) using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential of 700 or greater;
(7) Effective 30 days after publication of the final rule, refrigerated transport—intermodal containers with a box temperature of −35 °C (−31 °F) or higher using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential of 700 or greater;
(9)(i) Effective January 1, 2026, cold storage warehouse systems using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential of 700 or greater;
(ii) Effective January 1, 2032, cold storage warehouse systems using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, as follows:
(A) Systems with a refrigerant charge capacity of 200 pounds or greater, that are not the high temperature side of a cascade system, using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential of 150 or greater;
(B) Systems with a refrigerant charge capacity less than 200 pounds using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential of 300 or greater;
(C) Cascade refrigerant systems using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, on the high temperature side of the system with a global warming potential of 300 or greater;
(10) * * *
(v) Systems used in the manufacture of semiconductors with a charge size of less than 100 pounds must comply with the restrictions of paragraphs (ii)-(iv), as applicable, by January 1, 2030.
(11)(i) Effective January 1, 2026, remote condensing units in retail food refrigeration systems using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential of 1,400 or greater;
(ii) Effective January 1, 2032, remote condensing units in retail food refrigeration systems using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, as follows:
(A) Systems with a refrigerant charge capacity of 200 pounds or greater, that are not the high temperature side of a cascade system, using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential of 150 or greater;
(B) Systems with a refrigerant charge capacity less than 200 pounds using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential of 300 or greater;
(C) Cascade refrigerant systems using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, on the high temperature side of the system with a global warming potential of 300 or greater;
(12)(i) Effective January 1, 2027, supermarket systems using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential of 1,400 or greater;
(ii) Effective January 1, 2032, supermarket systems using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, as follows;
(A) Systems with a refrigerant charge capacity of 200 pounds or greater, that are not the high temperature side of a cascade system, using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential of 150 or greater;
(B) Systems with a refrigerant charge capacity less than 200 pounds using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, with a global warming potential of 300 or greater;
(C) Cascade refrigerant systems using a regulated substance, or a blend containing a regulated substance, on the high temperature side of the system with a global warming potential of 300 or greater;
(b) Effective upon the date listed for each subsector in § 84.54(c), or the earliest date should the specified component be used in multiple subsectors, any specified component manufactured or imported and intended for use in those subsectors that uses or is intended to use any regulated substance, or blend containing any regulated substance, regardless of global warming potential, must have a permanent label compliant with paragraph (d) of this section containing the information in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. For specified components that are intended for use with a regulated substance or blends containing a regulated substance that exceed the applicable GWP limit or HFC restriction, the label must state “For servicing existing equipment only” in addition to the other required labeling elements.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of virtual business meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the New Jersey Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will a public meeting via Zoom. The purpose is for the committee to select a topic of study and begin the Proposal Stage.
Monday, October 27, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
Victoria Moreno, Designated Federal Officer, at
Committee meetings are available to the public through a registration link (above). Any interested members of the public may attend committee meetings. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make oral statements as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of each meeting will include a list of persons who are present. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the scheduled meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website,
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of 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 that the Nebraska Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a business meeting and report release virtual event via web conference. The purpose of the meeting on November 4, 2025 at 3:30 p.m. (CST) will be to discuss post-report activities for their report on the Effects of the Covid-19 Pandemic on K-12 Education in the State. The pupose of the virtual event on November 13, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. (CST) is to share a presentation about the recently published report on the Effects of the Covid-19 Pandemic on K-12 Education in the State.
The meeting will be held via Zoom.
Join by Phone (Audio Only): 1-833-435-1820 USA Toll Free; Meeting ID: 160 207 8199.
Join by Phone (Audio Only): 1-833-435-1820 USA Toll Free; Meeting ID: 161 561 4822.
Victoria Moreno, DFO, at
Members of the public may listen to the discussions through the above call-in numbers (audio only) or online registration links (audio/visual). An open comment period at each meeting will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Individuals who are deaf, deafblind, and/or hard of hearing may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meetings. Written comments may be emailed to Victoria Moreno at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Records of the meetings will be available via
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of virtual business meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the South Carolina Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a public meeting via Zoom. The purpose of the meeting is to continue discussing potential civil rights topics of study, selecting a topic of study, and beginning the Proposal Stage.
Friday, October 24, 2025, from 11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom.
Victoria Moreno, Designated Federal Officer, at
This Committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested members of the public may attend this meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make oral comments as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the scheduled meeting. Written comments may be submitted via the following form:
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website,
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to reorganize FTZ 2 to expand the service area under the
On January 28, 2025, the City of San Jose Office of Economic Development, grantee of FTZ 18, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Halo Industries, Inc., within Subzone 18R, in Santa Clara, California.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730-774 (“EAR” or “the Regulations”),
On October 13, 2022, the then-Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement (“Assistant Secretary”) signed an order denying Ural's export privileges for a period of 180 days on the grounds that issuance of the order was necessary in the public interest to prevent an imminent violation of the Regulations. The order was issued
On September 9, 2025, BIS, through OEE, submitted a written request for renewal of the TDO that issued on October 4, 2024. The written request was made more than 20 days before the TDO's scheduled expiration and, given the temporary suspension of international mail service to Russia, OEE has attempted to deliver a copy of the renewal request to Ural by alternative means in accordance with Sections 766.5 and 766.24(d) of the Regulations. No opposition to the renewal of the TDO has been received.
Pursuant to Section 766.24, BIS may issue an order temporarily denying a respondent's export privileges upon a showing that the order is necessary in the public interest to prevent an “imminent violation” of the Regulations, or any order, license or authorization issued thereunder. 15 CFR 766.24(b)(1) and 766.24(d). “A violation may be `imminent' either in time or degree of likelihood.” 15 CFR 766.24(b)(3). BIS may show “either that a violation is about to occur, or that the general circumstances of the matter under investigation or case under criminal or administrative charges demonstrate a likelihood of future violations.”
If BIS believes that renewal of a denial order is necessary in the public interest to prevent an imminent violation, it may file a written request for renewal, with any modifications if appropriate. 15 CFR 766.24(d)(1). The written request, which must be filed no later than 20 days prior to the TDO's expiration,
The U.S. Commerce Department, through BIS, responded to the Russian Federation's (“Russia's”) further invasion of Ukraine by implementing a sweeping series of stringent export controls that severely restrict Russia's access to technologies and other items that it needs to sustain its aggressive military capabilities. These controls primarily target Russia's defense, aerospace, and maritime sectors and are intended to cut off Russia's access to vital technological inputs, atrophy key sectors of its industrial base, and undercut Russia's strategic ambitions to exert influence on the world stage. Effective February 24, 2022, BIS imposed expansive controls on aviation-related (
OEE's request for renewal for a period of one year is based upon the facts underlying the issuance of the initial TDO and the renewal orders subsequently issued in this matter, as well as other evidence developed during this investigation. These facts and evidence demonstrate that Ural has continued, and continues, to act in blatant disregard for U.S. export controls and the terms of previously issued TDOs. Specifically, the initial TDO, issued on October 13, 2022, was based on evidence that Ural engaged in conduct prohibited by the Regulations by operating multiple aircraft subject to the EAR and classified under ECCN 9A991.b on flights into Russia after March 2, 2022 from destinations including, but not limited to, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan; Dushanbe, Tajikistan; Khudzhand, Tajikistan; and Tamchy, Kyrgyzstan, without the required BIS authorization.
As discussed in the October 6, 2023 and October 4, 2024 renewal orders, evidence presented by BIS indicated that, after the initial order issued, Ural continued to operate aircraft subject to the EAR and classified under ECCN 9A991.b on flights both into and out of Russia, in violation of the Regulations and the TDO itself.
Since that time, Ural has continued to engage in conduct prohibited by the applicable TDO and Regulations. In its September 9, 2025 request for renewal of the TDO, BIS submitted evidence that Ural is operating aircraft subject to the EAR and classified under ECCN 9A991.b, both on flights into and within Russia, in violation of the October 4, 2024 TDO and/or the Regulations. Specifically, BIS's evidence and related investigation demonstrates that Ural has continued to operate aircraft subject to the EAR, including, but not limited to, on flights into and out of Russia from/to Dushanbe, Tajikistan, Khujand, Tajikistan, and Osh, Kyrgyzstan as well as domestically within Russia. Information about those flights includes, but is not limited to, the following:
Under the applicable standard set forth in Section 766.24 of the Regulations and my review of the entire record, I find that the evidence presented by BIS convincingly demonstrates that Ural has acted in violation of the Regulations and the TDO; that such violations have been significant and deliberate; and that given the foregoing and the nature of the matters under investigation, there is a likelihood of imminent violations. Moreover, I find that renewal for an extended period is appropriate because Ural has engaged in a pattern of repeated, ongoing and/or continuous apparent violations of the EAR. Therefore, renewal of the TDO for one year is necessary in the public interest to prevent imminent violation of the Regulations and to give notice to companies and individuals in the United States and abroad that they should avoid dealing with Ural, in connection with export and reexport transactions involving items subject to the Regulations and in connection with any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license (except directly related to safety of flight), license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR except directly related to safety of flight and authorized by BIS pursuant to Section 764.3(a)(2) of the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the EAR except directly related to safety of flight and authorized by BIS pursuant to Section 764.3(a)(2) of the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or from any other activity subject to the EAR except directly related to safety of flight and authorized by BIS pursuant to Section 764.3(a)(2) of the Regulations.
Second, that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:
A. Export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or on behalf of Ural any item subject to the EAR except directly related to safety of flight and authorized by BIS pursuant to Section 764.3(a)(2) of the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by Ural of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby Ural acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control except directly related to safety of flight and authorized by BIS pursuant to Section 764.3(a)(2) of the Regulations;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from Ural of any item subject to the EAR that has been exported from the United States except directly related to safety of flight and authorized by BIS pursuant to Section 764.3(a)(2) of the Regulations;
D. Obtain from Ural in the United States any item subject to the EAR with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States except directly related to safety of flight and authorized by BIS pursuant to Section 764.3(a)(2) of the Regulations; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by Ural, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by Ural if such service involves the use of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States except directly related to safety of flight and authorized by BIS pursuant to Section 764.3(a)(2) of the Regulations. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification, or testing.
Third, that, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in section 766.23 of the EAR, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Ural by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order.
In accordance with the provisions of Sections 766.24(e) of the EAR, Ural may, at any time, appeal this Order by filing a full written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(d) of the EAR, BIS may seek renewal of this Order by filing a written request not later than 20 days before the expiration date. A renewal request may be opposed by Ural as provided in Section 766.24(d), by filing a written submission with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement, which must be received not later than seven days before the expiration date of the Order.
A copy of this Order shall be provided to Ural, and shall be published in the
This Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect for one year.
Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and be postmarked on or before October 23, 2025. Address written comments to Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 40005, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Please also email a copy of those comments to
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping (AD) order on certain cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel (cold-drawn mechanical tubing) from India for the period of review (POR) June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2024. Commerce preliminarily finds that Goodluck India Limited (Goodluck) did not make sales of subject merchandise at prices below normal value (NV) during the POR, and Tube Products of India, Ltd., a unit of Tube Investments of India Limited (TII) made sales of subject merchandise at prices below normal NV during the POR. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable October 3, 2025.
Eliza DeLong or Colin Thrasher, 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) 482-3878 or (202) 482-3004, respectively.
On July 29, 2024, Commerce initiated an administrative review of the AD order on cold-drawn mechanical tubing from India,
For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results,
The product covered by the scope of this
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. We calculated export price in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We calculated NV in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
We preliminarily determine that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results to interested parties within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their briefs that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing.
Upon completion of the final results of this administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. If a respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Goodluck or TII for which the company did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate established in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the publication date of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the companies listed in the final results of this review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2) and 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies were provided to producers and exporters of glycine from India, during the period of review January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023. In addition, Commerce is rescinding this review, in part. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable October 3, 2025.
Amber Hodak or Preston Cox, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-8034 respectively.
On June 21, 2019, Commerce published in the
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The merchandise covered by the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if all parties that requested the review withdraw their requests within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. On October 25, 2024, Deer Park Glycine, LCC (the petitioner) withdrew its request for review of 21 companies within the 90-day deadline, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with 751(a)(1)(A) of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy,
The Act and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to apply companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(e)(2) of the Act. However, Commerce normally determines the rates for non-selected companies in reviews in a manner that is consistent with section 705(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation. Section 777A(e)(2) of the Act provides that “the individual countervailable subsidy rates determined under subparagraph (A) shall be used to determine the all-others rate under section 705(c)(5) {of the Act}.” Section 705(c)(5)(A) states that for companies not investigated, in general, we will determine an all-others rate by weight averaging the countervailable subsidy rates established for each of the companies individually investigated, excluding zero and
Accordingly, to determine the rate for companies not selected for individual examination, Commerce's practice is to weight average the net subsidy rates for the selected mandatory respondents, excluding rates that are zero,
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the period, January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Commerce received a timely request from the petitioner to verify the information submitted in this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 307(b)(1)(iv).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs to Commerce no later than seven days after the date of the last verification report issued in this administrative review. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their briefs that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participants are foreign nationals; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing.
Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
For the companies listed in Appendix II for which the review is being rescinded, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue rescission instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount indicated above with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit instructions, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Unless the deadline is extended, we intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include our analysis of the issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results in the
These preliminary results are issued and published pursuant to sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that the producer/exporter subject to this administrative review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR), June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2024. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable October 3, 2025.
Lilit Astvatsatrian, AD/CVD Operations, Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6412.
On June 4, 2021, Commerce published the antidumping duty order on prestressed concrete steel wire strand (PC strand) from Spain in the
On December 9, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative proceeding by 90 days.
A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
The product subject to the
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). We calculated export price and constructed export price in accordance with section 772 of the Act. We calculated NV in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties its calculations performed in these preliminary results, within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. An electronically filed hearing request must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review,
Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by TYCSA for which the company did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation (
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the company listed above will be equal to the weighted average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and therefore,
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2) and 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that chlorinated isocyanurates (chlorinated isos) from the People's Republic of China (China) were sold in the United States at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2024. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable October 3, 2025.
Brian Warnes, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0028.
On July 29, 2024, pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce initiated the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on chlorinated isos from China covering the period June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2024.
For details regarding the events that occurred subsequent to the initiation of this review,
The products covered by the
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because China is a non-market economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, normal value has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
In the
Commerce's policy regarding conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative review.
As stated above, Commerce preliminarily determines that Heze Huayi and Kangtai have established their eligibility for a separate rate, and that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period of June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results to interested parties within five days after the date of publication of this notice, or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to no later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their briefs that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the
Upon issuing the final results of this review, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
For each individually examined respondent in this review whose weighted-average dumping margin in the final results of review is not zero or
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the exporters listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
Unless extended, we intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, within 120 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that Asociación De Cooperativas Argentinas Cooperativa Limitada (ACA), NEXCO S.A. (NEXCO), and certain companies not selected for individual examination for which a review was requested made sales of raw honey from at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR), June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2024. We are also rescinding this review, in part, with respect to eight companies that had no suspended entries. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable October 3, 2025.
Thomas Martin or Zachary Shaykin, 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) 482-3936 or (202) 482-2638, respectively.
On June 10, 2022, Commerce published in the
The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
The merchandise covered by the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), Commerce will rescind an administrative review when there are no entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended.
On September 10, 2025, we notified parties of our intent to rescind this administrative review, in part, with respect to the eight companies listed in Appendix II because there were no suspended entries of subject merchandise produced or exported by these companies during the POR. We invited interested parties to comment.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. We calculated constructed export price for both mandatory respondents in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. We calculated NV in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results,
The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a less-than-fair-value investigation, for guidance when calculating the weighted-average dumping margin for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review.
Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
In this review, we calculated weighted-average dumping margin for ACA and NEXCO that are not zero,
We preliminarily determine that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period of June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed for these preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to not later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings, we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead request that interested parties provide, at the beginning of their briefs, a public executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing.
Upon completion of this administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review and for future deposits of estimated antidumping duties.
For an individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by ACA or NEXCO for which it did not know that the merchandise it sold to an intermediary (
For the companies that were not selected for individual examination, the antidumping duty assessment rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for each companies in the final results of this review.
For the companies listed in Appendix II for which we are rescinding this review, we intend to instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(l)(i).
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for subject merchandise exported by one of the companies listed above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted- average dumping margin established for that exporter in the final results of this review, except if the rate is
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review including the results of its analysis of issues raised in written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.213, and 19 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on prestressed concrete steel wire strand (PC strand) from Malaysia for the period of review (POR) June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2024. Commerce preliminarily finds that Kiswire Sdn. Bhd. (Kiswire) and Wei Dat Steel Wire Sdn. Bhd. (Wei Dat) did not make sales of subject merchandise at prices below normal value (NV) during the POR. Additionally, we are rescinding this review, in part, with respect to one company for which there were no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable October 3, 2025.
Monica Gillis or Peter Shaw, 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) 482-6384 or (202) 482-0697, respectively.
On July 29, 2024, Commerce initiated an administrative review of the AD order on PC strand, in accordance with
For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results,
The product covered by the scope of the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), when there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR subject to the AD order for which liquidation is suspended, Commerce may rescind an administrative review, in whole or only with respect to a particular exporter or producer.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. We calculated export price and NV in accordance with sections 772(a) and 773 of the Act, respectively.
The Act and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely” on the basis of facts available. Where the dumping margin for individually examined respondents are all zero,
In this review, Commerce preliminarily calculated weighted-average dumping margins for both Kiswire and Wei Dat that are zero percent. Therefore, consistent with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results to interested parties within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
On August 21, 2024, Insteel Wire Products Company, Sumiden Wire
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing.
Upon completion of the final results of this administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. If a respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Kiswire or Wei Dat for which these companies did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate established in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation (
For the company for which the review is rescinded, Southern Steel, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on any suspended entries that entered under its CBP case number (
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the publication date of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the companies listed in the final results of this review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to the liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2) and 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On July 1, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated the fourth sunset review of the Antidumping Duty (AD) Order on barium carbonate from the People's Republic of China (China). Because no domestic party responded to the sunset review notice of initiation by the applicable deadline, consistent with section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Tarriff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce is revoking the AD Order on barium carbonate from China.
Applicable October 3, 2025.
David De Falco, Trade Agreements Policy and Negotiations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2178.
On October 1, 2003, Commerce published the
We did not receive a substantive response to the notice of initiation from any domestic interested party, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). has responded to the notice of initiation under section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act. under section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act.
The merchandise covered by this
Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act, “{i}f no interested party responds to the notice of initiation . . . {Commerce} shall issue a final determination, within 90 days after the initiation of a review, revoking the order.” Because no domestic interested parties responded to the notice of initiation in these segments of the proceeding, Commerce is revoking the
Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), Commerce intends to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to terminate the suspension of liquidation of the merchandise subject to this
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(1)(i).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that Nan Ya Plastics Corporation (Nan Ya) made sales of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET film) from Taiwan, at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024. Further, we preliminarily find that Shinkong Materials Technology Corporation (SMTC) and Shinkong Synthetic Fiber Corporation (SSFC), which we consider to be a single entity (SMTC/SSFC), had no reviewable entries during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review.
Applicable October 3, 2025.
Charles DeFilippo, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3797.
On July 1, 2024, Commerce published in the
The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
The merchandise subject to the
On September 27, 2024, Commerce placed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) entry data for U.S. imports of PET film from Taiwan during the POR, which showed that SMTC/SSFC
In the absence of any suspended entries of subject merchandise from SMTC/SSFC during the POR, Commerce hereby notifies all interested parties of its intent to rescind this administrative review with respect to SMTC/SSFC. Commerce is providing interested parties with an opportunity to submit comments on this preliminary decision, including factual information. Comments, including factual information from interested parties, are due to Commerce seven calendar days after the publication date of this notice. Rebuttal comments, including rebuttal factual information, are due seven calendar days thereafter. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.303, all submissions must be filed electronically in ACCESS.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results,
As a result of this review, Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties under administrative protective order for these preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their briefs that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a date and time to be determined.
Unless extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Upon completion of this administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). If Nan Ya's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Nan Ya for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the all-others rate (
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of PET film from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Nan Ya will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain non-refillable steel cylinders (non-refillable cylinders) from the People's Republic China (China), covering the period of review (POR) January 1, 2024, though December 31, 2024, because, as explained below, there are no reviewable suspended entries for the company subject to this review.
Applicable October 3, 2025.
Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4793.
On May 5, 2025, Commerce published in the
On June 25, 2025, Commerce published in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of a CVD order when there are no entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended.
As Commerce has proceeded to a final rescission of this administrative review, no cash deposit rates will change. Accordingly, the current cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries. Countervailing duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this rescission notice in the
This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of the APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with regulations and terms of an APO is a violation, which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(l) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that sales of chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain were not sold in the United States at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2024. Additionally, Commerce is rescinding this administrative review with respect to two companies under review. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable October 3, 2025.
Trinity Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0114.
Based on a timely request for review, and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), Commerce initiated this administrative review of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain covering three companies: 1) Ercros S.A. (Ercros); 2) Industrias Químicas Tamar S.L. (Industrias Quimicas Tamar); and 3) Electroquímica de Hernani, S.A. (EHER).
The products covered by the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of an AD order where it determines that there were no suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Thus, normally, upon completion of an administrative review, suspended entries of subject merchandise are liquidated at the AD assessment rate calculated for the review period.
The entry data that Commerce obtained from CBP showed no suspended entries of subject merchandise from Industrias Quimicas Tamar and EHER. On October 3, 2024, Commerce notified interested parties of our intent to rescind this administrative review with respect to these two companies.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins for the period June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. An electronically filed hearing request must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Upon completion of the administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise that entered the United States during the POR that were produced by the respondent for which it did not know that its merchandise was destined to the United States, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate, if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
For EHER and Industrias Quimicas Tamar for which Commerce is rescinding this review, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the POR in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(l)(i). Commerce intends to issue rescission instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the publication of these preliminary results in the
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the company under review will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised by the parties in the written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India, Indonesia, the People's Republic of China (China), Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of these AD and CVD orders.
Applicable September 23, 2025.
Yang Jin Chun (AD India, Indonesia, China, Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine), Peter Zukowski (CVD India and Indonesia), or Thomas Cloyd (CVD Thailand), AD/CVD Operations, Office I/III/VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5760, (202) 482-0189, or (202) 482-1246, respectively.
On November 29 and December 3, 2001, Commerce published in the
On September 23, 2025, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act, that revocation of the
The products covered by these
As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the
The effective date of the continuation of the
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
These five-year (sunset) reviews and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
The merchandise subject to the
Specifically included within the scope of the
Steel products included in the scope of the
All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of the
The merchandise subject to the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this sunset review, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on calcium hypochlorite from the People's Republic of China (China) would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Applicable October 3, 2025.
David De Falco, Trade Agreements Policy and Negotiations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2178.
On January 30, 2015, Commerce published the AD order on calcium hypochlorite from China.
On July 2, 2025, we received a complete substantive response from IWC within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).
The product covered by this
A complete discussion of all issues raised in these sunset reviews is contained in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the
This notice serves as the only reminder to interested parties subject to an Administrative Protective Order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order 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 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).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In accordance with the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is automatically initiating the five-year reviews (Sunset Reviews) of the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders and suspended investigations listed below. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notice of
Applicable October 3, 2025.
Commerce official identified in the
Commerce's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its
In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset Reviews of the following AD and CVD orders and suspended investigations:
As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Commerce's regulations, Commerce's schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on Commerce's website at the following address:
In accordance with section 782(b) of the Act, any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), Commerce will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation. Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (APO) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the
Domestic interested parties, as defined in sections 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the
If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, Commerce's regulations provide that
In prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their comments, including footnotes. In these sunset reviews, we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their comments, an executive summary for each issue raised in their comments. Further, we request that interested parties limit their public executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the public executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the
This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Monitoring Committee will hold two public meetings.
The first meeting will be held on Friday, November 7, 2025, from 11 a.m.-1 p.m. The second meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 12, 2025, from 9 a.m.-11 a.m. For agenda details, see
The meetings will be held via webinar. Connection information will be posted to the Council's calendar prior to the meeting at
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Monitoring Committee will meet via webinar Friday, November 7, 2025, from 11 a.m. until 1 p.m. and on Wednesday, November 12, 2025, from 9 a.m. until 11 a.m. The purpose of these meetings is for the Monitoring Committee to provide advice regarding the framework adjustment action on Atlantic mackerel that would set 2026-2027 specifications/management measures and may adjust the stock's rebuilding approach.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shelley Spedden, (302) 526-5251 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Joint Service Committee on Military Justice (JSC), Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of availability of proposed amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 ed.), supplementary materials, and notice of public meeting.
The DoD requests comments on proposed changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), United States (2024 ed.) and announces a public meeting to receive comments. The approval authority for the changes to the MCM is the President, while the approval authority for the changes to the supplementary materials is the General Counsel of the DoD.
Comments on the proposed changes must be received no later than November 17, 2025. A public meeting to receive comments concerning the proposed changes will be held on October 7, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. in the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces building, 450 E St. NW, Washington, DC 20442-0001 with an option for remote attendance. Details on remote attendance will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at
The proposed changes to the MCM (2024 ed.) can be reviewed at
•
•
•
Major Douglas L. Germano, U.S. Marine Corps, Executive Secretary, JSC, (703) 693-8901,
These proposed changes have not been coordinated within the DoD under DoD Directive 5500.01, “Preparing, Processing and Coordinating Legislation, Executive Orders, Proclamations, Views Letters, and Testimony,” June 15, 2007, and do not constitute the official position of the DoD, the Military Departments, or any other Government agency. This notice is provided in accordance with DoD Instruction 5500.17, “Role and Responsibilities of the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice (JSC),” February 21, 2018.
The JSC invites members of the public to comment on the proposed changes; such comments should address specific recommended changes and provide supporting rationale.
This notice also sets forth the date, time, and location for a public meeting of the JSC to discuss the proposed changes.
This notice is intended only to improve the internal management of the Federal Government. It is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.
Office of Finance and Operations, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Secretary publishes a list of persons who may be named to serve on the Performance Review Board that oversees the evaluation of performance appraisals for Senior Executive Service members of the Department of Education (Department).
These appointments are effective on October 3, 2025.
Jennifer Geldhof, Director, Executive Resources Division, Office of Human Resources, Office of Finance and Operations, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 2A142, LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4573. Telephone: (202) 580-9669. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
Under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Public Law 95-454 (5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4)), the Department must publish in the
You may also access Department documents published in the
This document of the U.S. Department of Education was signed on September 30, 2025, by Linda E. McMahon, U.S. Secretary of Education. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by the U.S. Department of Education. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned has been authorized to sign the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the U.S. Department of Education. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
l.
m.
n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
o.
p.
q. The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, Tribal members, and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that on September 19, 2025, Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC (FGT), 1300 Main St., Houston, Texas 77002, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.208(f)(2) of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and FGT's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-553-000, for authorization to reduce the permanent Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) of FGT's Madison Lateral. All of the above facilities are located in Lafayette and Madison Counties, Florida (Madison Lateral MAOP Reduction Project). The project will allow FGT to maintain compliance with Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) regulations, and provide more efficient operations, all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions concerning this request should be directed to Iain Russell, Senior Manager of Certificates, Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC, 1300 Main St., Houston, Texas 77210, by phone at (713) 989-2615, or by email at
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the NGA,
Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,
Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before
There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP25-550-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket number CP25-550-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: Iain Russell, Senior Manager of Certificates, 1300 Main St., Houston, Texas 77210-4967, or by email (with a link to the document) at
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a new license to continue to operate and maintain the Penacook Lower Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 3342. The project is located on the Contoocook River in Merrimack County, New Hampshire. Commission staff have prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project.
The EA contains staff analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity to view and/or print the EA via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (
You may also register online at
Any comments should be filed on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 29, 2025.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
For further information, contact Jeanne Edwards at (202) 502-6181 or by email at
On September 29, 2025, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL25-116-000 pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, instituting an investigation to determine whether Oregon Clean Energy, LLC's Rate Schedule is unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential, or otherwise unlawful.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL25-116-000, 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. EL25-116-000 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 (2025), 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
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, GSA invites the public to comment on an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding OMB Control No. 3090-0086, Proposal to Lease Space, GSA Form 1364 and Lessor's Annual Cost Statement, GSA Form 1217.
Submit comments on or before December 2, 2025.
Submit comments on this information collection to
Ms. Amy Lara, 816-589-3783, General Services Acquisition Policy Division, by email at
The information collected is used by contracting officers to evaluate lease proposals and negotiate lease contract terms and conditions in a competitive or non-competitive environment. As this information is still currently required, GSA seeks to have this information collection extended for three years.
Public reporting burden for Proposal to Lease Space, GSA Form 1364 and Lessor's Annual Cost Statement, GSA Form 1217, is estimated to average 3.225 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
The annual reporting burden is estimated as follows:
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary; whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice; request for comments.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve the renewal of an existing information collection.
Submit comments on or before November 3, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Ms. Johnie McDowell, Senior Procurement Analyst, GSA, at telephone 202-718-6112 or via email at
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Clause 52.222-8 Payrolls and Basic Records requires United States construction contracts in excess of $2,000 to submit weekly for each week in which any contract work is performed a copy of all payrolls to the Contracting Officer. The clause allows contractors to submit the required weekly payroll information using the DOL WH-347 form or any other form desired. GSA deviated from the FAR clause to allow these construction contractors to use an electronic means to submit the required weekly payroll data. The proposed revision will increase the efficiency of the weekly payroll certification process for the contractor, GSA and the contractor's employee through the use of an automated process. The current manual process for reviewing weekly certified payroll data requires an enormous amount of labor hours and has a large probability of human error,
GSA bases the following burden estimates for certified payrolls on
A 60-day notice published in the
Office of Government Ethics (OGE).
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members to the OGE Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board.
Shelley K. Finlayson, Chief of Staff and Chief Counsel, U. S. Office of Government Ethics, 250 E Street SW, Suite 750, Washington, DC 20024; Telephone: 202-482-9314; TYY: 800-877-8339; FAX: 202-482-9237.
Federal law at 5 U.S.C. 4314(c) requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management at 5 CFR part 430, subpart C and § 430.310 thereof in particular, one or more SES performance review boards. As a small executive branch agency, OGE has just one board. To ensure an adequate level of staffing and to avoid a constant series of recusals, the designated members of OGE's SES Performance Review Board are being drawn, as in the past, in large measure from the ranks of other executive branch agencies. The board shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of each OGE senior executive's performance by his or her supervisor, along with any recommendations in each instance to the appointing authority relative to the performance of the senior executive. This notice updates the membership of OGE's SES Performance Review Board as it was most recently published at 89 FR 81530 (October 8, 2024).
The following officials have been appointed to the SES Performance Review Board of OGE: Katherine Easmunt, Chief Ethics Counsel, National Credit Union Administration; Stuart Bender, Director, USDA Office of Ethics, U.S. Department of Agriculture; and Natalie A. Bonanno, Associate General Counsel and Chief Ethics Compliance Officer, U.S. Postal Service.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice that appeared in the
Kimberly Lehrfeld, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3137,
In the
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on electrolytic manganese dioxide from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
September 5, 2025.
Laurel Schwartz (202-205-2398), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that on September 30, 2025, the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued an Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337. The ALJ also issued a Recommended Determination on remedy and bonding should a violation be found in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting submissions on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief should the Commission find a violation. This notice is soliciting comments from the public and interested government agencies only.
B. Rashmi Borah, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2518. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that, if the Commission finds a violation, it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States unless, after considering the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers, it finds that such articles should not be excluded from entry. (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1)). A similar provision applies to cease and desist orders. (19 U.S.C. 1337(f)(1)).
The Commission is soliciting submissions on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief should the Commission find a violation, specifically: a limited exclusion order directed to certain photodynamic therapy systems, components thereof, and pharmaceutical products used in combination with the same imported, sold for importation, and/or sold after importation by respondents Biofrontera Inc. of Woburn, Massachusetts; Biofrontera Pharma GmbH of Leverkusen, Germany; Biofrontera Bioscience GmbH of Leverkusen, Germany; and Biofrontera AG of Leverkusen, Germany (collectively, “Respondents”); and cease and desist orders directed to Respondents. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4).
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in this investigation. Accordingly, members of the public and interested government agencies are invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the ALJ's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued in this investigation on September 30, 2025. Comments should address whether issuance of the recommended remedial orders in this investigation, should the Commission find a violation, would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third-party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended orders within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the recommended orders would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on October 30, 2025.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above pursuant to 19 CFR 210.4(f). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1411”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment by marking each document with a header indicating that the document contains confidential information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. Any non-party wishing to submit comments containing confidential information must serve those comments on the parties to the investigation pursuant to the applicable Administrative Protective Order. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with any confidential filing and must be served in accordance with Commission Rule 210.4(f)(7)(ii)(A) (19 CFR 210.4(f)(7)(ii)(A)). All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) by the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection on EDIS.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on September 24, 2025, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on June 24, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on September 22, 2025, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Specifically, Alfamation, an InTest Company, Lissone, ITALY; Analog
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open and OpenGMSL intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On June 30, 2025, OpenGMSL filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
Notice is hereby given that, on August 22, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, 3Pillar Global, Inc., Fairfax, VA; 4Subsea AS, Asker, KINGDOM OF NORWAY; Byanat LLC, Seeb, SULTANATE OF OMAN; Cognite AS, Lysaker, KINGDOM OF NORWAY; Department of National Defence/Ministère de la Défense National, Ottawa, CANADA; GeoMark Research, Ltd., Houston, TX; inerG, Inc., Houston, TX; Kognitus Tecnologia, Consultoria e Serviços Ltda, Rio de Janeiro, FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF BRAZIL; MagicOrange Group Limited, London, UNITED KINGDOM; Marathon Oil Corporation, Houston, TX; Micro Focus International Plc., Berkshire, Octopian Digital, Reston, VA; Oracle Corporation, Rocklin, CA; Phoenix International Systems, Inc., Orange, CA; Professional Petroleum Data Management Association, Calgary, CANADA; Rapita Systems Ltd, York, UNITED KINGDOM; Rubix For Information Technology, Riyadh, KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA; Terma North America Inc., Warner Robins, GA; Versatile Technology, Al Qibla, STATE OF KUWAIT; and Wintershall DEA AG, Hamburg, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and TOG intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 21, 1997, TOG filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on April 16, 2025. A notice was published in the
National Science Foundation.
Notice.
The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to renew this collection. In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are providing opportunity for public comments on this action. After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance of this collection for no longer than 3 years.
Written comments on this notice must be received by December 2, 2025 to be assured consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. Send comments to address below.
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; telephone (703) 292-7556; or send email to
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
Members and the public may attend this meeting virtually via Zoom. Attendance information for the meeting will be forthcoming on the AAAC website:
Registration for the virtual meeting can be accessed via the following link:
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 by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
This Notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
SCCP proposes to amend the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (“Certificate”) and By-Laws (“By-Laws”) of its parent corporation, Nasdaq, Inc. (“NASDAQ” or “Corporation”). The proposed changes would align the Certificate with certain amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law as well as update the By-Laws to reflect recent changes in law and best practices, as discussed below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on SCCP's website at
In its filing with the Commission, SCCP 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. SCCP has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
SCCP is proposing to update the Certificate to reflect certain amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law. SCCP is also proposing to update the By-Laws to reflect recent changes in law and best practices as discussed below.
On April 23, 2025, NASDAQ's Board of Directors approved proposed amendments to the Certificate to provide for limited officer exculpation. On June 11, 2025, NASDAQ held its Annual Meeting of Stockholders, during which its stockholders considered and approved the Certificate amendments. In 2022, Delaware amended the Delaware General Corporation Law to enable companies incorporated in Delaware, such as NASDAQ, to limit the liability of certain of their officers in narrow circumstances. This change was made to address situations where directors would be dismissed from litigation, but the officers, who were not exculpated, had to continue in the litigation to show their actions were not grossly negligent. Generally, this issue arises in the mergers and acquisitions context and often relates to claims that a particular disclosure document was deficient.
The Certificate amendment would exculpate covered officers from monetary liability for breach of the duty of care in a manner similar to that already permitted for directors. However, it would not exculpate such officers in connection with derivative actions. Failing to adopt the Certificate amendment could potentially expose the Company to higher litigation expenses associated with lawsuits, regardless of merit, and/or impact the Company's recruitment and retention of exceptional officer candidates who conclude that the potential exposure to liabilities, costs of defense, and other risks of proceedings exceed the benefits of serving as one of the Company's officers. SCCP notes that amendments providing for officer exculpation are increasingly common for public companies, and that the number of shareholder proposals calling for such amendments—the majority of which have been approved by wide margins—
Under NASDAQ'S Certificate and By-Laws, SCCP must determine whether proposed amendments to the Certificate must be filed with the Commission prior to taking effect. On April 30, 2025, the Board of SCCP determined that the proposed amendments to the Certificate must be filed with the Commission.
To effect the changes discussed above, SCCP proposes to amend Article Sixth of NASDAQ's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation as follows. Paragraph A of Article Sixth of the Certificate provides that “[a] director of Nasdaq shall not be liable to Nasdaq or its stockholders for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty as a director, except to the extent that such exemption from liability or limitation thereof is not permitted under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware as the same exists or may hereafter be amended.” Paragraph B of Article Sixth provides that “[a]ny repeal or modification of paragraph A shall not adversely affect any right or protection of a director of Nasdaq existing hereunder with respect to any act or omission occurring prior to such repeal or modification.” In each of these provisions, SCCP proposes to add, after each instance of the word “director,” the words “or officer.”
SCCP believes the proposed changes to paragraphs A and B of Article Sixth of the Certificate would update the Certificate to reflect amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law
On April 23, 2025, NASDAQ's Board of Directors approved proposed amendments to the By-Laws to reflect changes in law and best practices that have occurred since the most recent amendments to the By-Laws in 2016. As discussed above, under NASDAQ's Certificate and By-Laws, SCCP must determine whether proposed amendments to the By-Laws must be filed with the Commission prior to taking effect. On April 30, 2025, SCCP determined that the proposed amendments to the By-Laws must be filed with the Commission.
To effect the changes discussed above, SCCP proposes to amend the By-Laws as follows.
Section 3.1(b) of Article III of the By-Laws sets forth the requirements for a stockholder's notice to NASDAQ of nominations or other business to be considered at an annual meeting. Section 3.1(b)(i) of the By-Laws currently sets forth the information that a stockholder must provide to NASDAQ about each person whom the stockholder proposes to nominate for election as a director. Section 3.1(b)(i) of the By-Laws provides in part that the Corporation may require any proposed nominee to furnish such other information it may reasonably require to determine the eligibility of such proposed nominee to serve as director of the Corporation or that could be material to a reasonable stockholder's understanding of the independence, or lack of independence, of such proposed nominee.
Section 3.1(b) of the By-Laws sets forth requirements for notices from a Proposing Person
Section 3.1(b)(iii)(I) requires that a Proposing Person describe any significant equity interest or any Synthetic Equity Interest or Short Interest in any principal competitor of the Corporation held by such Proposing Person. SCCP proposes to add a parenthetical stating the term “principal competitor” as used in this subsection shall be “as defined for purposes of Section 8 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914.”
Section 3.1(b)(iii)(J) further requires a Proposing Person to describe any direct or indirect interest of such Proposing Person in any contract with the Corporation, any affiliate of the Corporation, or any principal competitor of the Corporation (including, in any such case, any employment agreement, collective bargaining agreement or consulting agreement.
Section 3.1(b)(iii)(K) further requires Proposing Persons to describe any pending or threatened litigation in which such Proposing Person is a party or material participant involving the Corporation or any of its officers or Directors, or any affiliate of the Corporation.
Section 3.1(b)(iii)(L) of the By-Laws requires Proposing Persons to describe any material transaction occurring, in whole or in part, during the then immediately preceding 12-month period between such Proposing Person, on the one hand, and the Corporation, any affiliate of the Corporation or any principal competitor of the Corporation. Consistent with proposed changes to Section 3.1(iii)(b)(I)-(K), SCCP proposes adding two parentheticals: the first stating that an “affiliate,” as that term is used in this subsection, would be “as reflected on the most recent Form 10-K of the Corporation;”
Section 3.1(b)(iii)(O) requires notice to the Corporation if a Proposing Person intends to act as part of a group to solicit or deliver proxies in support of a proposal or the election of a nominee under specified circumstances. Specifically, Section 3.1(b)(iii)(O) of the By-Laws requires a representation as to whether the Proposing Person intends or is part of a group which intends (1) to deliver a proxy statement and/or form of proxy to holders of at least the percentage of the Corporation's outstanding capital stock required to approve or adopt the proposal or elect the nominee and/or (2) otherwise to solicit
Section 3.1(d) of the By-Laws addresses stockholder notice requirements with respect to nominees for additional directorships if the number of directors to be elected to the Board at an annual meeting is increased effective at the annual meeting.
SCCP believes that the proposed changes to Section 3.1(d) of the By-Laws would align the By-Laws with current practices by safeguarding against the practice of proposing multiple nominees and then deciding—at the last minute—which nominees will actually stand for election. This in turn would spare the Corporation and its stockholders from needless expenditure of time and resources to vet the surplus nominees.
Section 3.2(a) of the By-Laws addresses requirements for requesting a special meeting of the stockholders, including procedures for determining the requisite percentage of stockholders necessary to support a special meeting request. SCCP proposes to amend Section 3.2(a) of the By-Laws to remove the phrase “acting in concert” and substitute therefor the words “knowingly coordinating.”
SCCP further proposes to amend Section 3.2(a) to remove a reference to the binding nature of the Board's determination with respect to whether the special meeting request is in proper form.
Section 3.3 of the By-Laws governs determinations regarding nominations or business eligible to be considered at annual or special meetings. Section 3.3(a) provides, in part, that the chairman of the meeting has the power and duty to determine whether a nomination or business proposed to be brought before the meeting was made or proposed in accordance with the By-Laws and, if not so made or proposed, to declare that such nomination or business shall be disregarded.
SCCP further proposes to amend Section 3.3(a) to clarify that the Corporation may disregard nominees proposed by a stockholder under the Commission's universal proxy rule if the shareholder has failed to comply with that rule. To effect that change, SCCP proposes to insert, at the conclusion of current Section 3.3(a), new text providing as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in these By-Laws, unless otherwise required by law, if any Proposing Person (i) provides notice pursuant to Rule 14a-19(b) promulgated under the Act with respect to any proposed nominee and (ii) subsequently fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 14a-19(a)(2) or Rule 14a-19(a)(3) promulgated under the Act (or fails to timely provide reasonable evidence sufficient to satisfy the Corporation that such Proposing Person has met the requirements of Rule 14a-19(a)(3) promulgated under the Act in accordance with the following sentence), then the nomination of each such proposed nominee shall be disregarded, notwithstanding that proxies or votes in respect of the election of such proposed nominees may have been received by the Corporation (which proxies and votes shall be disregarded). Upon request by the Corporation, if any Proposing Person provides notice pursuant to Rule 14a-19(b) promulgated under the Act, such Proposing Person shall deliver to the Corporation, no later than five (5) business days prior to the applicable meeting, reasonable evidence that it has met the requirements of Rule 14a-19(a)(3) promulgated under the Act.
This proposed change to Section 3.3(a) would align the By-Laws with current practices by specifying that failure to comply with requirements of the Commission's universal proxy rule would constitute grounds for the Corporation to disregard a stockholder's proposed nomination, as well as setting out redress procedures for stockholders seeking to demonstrate that such requirements have been met.
Section 3.4 of the By-Laws governs the conduct of meetings. Section 3.4 provides in part that the date and time of the opening and closing of the polls for each matter to be voted upon at a meeting must be announced at the meeting by the person presiding over the meeting. SCCP proposes to amend Section 3.4 to clarify, consistent with the advance notice provisions in Section 3.1 of the By-Laws, that the person presiding over a meeting must be a chairman of the meeting who shall be an officer or director of the Corporation.
Section 3.6(d) of the By-Laws governs the amount of shares that a stockholder must own to invoke proxy access. Section 3.6(d) provides in part that “[w]hether outstanding shares of the common stock of the Corporation are `owned' for these purposes shall be determined by the Board or any
Finally, Section 3.6(m) provides that Section 3.6 shall be the exclusive method for stockholders to include nominees for director in the Corporation's proxy materials. SCCP proposes to amend Section 3.6(m) to provide an exception for nominees for director in the Corporation's proxy materials submitted pursuant to, and in compliance with, the Commission's universal proxy rule.
Section 4.3 of Article IV of the By-Laws governs qualifications for Directors of the Corporation. This section currently provides in part the Board may include at least one, but not more than two, Issuer Directors. SCCP proposes to amend Section 4.3 to remove limitations on the number Issuers Directors on the Board.
Section 4.9 of the By-Laws governs quorum and voting. Section 4.9 provides in part that, in general, a quorum for the transaction of all business at all meetings of the Board shall consist of a majority of the Board.
Section 4.12 of the By-Laws governs the process for providing notice of any meeting to Directors of the Board as well as related waivers of such notice. SCCP proposes to amend Section 4.12 to remove obsolete references to certain modes of communication (both for transmission and confirmation of receipt) other than facsimile, email, or other means of electronic transmission.
Section 4.13 of the By-Laws governs matters relating to committees of the Board. SCCP proposes to amend Section 4.13(a) of the By-Laws to specify that the Corporation has opted into Section141(c)(2) of Delaware law.
SCCP further proposes to amend Section 4.13 of the By-Laws to remove from Section 4.13(c) limitations on the ability of committees to take certain actions, such as the authorization of preferred stock designations. As a substitute for that limiting language, SCCP proposes to insert new text in Section 4.13(c) of the By-Laws that would conform this subsection with the Delaware General Corporation Law, which removes limitations on the ability of committees to take certain actions, such as the authorization of preferred stock designations, as it relates to the powers of committees of the Board.
SCCP proposes to amend Section 4.13(d)-(g) of the By-Laws to remove all references to limitations on the terms of committee members.
SCCP further proposes to amend Section 4.13(g) of the By-Laws to delete language specifying the Chair of the Audit Committee must be a Public Director.
SCCP proposes to amend Section 4.13(h)(ii) of the By-Laws to remove language providing that a “majority vote of” the Board is required to remove a member of the Nominating & Governance Committee.
Section 4.13(j) of the By-Laws provides that, in general, a majority of a committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
Article VII of the By-Laws governs matters relating to the officers, agents, and employees of the Corporation. SCCP proposes to amend certain provisions in Article VII to delete references to a corporate structure that no longer reflects the structure at NASDAQ. Specifically, Article VII generally envisions a corporate structure where a President is a director and/or has executive authority over the entire company. SCCP proposes to amend certain sections of Article VII to delete references to such a structure and replace them with language suited for a corporate structure with multiple presidents, such as the current structure of NASDAQ. To effect these changes, SCCP proposes to amend several provisions of Article VII as follows.
Section 7.1 of the By-Laws governs matters relating to the principal officers of the Corporation. Section 7.1 specifies the principal officers to be elected by the Board, including, among others, a Chair and a President. SCCP proposes to amend Section 7.1 to provide that the principal officers to be elected by the Board may—rather than must—include the roles set out in Section 7.1. SCCP further proposes to amend Section 7.1 to provide that one or more Presidents, rather than only a President, may elected by the Board, among other principal officers. Section 7.1 further provides that in part that one person may not hold the offices and perform the duties of both President and Vice President or of President and Secretary. SCCP proposes to amend Section 7.1 of the By-Laws to delete references to “President and Vice President or of President” and substitute therefor the words “Chief Executive Officer.”
For the reasons discussed above in connection with Article VII of the By-Laws more broadly, SCCP further proposes to amend Section 7.3 (Subordinate Officers, Agents, or Employees), Section 7.5 (Resignation and Removal of Officers), Section 7.9 (President), Section 7.10 (Vice President), Section 7.11 (Secretary), and Section 7.13 (Treasurer) of the By-Laws as follows.
First, SCCP proposes to delete from Sections 7.3 and 7.5(a) of the By-Laws the following: “, the President.”
With respect to Section 7.9 of the By-Laws, SCCP proposes to (1) delete the words “[t]he President shall, in the absence of the Chair of the Board and the Chief Executive Officer, preside at all meetings of the Board and stockholders at which the President is present. The President shall have general supervision over the business and affairs of the Corporation,” substituting therefor the words “The Board or the Chief Executive Officer may appoint one or more Presidents and each.” SCCP would further amend Section 7.9 to (1) delete from its final sentence the word “The” replacing it with “Each”; (2) delete also from that final sentence the word “the” and replacing it with “such”; and (3) insert, also in that final sentence and immediately after “the Board” the words “or the Chief Executive Officer.”
With respect to Section 7.11 and Section 7.13 of the By-Laws, SCCP proposes to amend these two sections to delete, from their respective final sentences, the words “or the President,” substituting therefore the words “or any other person delegated such power by the Board or Chief Executive Officer.” Consistent with similarly proposed changes to Article VII of the By-Laws, SCCP believes that the proposed changes to Sections 7.11 and Section 7.13 of the By-Laws would remove impediments to the proper administration of the By-Laws as they would more closely align such By-Laws with the current corporate structure at NASDAQ as well as provide the Corporation with greater flexibility in the application of these provisions.
SCCP believes the proposed changes to these provisions of Article VII of the By-Laws would enhance the transparency of and facilitate the application of the By-Laws because they replace obsolete or inaccurate textual references to an outdated corporate structure with updated text designed to more closely reflect the current structure of NASDAQ.
Section 7.10 of the By-Laws governs the selection of Vice Presidents. SCCP proposes to amend Section 7.10 of the By-Laws to provide greater clarity with respect to the duties of as well as the process for selecting Vice Presidents of the Corporation. Specifically, SCCP proposes to amend Section 7.10 of the By-Laws to provide that the Board, the Chief Executive Officer or any other person delegated such power by the Board or Chief Executive Officer, may appoint one or more Vice Presidents. SCCP further proposes to clarify that, any Vice President may have such additional designations in such Vice President's title as the Board, the Chief Executive Officer, or the authorized person appointing such Vice President may determine.
Section 8.1 of Article VIII of the By-Laws governs indemnification of Directors, officers, employees, and agents of the Corporation. Subsection (j) of Section 8.1 addresses circumstances in which a claim for indemnification or advancement of expenses is not paid in full within 60 days after a written claim under this provision has been received by the Corporation. SCCP proposes to amend Section 8.1(j) to clarify that the Corporation will not be required to pay claims or expenses under this provision if prohibited by law. To effect this change, SCCP proposes to insert within the first full sentence and immediately after “[the indemnified person] shall be entitled to be paid the expense of prosecuting such claim” the words “to the fullest extent permitted by law.”
Section 9.2(a) of Article IX of the By-Laws governs requirements for signatures on stock certificates of the Corporation. Section 9.2(a) provides in part that shares of capital stock of the Corporation represented by certificates shall be signed in the name of the Corporation by two officers, with one being the Chair of the Board, the Chief Executive Officer, the President, or a Vice President, and the other being the Secretary, the Treasurer, or such other officer that may be authorized by the Board.
SCCP proposes to amend Section 9.2(a) to broaden the scope of officers authorized to sign stock certificates. Specifically, SCCP proposes to provide that Shares of capital stock of the Corporation represented by certificates shall be signed in the name of the Corporation by two authorized officers which shall include, without limitation, the Chair of the Board, the Chief Executive Officer, the President, any Vice President, the Secretary, and the Treasurer.
Section 9.3 of the By-Laws governs matters relating to holders of record as shown on the stock ledger of the
Section 9.6 of the By-Laws governs matters relating to lost, stolen, destroyed, and mutilated certificates for shares of stock of the Corporation. Section 9.6 sets out procedures for addressing the issuance of a new certificate or uncertified shares in the event that any certificate for stock of the Corporation becomes mutilated, lost, stolen, or destroyed. SCCP proposes to amend Section 9.6 to delete language providing that the Board or a committee thereof is authorized to take action to address each such instance of lost, stolen, destroyed, or mutilated certificates and in its place provide that the Corporation (rather than solely the Board) shall have the authority to do so.
Section 10.4 of Article X of the By-Laws governs procedures relating to the execution of instruments, contracts, and the like. SCCP proposes to delete Section 10.4 in its entirety and provide new text to better align the provisions of this section with Nasdaq's policies and procedures on signature authority. Specifically, SCCP proposes to provide that, except as otherwise provided by law, all contracts and other documents requiring signature entered into by or on behalf of the Corporation, including, without limitation, all (i) checks, drafts, bills of exchange, notes, or other obligations or orders for the payment of money, (ii) deeds, bonds, mortgages, contracts, and other obligations or instruments, and (iii) applications, instruments, and papers required by any department of the United States Government or by any state, county, municipal, or other governmental authority, shall, in each case, be executed by such officer(s), employee(s), agent(s), or other person(s) as the Board, a duly authorized committee thereof, or the Chief Executive Officer may designate from time to time. As further proposed, the authority to execute any contract or document in the name and on behalf of the Corporation granted in accordance with this Section may (1) be general or confined to specific instances, (2) be designated by name, title, or role, (3) include the power to delegate signature authority further to one or more other persons, whether by name, title, or role, to the extent authorized by the Board, a duly authorized committee thereof, or the Chief Executive Officer, and (4) be revoked at any time by the Board, any committee thereof, or the Chief Executive Officer.
Section 10.5 of the By-Laws governs the form of records of the Corporation. SCCP proposes to delete Section 10.5 in its entirety and insert in its place new text that would conform this provision with the updated Delaware statute governing signature authority. Specifically, SCCP proposes to provide that any records administered by or on behalf of the Corporation in the regular course of its business, including its stock ledger, books of account, and minute books, may be kept on, or by means of, or be in the form of, any information storage device, method, or one or more electronic networks or databases (including one or more distributed electronic networks or databases), provided that the records so kept can be converted into clearly legible paper form within a reasonable time and otherwise comply with applicable law.
Section 11.4 of Article XI of the By-Laws addresses the adoption of emergency by-laws. SCCP proposes to update Section 11.4 to reflect amendments to the emergency by-law provision of the Delaware General Corporation Law. Specifically, SCCP proposes to provide that as provided in Section 11.4, the Board may adopt emergency by-laws which shall be operative during any emergency resulting from “any emergency resulting from an attack on the United States or on a locality in which the Corporation conducts its business or customarily holds meetings of its Board of Directors or its stockholders, or during any nuclear or atomic disaster or during the existence of any catastrophe, including, but not limited to, an epidemic or pandemic, and a declaration of a national emergency by the United States government, or other similar emergency condition, irrespective of whether a quorum of the Board of Directors or a standing committee thereof can be readily convened for action.”
SCCP proposes to adopt new language to provide the By-Laws with a customary forum selection provision. To effect this change, SCCP proposes to add a new Article XIII titled “Forum Selection” providing as follows:
Unless the Corporation consents in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, (A) (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of the Corporation, (ii) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any current or former director, officer, other employee or stockholder of the Corporation to the Corporation or the Corporation's stockholders, (iii) any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of Delaware law, the Restated Certificate of Incorporation or these By-Laws (as either may be amended or restated) or as to which Delaware law confers jurisdiction on the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware or (iv) any action asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine of the law of the State of Delaware shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be exclusively brought in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware or, if such court does not have subject matter jurisdiction thereof, the federal district court of the State of Delaware; and (B) the federal district courts of the United States shall be the exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Notwithstanding the foregoing, This Section 13.1 shall not apply to claims seeking to enforce any liability or duty created by the Act. To the fullest extent permitted by law, any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring or holding any interest in shares of capital stock of the Corporation shall be deemed to have notice of and consented to the provisions of this Section 13.1.
SCCP believes that this proposed addition of Article XIII to the By-Laws is appropriate as it would provide the Corporation as well as litigants with greater certainty with respect to the applicable judicial forum for addressing claims or actions involving the Corporation.
The remaining proposed amendments to the By-Laws are non-substantive changes designed to simplify and streamline the document. Specifically, SCCP proposes to (1) amend Article I(k) and Article I(m) to correct typographical errors by deleting a period and substituting in its place a semicolon and by inserting a missing parenthesis respectively; (2) make non-substantive clarifying changes to subparagraph (p) of Article I; (3) amend Article I(s) to correct a typographical error by removing a period after “and”; and (4) delete from Section 3.1(a) the term “shareholder” and substitute therefor the word “stockholder.” the latter which more closely reflects established terminology of the By-Laws. SCCP believes the proposed non-substantive changes are either administrative or clarifying in nature, and that, as such, they are in the public interest as they are designed to avoid confusion with respect to the operation of the By-Laws thus facilitating their use.
SCCP believes that the proposed changes are consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
SCCP believes the proposed changes to paragraphs A and B of Article Sixth of the Certificate are in the public interest as they would update the Certificate, consistent with developments in Delaware General Corporation Law that enable companies incorporated in Delaware, such as NASDAQ, to limit the liability of certain of their officers in narrow circumstances, as discussed above. SCCP notes that amendments providing for officer exculpation are increasingly common for public companies, and that the number of shareholder proposals calling for such amendments have continued to increase since 2022 when the Delaware law was passed.
SCCP believes that changes proposed for Article III of the By-Laws are in the public interest as they would update the By-Laws and conform them to current practices and developments in the law with respect to corporate matters such as procedures governing the annual and special meetings of stockholders, the conduct of such meetings, and the invocation of proxy access. The proposed changes to Article IV of the By-Laws are either clarifying in nature or otherwise purport to refine governance practices by providing the Corporation with greater flexibility with respect to such matters as the qualifications of Directors, quorum and voting, or otherwise update such provisions to make them more consistent with current governance practices as well as the policies and procedures of NASDAQ. SCCP believes that proposed changes to Articles VII through XIII are in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors as they are designed to accomplish several objectives, including updating the By-Laws to conform with current practices or recent developments in Delaware General Corporation Law, aligning the By-Laws with current NASDAQ policies and procedures, and enhancing the clarity of the By-Laws thus facilitating their proper application and use. Finally, the remaining changes can be characterized as non-substantive, because they are designed to either correct typographical errors, conform NASDAQ governance documents to terminology in the By-Laws, remove obsolete text, or otherwise make non-substantive revisions to the By-Laws to make them clearer and easier to use.
Because the proposed rule change relates to the governance of NASDAQ and not to the operations of SCCP, SCCP
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.4(a) to change the minimum increment for all series of options on the Cboe Mini Bitcoin U.S. ETF Index (“MBTX options”) to $0.01 for series trading lower than $3.00 and $0.05 for series trading at $3.00 or higher. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.4(a) to change the minimum increment for all series of options on the Cboe Mini Bitcoin U.S. ETF Index (“MBTX options”) to $0.01 for series trading lower than $3.00 and $0.05 for series trading at $3.00 or higher. The Exchange believes market demand (including by retail investors, who generally prefer lower trading increments) supports a lower trading increment for MBTX options. Options overlying the components of the Cboe Mini Bitcoin U.S. ETF Index (and the underlying exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”)
With regard to the impact of this proposed rule change on system capacity, the Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the Options Price Reporting Authority have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposal. The Exchange does not believe any potential
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will protect investors and the public interest. As discussed above, the Exchange believes market demand (including by retail investors, who generally prefer lower trading increments) supports a lower trading increment for MBTX options. Options overlying the components of the Cboe Magnificent 10 Index are among the most actively traded options (as are the underlying stocks), the most actively traded of which (iShares Bitcoin Trust (“IBIT”)) is eligible for a lower trading increment, supporting the view that there will be market demand for the proposed trading increments for MBTX options. The proposed rule change will permit more granular pricing in MBTX options, which may lead to narrower bid-ask spreads for these options and increase the possible number of price points available to investors for these series, which ultimately increases liquidity to the benefit of all investors. The Exchange believes tighter spreads will also increase order flow in MBTX options, which additional liquidity ultimately benefits all investors. Further, finer increments also permit more precise pricing in line with the theoretical value of these options.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it will permit MBTX options to trade at the same level of granularity as permitted for IBIT options, which is the primary competitive product for MBTX options.
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 proposed rule change will not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate, because all Trading Permit Holders will be able to trade MBTX options in the proposed minimum trading increments. The proposed rule change will not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate, because it will permit MBTX options to have pricing consistent with the pricing of its largest competitor product (IBIT options), which is part of the Penny Interval Program and may currently trade in increments of $0.01 or $0.05. Additionally, the proposed rule change to permit MBTX options to be listed in penny and nickel increments may relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition, as it will allow market participants to trade these options at the same level of granularity as permitted for competitor products, as discussed above. The Exchange also expects the more granular pricing to lead to narrowing of the bid-ask spread for these options, which the Exchange believes will increase order flow and price competition in MBTX options.
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”),
BSECC proposes to amend the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (“Certificate”) and By-Laws (“By-Laws”) of its parent corporation, Nasdaq, Inc. (“NASDAQ” or “Corporation”). The proposed changes would align the Certificate with certain amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law as well as update the By-Laws to reflect recent changes in law and best practices, as discussed below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on BSECC's website at
In its filing with the Commission, BSECC 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. BSECC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
BSECC is proposing to update the Certificate to reflect certain amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law. BSECC is also proposing to update the By-Laws to reflect recent changes in law and best practices as discussed below.
On April 23, 2025, NASDAQ's Board of Directors approved proposed amendments to the Certificate to provide for limited officer exculpation. On June 11, 2025, NASDAQ held its Annual Meeting of Stockholders, during which its stockholders considered and approved the Certificate amendments. In 2022, Delaware amended the Delaware General Corporation Law to enable companies incorporated in Delaware, such as NASDAQ, to limit the liability of certain of their officers in narrow circumstances. This change was made to address situations where directors would be dismissed from litigation, but the officers, who were not exculpated, had to continue in the litigation to show their actions were not grossly negligent. Generally, this issue arises in the mergers and acquisitions context and often relates to claims that a particular disclosure document was deficient.
The Certificate amendment would exculpate covered officers from monetary liability for breach of the duty of care in a manner similar to that already permitted for directors. However, it would not exculpate such officers in connection with derivative actions. Failing to adopt the Certificate amendment could potentially expose the Company to higher litigation expenses associated with lawsuits, regardless of merit, and/or impact the Company's recruitment and retention of exceptional officer candidates who conclude that the potential exposure to liabilities, costs of defense, and other risks of proceedings exceed the benefits of serving as one of the Company's officers. BSECC notes that amendments providing for officer exculpation are increasingly common for public companies, and that the number of shareholder proposals calling for such amendments—the majority of which have been approved by wide margins—have continued to increase since 2022 when the Delaware law was passed.
Under NASDAQ'S Certificate and By-Laws, BSECC must determine whether proposed amendments to the Certificate must be filed with the Commission prior to taking effect. On April 30, 2025, the Board of BSECC determined that the proposed amendments to the Certificate must be filed with the Commission.
To effect the changes discussed above, BSECC proposes to amend Article Sixth of NASDAQ's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation as follows. Paragraph A of Article Sixth of the Certificate provides that “[a] director of Nasdaq shall not be liable to Nasdaq or its stockholders for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty as a
BSECC believes the proposed changes to paragraphs A and B of Article Sixth of the Certificate would update the Certificate to reflect amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law
On April 23, 2025, NASDAQ's Board of Directors approved proposed amendments to the By-Laws to reflect changes in law and best practices that have occurred since the most recent amendments to the By-Laws in 2016. As discussed above, under NASDAQ's Certificate and By-Laws, BSECC must determine whether proposed amendments to the By-Laws must be filed with the Commission prior to taking effect. On April 30, 2025, BSECC determined that the proposed amendments to the By-Laws must be filed with the Commission.
To effect the changes discussed above, BSECC proposes to amend the By-Laws as follows.
Section 3.1(b) of Article III of the By-Laws sets forth the requirements for a stockholder's notice to NASDAQ of nominations or other business to be considered at an annual meeting. Section 3.1(b)(i) of the By-Laws currently sets forth the information that a stockholder must provide to NASDAQ about each person whom the stockholder proposes to nominate for election as a director. Section 3.1(b)(i) of the By-Laws provides in part that the Corporation may require any proposed nominee to furnish such other information it may reasonably require to determine the eligibility of such proposed nominee to serve as director of the Corporation or that could be material to a reasonable stockholder's understanding of the independence, or lack of independence, of such proposed nominee.
Section 3.1(b) of the By-Laws sets forth requirements for notices from a Proposing Person
Section 3.1(b)(iii)(I) requires that a Proposing Person describe any significant equity interest or any Synthetic Equity Interest or Short Interest in any principal competitor of the Corporation held by such Proposing Person. BSECC proposes to add a parenthetical stating the term “principal
Section 3.1(b)(iii)(J) further requires a Proposing Person to describe any direct or indirect interest of such Proposing Person in any contract with the Corporation, any affiliate of the Corporation, or any principal competitor of the Corporation (including, in any such case, any employment agreement, collective bargaining agreement or consulting agreement.
Section 3.1(b)(iii)(K) further requires Proposing Persons to describe any pending or threatened litigation in which such Proposing Person is a party or material participant involving the Corporation or any of its officers or Directors, or any affiliate of the Corporation.
Section 3.1(b)(iii)(L) of the By-Laws requires Proposing Persons to describe any material transaction occurring, in whole or in part, during the then immediately preceding 12-month period between such Proposing Person, on the one hand, and the Corporation, any affiliate of the Corporation or any principal competitor of the Corporation. Consistent with proposed changes to Section 3.1(iii)(b)(I)-(K), BSECC proposes adding two parentheticals: the first stating that an “affiliate,” as that term is used in this subsection, would be “as reflected on the most recent Form 10-K of the Corporation;”
Section 3.1(b)(iii)(O) requires notice to the Corporation if a Proposing Person intends to act as part of a group to solicit or deliver proxies in support of a proposal or the election of a nominee under specified circumstances. Specifically, Section 3.1(b)(iii)(O) of the By-Laws requires a representation as to whether the Proposing Person intends or is part of a group which intends (1) to deliver a proxy statement and/or form of proxy to holders of at least the percentage of the Corporation's outstanding capital stock required to approve or adopt the proposal or elect the nominee and/or (2) otherwise to solicit
Section 3.1(d) of the By-Laws addresses stockholder notice requirements with respect to nominees for additional directorships if the number of directors to be elected to the Board at an annual meeting is increased effective at the annual meeting.
BSECC believes that the proposed changes to Section 3.1(d) of the By-Laws would align the By-Laws with current practices by safeguarding against the practice of proposing multiple nominees and then deciding—at the last minute—which nominees will actually stand for election. This in turn would spare the Corporation and its stockholders from needless expenditure of time and resources to vet the surplus nominees.
Section 3.2(a) of the By-Laws addresses requirements for requesting a special meeting of the stockholders, including procedures for determining the requisite percentage of stockholders necessary to support a special meeting request. BSECC proposes to amend Section 3.2(a) of the By-Laws to remove
BSECC further proposes to amend Section 3.2(a) to remove a reference to the binding nature of the Board's determination with respect to whether the special meeting request is in proper form.
Section 3.3 of the By-Laws governs determinations regarding nominations or business eligible to be considered at annual or special meetings. Section 3.3(a) provides, in part, that the chairman of the meeting has the power and duty to determine whether a nomination or business proposed to be brought before the meeting was made or proposed in accordance with the By-Laws and, if not so made or proposed, to declare that such nomination or business shall be disregarded.
BSECC further proposes to amend Section 3.3(a) to clarify that the Corporation may disregard nominees proposed by a stockholder under the Commission's universal proxy rule if the shareholder has failed to comply with that rule. To effect that change, BSECC proposes to insert, at the conclusion of current Section 3.3(a), new text providing as follows:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in these By-Laws, unless otherwise required by law, if any Proposing Person (i) provides notice pursuant to Rule 14a-19(b) promulgated under the Act with respect to any proposed nominee and (ii) subsequently fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 14a-19(a)(2) or Rule 14a-19(a)(3) promulgated under the Act (or fails to timely provide reasonable evidence sufficient to satisfy the Corporation that such Proposing Person has met the requirements of Rule 14a-19(a)(3) promulgated under the Act in accordance with the following sentence), then the nomination of each such proposed nominee shall be disregarded, notwithstanding that proxies or votes in respect of the election of such proposed nominees may have been received by the Corporation (which proxies and votes shall be disregarded). Upon request by the Corporation, if any Proposing Person provides notice pursuant to Rule 14a-19(b) promulgated under the Act, such Proposing Person shall deliver to the Corporation, no later than five (5) business days prior to the applicable meeting, reasonable evidence that it has met the requirements of Rule 14a-19(a)(3) promulgated under the Act.
This proposed change to Section 3.3(a) would align the By-Laws with current practices by specifying that failure to comply with requirements of the Commission's universal proxy rule would constitute grounds for the Corporation to disregard a stockholder's proposed nomination, as well as setting out redress procedures for stockholders seeking to demonstrate that such requirements have been met.
Section 3.4 of the By-Laws governs the conduct of meetings. Section 3.4 provides in part that the date and time of the opening and closing of the polls for each matter to be voted upon at a meeting must be announced at the meeting by the person presiding over the meeting. BSECC proposes to amend Section 3.4 to clarify, consistent with the advance notice provisions in Section 3.1 of the By-Laws, that the person presiding over a meeting must be a chairman of the meeting who shall be an officer or director of the Corporation.
Section 3.6(d) of the By-Laws governs the amount of shares that a stockholder must own to invoke proxy access. Section 3.6(d) provides in part that “[w]hether outstanding shares of the common stock of the Corporation are `owned' for these purposes shall be determined by the Board or any committee thereof, in each case, in its sole discretion.”
Finally, Section 3.6(m) provides that Section 3.6 shall be the exclusive method for stockholders to include nominees for director in the Corporation's proxy materials. BSECC proposes to amend Section 3.6(m) to provide an exception for nominees for director in the Corporation's proxy materials submitted pursuant to, and in compliance with, the Commission's universal proxy rule.
Section 4.3 of Article IV of the By-Laws governs qualifications for Directors of the Corporation. This section currently provides in part the Board may include at least one, but not more than two, Issuer Directors. BSECC proposes to amend Section 4.3 to remove limitations on the number Issuers Directors on the Board.
Section 4.9 of the By-Laws governs quorum and voting. Section 4.9 provides in part that, in general, a quorum for the transaction of all business at all meetings of the Board shall consist of a majority of the Board.
Section 4.12 of the By-Laws governs the process for providing notice of any meeting to Directors of the Board as well as related waivers of such notice. BSECC proposes to amend Section 4.12 to remove obsolete references to certain modes of communication (both for transmission and confirmation of receipt) other than facsimile, email, or other means of electronic transmission.
Section 4.13 of the By-Laws governs matters relating to committees of the Board. BSECC proposes to amend Section 4.13(a) of the By-Laws to specify that the Corporation has opted into Section 141(c)(2) of Delaware law.
BSECC further proposes to amend Section 4.13 of the By-Laws to remove from Section 4.13(c) limitations on the ability of committees to take certain actions, such as the authorization of preferred stock designations. As a substitute for that limiting language, BSECC proposes to insert new text in Section 4.13(c) of the By-Laws that would conform this subsection with the Delaware General Corporation Law, which removes limitations on the ability of committees to take certain actions, such as the authorization of preferred stock designations, as it relates to the powers of committees of the Board.
BSECC proposes to amend Section 4.13(d)-(g) of the By-Laws to remove all references to limitations on the terms of committee members.
BSECC further proposes to amend Section 4.13(g) of the By-Laws to delete language specifying the Chair of the Audit Committee must be a Public Director.
BSECC proposes to amend Section 4.13(h)(ii) of the By-Laws to remove language providing that a “majority vote of” the Board is required to remove a member of the Nominating & Governance Committee.
Section 4.13(j) of the By-Laws provides that, in general, a majority of a committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
Article VII of the By-Laws governs matters relating to the officers, agents, and employees of the Corporation. BSECC proposes to amend certain provisions in Article VII to delete references to a corporate structure that no longer reflects the structure at NASDAQ. Specifically, Article VII generally envisions a corporate structure where a President is a director and/or has executive authority over the entire company. BSECC proposes to amend certain sections of Article VII to delete references to such a structure and replace them with language suited for a corporate structure with multiple presidents, such as the current structure of NASDAQ. To effect these changes, BSECC proposes to amend several provisions of Article VII as follows.
Section 7.1 of the By-Laws governs matters relating to the principal officers of the Corporation. Section 7.1 specifies the principal officers to be elected by the Board, including, among others, a Chair, and a President. BSECC proposes to amend Section 7.1 to provide that the principal officers to be elected by the Board may—rather than must—include the roles set out in Section 7.1. BSECC further proposes to amend Section 7.1 to provide that one or more Presidents, rather than only a President, may elected by the Board, among other principal officers. Section 7.1 further provides that in part that one person may not hold the offices and perform the duties of both President and Vice President or of President and Secretary. BSECC proposes to amend Section 7.1 of the By-Laws to delete references to “President and Vice President or of President” and substitute therefor the words “Chief Executive Officer.”
For the reasons discussed above in connection with Article VII of the By-Laws more broadly, BSECC further proposes to amend Section 7.3 (Subordinate Officers, Agents, or Employees), Section 7.5 (Resignation and Removal of Officers), Section 7.9 (President), Section 7.10 (Vice President), Section 7.11 (Secretary), and Section 7.13 (Treasurer) of the By-Laws as follows.
First, BSECC proposes to delete from Sections 7.3 and 7.5(a) of the By-Laws the following: “, the President.”
With respect to Section 7.9 of the By-Laws, BSECC proposes to (1) delete the words “[t]he President shall, in the absence of the Chair of the Board and the Chief Executive Officer, preside at all meetings of the Board and stockholders at which the President is present. The President shall have general supervision over the business and affairs of the Corporation,” substituting therefor the words “The Board or the Chief Executive Officer may appoint one or more Presidents and each.” BSECC would further amend Section 7.9 to (1) delete from its final sentence the word “The” replacing it with “Each”; (2) delete also from that final sentence the word “the” and replacing it with “such”; and (3) insert, also in that final sentence and immediately after “the Board” the words “or the Chief Executive Officer.”
With respect to Section 7.11 and Section 7.13 of the By-Laws, BSECC proposes to amend these two sections to delete, from their respective final sentences, the words “or the President,” substituting therefore the words “or any other person delegated such power by the Board or Chief Executive Officer.” Consistent with similarly proposed changes to Article VII of the By-Laws, BSECC believes that the proposed changes to Sections 7.11 and Section 7.13 of the By-Laws would remove impediments to the proper administration of the By-Laws as they would more closely align such By-Laws with the current corporate structure at NASDAQ as well as provide the Corporation with greater flexibility in the application of these provisions.
BSECC believes the proposed changes to these provisions of Article VII of the By-Laws would enhance the transparency of and facilitate the application of the By-Laws because they replace obsolete or inaccurate textual references to an outdated corporate structure with updated text designed to more closely reflect the current structure of NASDAQ.
Section 7.10 of the By-Laws governs the selection of Vice Presidents. BSECC proposes to amend Section 7.10 of the By-Laws to provide greater clarity with respect to the duties of as well as the process for selecting Vice Presidents of the Corporation. Specifically, BSECC proposes to amend Section 7.10 of the By-Laws to provide that the Board, the Chief Executive Officer, or any other person delegated such power by the Board or Chief Executive Officer, may appoint one or more Vice Presidents. BSECC further proposes to clarify that, any Vice President may have such additional designations in such Vice President's title as the Board, the Chief Executive Officer, or the authorized person appointing such Vice President may determine.
Section 8.1 of Article VIII of the By-Laws governs indemnification of Directors, officers, employees, and agents of the Corporation. Subsection (j) of Section 8.1 addresses circumstances in which a claim for indemnification or advancement of expenses is not paid in full within 60 days after a written claim under this provision has been received by the Corporation. BSECC proposes to amend Section 8.1(j) to clarify that the Corporation will not be required to pay claims or expenses under this provision if prohibited by law. To effect this change, BSECC proposes to insert within the first full sentence and immediately after “[the indemnified person] shall be entitled to be paid the expense of prosecuting such claim” the words “to the fullest extent permitted by law.”
Section 9.2(a) of Article IX of the By-Laws governs requirements for signatures on stock certificates of the Corporation. Section 9.2(a) provides in part that shares of capital stock of the Corporation represented by certificates shall be signed in the name of the Corporation by two officers, with one being the Chair of the Board, the Chief Executive Officer, the President, or a Vice President, and the other being the Secretary, the Treasurer, or such other officer that may be authorized by the Board.
BSECC proposes to amend Section 9.2(a) to broaden the scope of officers authorized to sign stock certificates. Specifically, BSECC proposes to provide that Shares of capital stock of the Corporation represented by certificates shall be signed in the name of the Corporation by two authorized officers which shall include, without limitation, the Chair of the Board, the Chief Executive Officer, the President, any Vice President, the Secretary, and the Treasurer.
Section 9.3 of the By-Laws governs matters relating to holders of record as shown on the stock ledger of the Corporation. Section 9.3(b) of the By-Laws provides that the Corporation shall be entitled to treat the holder of record of shares of capital stock as shown on the stock ledger as the owner thereof and as the person entitled to vote such shares and to receive notice of meetings, and for all other purposes. That subsection further provides that the Corporation shall not be bound to recognize any equitable or other claim to or interest in any share of capital stock on the part of any other person, whether or not the Corporation shall have express or other notice thereof.
Section 9.6 of the By-Laws governs matters relating to lost, stolen, destroyed, and mutilated certificates for shares of stock of the Corporation. Section 9.6 sets out procedures for addressing the issuance of a new certificate or uncertified shares in the event that any certificate for stock of the Corporation becomes mutilated, lost, stolen, or destroyed. BSECC proposes to amend Section 9.6 to delete language providing that the Board or a committee thereof is authorized to take action to address each such instance of lost, stolen, destroyed, or mutilated certificates and in its place provide that the Corporation (rather than solely the Board) shall have the authority to do so.
Section 10.4 of Article X of the By-Laws governs procedures relating to the execution of instruments, contracts, and the like. BSECC proposes to delete Section 10.4 in its entirety and provide new text to better align the provisions of this section with NASDAQ's policies and procedures on signature authority. Specifically, BSECC proposes to provide that, except as otherwise provided by law, all contracts and other documents requiring signature entered into by or on behalf of the Corporation, including, without limitation, all (i) checks, drafts, bills of exchange, notes, or other obligations or orders for the payment of money, (ii) deeds, bonds, mortgages, contracts, and other obligations or instruments, and (iii) applications, instruments, and papers required by any department of the United States Government or by any state, county, municipal, or other governmental authority, shall, in each case, be executed by such officer(s), employee(s), agent(s), or other person(s) as the Board, a duly authorized committee thereof, or the Chief Executive Officer may designate from time to time. As further proposed, the authority to execute any contract or document in the name and on behalf of the Corporation granted in accordance with this Section may (1) be general or confined to specific instances, (2) be designated by name, title, or role, (3) include the power to delegate signature authority further to one or more other persons, whether by name, title, or role, to the extent authorized by the Board, a duly authorized committee thereof, or the Chief Executive Officer, and (4) be revoked at any time by the Board, any committee thereof, or the Chief Executive Officer.
Section 10.5 of the By-Laws governs the form of records of the Corporation. BSECC proposes to delete Section 10.5 in its entirety and insert in its place new text that would conform this provision with the updated Delaware statute governing signature authority. Specifically, BSECC proposes to provide that any records administered by or on behalf of the Corporation in the regular course of its business, including its stock ledger, books of account, and minute books, may be kept on, or by means of, or be in the form of, any information storage device, method, or one or more electronic networks or databases (including one or more distributed electronic networks or databases), provided that the records so kept can be converted into clearly legible paper form within a reasonable time and otherwise comply with applicable law.
Section 11.4 of Article XI of the By-Laws addresses the adoption of emergency by-laws. BSECC proposes to update Section 11.4 to reflect amendments to the emergency by-law provision of the Delaware General Corporation Law. Specifically, BSECC proposes to provide that as provided in Section 11.4, the Board may adopt emergency by-laws which shall be operative during any emergency resulting from “any emergency resulting from an attack on the United States or on a locality in which the Corporation conducts its business or customarily holds meetings of its Board of Directors or its stockholders, or during any nuclear or atomic disaster or during the existence of any catastrophe, including, but not limited to, an epidemic or pandemic, and a declaration of a national emergency by the United States government, or other similar emergency condition, irrespective of whether a quorum of the Board of Directors or a standing committee thereof can be readily convened for action.”
BSECC proposes to adopt new language to provide the By-Laws with a customary forum selection provision. To effect this change, BSECC proposes to add a new Article XIII titled “Forum Selection” providing as follows:
Unless the Corporation consents in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, (A) (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of the Corporation, (ii) any
BSECC believes that this proposed addition of Article XIII to the By-Laws is appropriate as it would provide the Corporation as well as litigants with greater certainty with respect to the applicable judicial forum for addressing claims or actions involving the Corporation.
The remaining proposed amendments to the By-Laws are non-substantive changes designed to simplify and streamline the document. Specifically, BSECC proposes to (1) amend Article I(k) and Article I(m) to correct typographical errors by deleting a period and substituting in its place a semicolon and by inserting a missing parenthesis respectively; (2) make non-substantive clarifying changes to subparagraph (p) of Article I; (3) amend Article I(s) to correct a typographical error by removing a period after “and”'; and (4) delete from Section 3.1(a) the term “shareholder” and substitute therefor the word “stockholder.” the latter which more closely reflects established terminology of the By-Laws. BSECC believes the proposed non-substantive changes are either administrative or clarifying in nature, and that, as such, they are in the public interest as they are designed to avoid confusion with respect to the operation of the By-Laws thus facilitating their use.
BSECC believes that the proposed changes are consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
BSECC believes the proposed changes to paragraphs A and B of Article Sixth of the Certificate are in the public interest as they would update the Certificate, consistent with developments in Delaware General Corporation Law that enable companies incorporated in Delaware, such as NASDAQ, to limit the liability of certain of their officers in narrow circumstances, as discussed above. BSECC notes that amendments providing for officer exculpation are increasingly common for public companies, and that the number of shareholder proposals calling for such amendments have continued to increase since 2022 when the Delaware law was passed.
BSECC believes that changes proposed for Article III of the By-Laws are in the public interest as they would update the By-Laws and conform them to current practices and developments in the law with respect to corporate matters such as procedures governing the annual and special meetings of stockholders, the conduct of such meetings, and the invocation of proxy access. The proposed changes to Article IV of the By-Laws are either clarifying in nature or otherwise purport to refine governance practices by providing the Corporation with greater flexibility with respect to such matters as the qualifications of Directors, quorum and voting, or otherwise update such provisions to make them more consistent with current governance practices as well as the policies and procedures of NASDAQ. BSECC believes that proposed changes to Articles VII through XIII are in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors as they are designed to accomplish several objectives, including updating the By-Laws to conform with current practices or recent developments in Delaware General Corporation Law, aligning the By-Laws with current NASDAQ policies and procedures, and enhancing the clarity of the By-Laws thus facilitating their proper application and use. Finally, the remaining changes can be characterized as non-substantive, because they are designed to either correct typographical errors, conform NASDAQ governance documents to terminology in the By-Laws, remove obsolete text, or otherwise make non-substantive revisions to the By-Laws to make them clearer and easier to use.
Because the proposed rule change relates to the governance of NASDAQ and not to the operations of BSECC, BSECC does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
The MSRB filed with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend MSRB Rule A-11, on assessments for municipal advisor professionals (“Rule A-11”), and Rule A-13, on underwriting and transaction assessments for brokers, dealers, and municipal securities dealers (“Rule A-13”), to establish new rates of certain assessments on municipal advisors under Rule A-11 and brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers (collectively, “dealers” and, together with municipal advisors, “regulated entities”) under Rule A-13 pursuant to a multi-year rate card, as well as to make certain related technical amendments (the “proposed rule change”). The MSRB requests that the proposed rule change be approved with an effective date of January 1, 2026, provided that if approved by the Commission after January 1, 2026, the proposed rule change be made effective as of the first day of the month following Commission approval.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB 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 MSRB has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Rule A-13 currently requires dealers to pay (a) an underwriting fee under Rule A-13(b) (the “Underwriting Fee”) for municipal securities purchased from an issuer by or through such dealer as part of a primary offering,
The MSRB established its current rate card model in 2022 with the stated goals of facilitating the MSRB's ability to manage its organizational reserves year-to-year, mitigating the impact of market volatility on fee revenue, and maintaining a fair and equitable balance of reasonable fees and charges among regulated entities, while prudently funding the MSRB's anticipated near-term operating expenses.
Since withdrawing the 2024 Rate Card Proposal, the MSRB engaged in what it believes to be substantive outreach with stakeholders, particularly those who submitted comments in response to that proposal, to better distill and understand the most important concerns that the MSRB could meaningfully address in the near term and in the future. As one example of this substantive outreach, the MSRB issued a Request for Information (“RFI”) on its rate card process on October 30, 2024, soliciting feedback from stakeholders on the MSRB's rate setting process, the distribution of fees across regulated entities generally, and the MSRB's management of its organizational reserve funds.
After carefully considering the RFI responses and feedback received from the MSRB's outreach to stakeholders,
The new Multi-Year Rate Card Process is designed to enhance the stability and predictability of Rate Card Fees, maintain fairness of assessments on regulated entities, and allow the MSRB to manage organizational reserves responsibly while minimizing uncertainty and possible operational disruptions to regulated entities that could result from more frequent and less predictable changes in assessment rates.
To provide greater predictability and stability of the Rate Card Fees, the proposed rule change would establish Rate Card Fees for the next four calendar years: 2026, 2027, 2028, and
As discussed below, due to both the accumulation of excess reserves (in part resulting from the suspension and subsequent withdrawal of the 2024 Rate Card Proposal, as well as heightened Market Activity Fee revenues during a period of record trading and issuance volume
The Multi-Year Rate Card Process is designed to address stakeholders' concerns related to fee volatility inherent in the current annual rate setting process and to facilitate the MSRB's management of its organizational reserves. A multi-year rate card is a fixed rate schedule for its multi-year term (four years in the case of the proposed rule change) and is not intended to be modified during its effective term, except as described below.
In the case of the Rate Card Fees proposed in this proposed rule change, the baseline rates of the Market Activity Fees would remain unchanged both from the rates currently in effect under the prior rate card and throughout the
In the event the MSRB determines that it has a significant surplus level of reserves to draw down upon, the MSRB may elect to utilize one or more Temporary Credits within the proposed Multi-Year Rate Card or in a future multi-year rate card.
A primary goal of a rate card is to effectively manage organizational reserves, which at times may accumulate surplus funds (or may experience deficits) driven by extraordinary market activity volume or from other unexpected circumstances. The MSRB maintains a targeted level of reserve funding in accordance with its Revised Funding Policy, which is determined through a comprehensive analysis of its operating environment. The MSRB's Revised Funding Policy establishes a tolerance for variation from the organizational reserves target of +/−20% of its target level (the “Reserve Target Tolerance”).
The MSRB approved an organizational reserves target for 2026 of $30 million at its July 23-24, 2025, board of directors meeting. This level of reserves translates to approximately eight months of MSRB operating expenses.
The proposed rule change would include certain technical language changes designed to ensure that the rule language reflects the proposed Multi-Year Rate Card and the related changes to institute the Multi-Year Rate Card Process. References to the current “annual” process would be eliminated throughout Rules A-11 and A-13 and instead would reflect the four-year term of the proposed Multi-Year Rate Card in the proposed rule change.
Section 15B(b)(2)(J) of the Exchange Act states that the MSRB's rules shall provide that each municipal securities broker, municipal securities dealer, and municipal advisor shall pay to the MSRB such reasonable fees and charges as may be necessary or appropriate to defray the costs and expenses of
The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change establishes reasonable fees and charges to be paid by regulated entities consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(J) of the Exchange Act.
Thus, the MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is necessary and appropriate to fund the operation and administration of the MSRB and, thereby, satisfies the requirements of Section 15B(b)(2)(J)
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act requires that MSRB rules not be designed to impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
In determining whether the proposed rule change is necessary and appropriate, the MSRB was guided by the MSRB's Policy on the Use of Economic Analysis in MSRB Rulemaking.
The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change would address industry concerns regarding the stability and predictability
The MSRB's Policy on the Use of Economic Analysis in MSRB Rulemaking outlines that rulemaking must articulate a baseline against which to measure the likely economic impact of the proposed rule change,
In addition to the proposed Multi-Year Rate Card Process, the MSRB also considered other fee assessment alternatives but ultimately decided that the proposed Multi-Year Rate Card Process is the best approach to provide greater predictability and stability for regulated entities along with ensuring a stable revenue stream for the MSRB. In one alternative, the MSRB considered the development of a new fee structure without a specified time horizon for its applicability. The alternative fee structure would become effective on January 1, 2026 and would remain in place indefinitely until modified by a subsequent rule filing. This alternative would provide regulated entities predictable fees that would not be altered without a process of stakeholder outreach and advanced notice. However, without the built-in combination of flexibility and structure of the Multi-Year Rate Card Process, the MSRB may, for example, develop accumulated excess reserves resulting from additional revenue collected as compared to budget expectations and, thereby, would be more likely to face the potential need for one-time rate amendments in the form of more significant, ad hoc temporary fee reductions or rebates.
Relatedly, the MSRB also considered different time horizons to be used for the Multi-Year Rate Card Process, such as three years, five years or more than five years. However, the MSRB ultimately decided that a four-year time horizon is most appropriate. The MSRB made this determination to balance stability and predictability in rates with the potential risks of changes in market activity over a longer period that could result in insufficient or excess reserves. Therefore, the MSRB determined that two or three years would be too short and may add fee uncertainty for regulated entities, while five years or longer would be too long because market dynamics may change over that period, rendering the established outdated or ineffective for reserves management.
Another alternative the MSRB reviewed was to include other sources of revenue in the Multi-Year Rate Card Process, such as revenue derived from bulk data users, initial and annual registration fees under MSRB Rule A-12, and underwriting assessments for underwriters of certain municipal fund securities under Rule A-13(c).
Finally, the MSRB also considered a different way to apportion fees within each class of fee payer but decided that the proposed Multi-Year Rate Card Process is the best way to achieve proportionate revenue based on the MSRB's available information,
The proposed rule change is intended to benefit regulated entities by providing greater regulatory clarity for the assessment of fees on MSRB regulated entities for a period of four years under the rules. The proposed rule change also is intended to benefit dealers by providing a two-year reduced rate for underwriting fees, transaction fees, and trade count fees, as these Market Activity Fees were mainly responsible for driving the MSRB's excess reserves from 2023 through 2025 because of unprecedent market trading volume as described earlier. The proposed Multi-Year Rate Card Process would likely result in smaller downward or upward quadrennial adjustments to keep revenues more closely aligned with budgeted expenses.
The proposed rule change would result in a revised fee approach intended to align revenues and expenses more closely and to reduce the year-to-year volatility in the amount of fees collected by the MSRB. In addition, the MSRB expects that the four-year period would improve the stability and predictability of Rate Card Fees for regulated entities and remove the variability that was present with the year-to-year approach. Furthermore, the MSRB also expects that the proposed rule change would ensure that there is a fair and equitable balance of fees between all regulated entities. Lastly, the proposed rule change would enhance the MSRB's ability to manage organizational reserves while minimizing fee volatility and other operational disruptions to regulated entities.
The MSRB anticipates that regulated entities would incur minor costs from the Multi-Year Rate Card Process as part of their assessed fees. While there may be additional costs associated with the Multi-Year Rate Card Process for municipal advisors through the fee assessment, dealers would see lower fees in 2026 and 2027. The MSRB believes that the fees are reasonable and appropriate as they would improve stability and predictability over time; enhance fairness of fee burdens between regulated entities; and improve the MSRB's ability to responsibly manage organizational reserves.
Some regulated entities would incur costs in the form of newly assessed fees under the proposed Multi-Year Rate Card Process. This includes the fact that the Municipal Advisor Professional Fee would increase each of the four years; however, this is intended to maintain an appropriate balance of assessments between dealers and municipal
Regulated entities are expected to make minor one-time revisions to their policies and procedures, including accounting systems or processes, to address the technical amendments to Rule A-11 and Rule A-13. It is possible that regulated entities may need to work with in-house legal, compliance and accounting professionals to revise the policies and procedures to comply with the proposed rule change.
The MSRB believes that the proposed Multi-Year Rate Card Process would not impose any burden on competition, as it is intended to have a fair and equitable balance of fees between all regulated entities. The MSRB believes the proposed rate change for the Calendar Years 2026, 2027, 2028 and 2029 is necessary and appropriate to ensure prudent funding for the MSRB and that such fee increases are reasonably and fairly designed to be proportionately distributed across regulated entities in such a way that would not harm competition among regulated entities, impede capital formation, reduce market efficiency, nor otherwise harm the functioning of the municipal securities market.
Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv) of the Exchange Act
For the reasons noted above, the MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change would result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
The MSRB did not solicit comment on the proposed rule change. However, the MSRB received comments from six commenters on the RFI, with comments on the Rate Card Fees having informed the MSRB in formulating the proposed rule change.
While two commenters on the RFI supported the existing rate card process,
The MSRB believes that the proposed Multi-Year Rate Card Process incorporates key elements that are responsive to these comments. The Annual Rate Change Limit that would be included in the Multi-Year Rate Card Process would be set at 15%, lower than the current 25% cap. The proposed Temporary Credits for 2026 and 2027, and the potential use of Temporary Credits in the future to reduce any excess reserves, is responsive to commenters desire to use reserves for such purpose without creating a separate stabilization fund. The MSRB believes that these and other aspects of the Multi-Year Rate Card Process, including the establishment of fees over a multi-year period rather than on an annual basis, appropriately address the desire to reduce volatility and unpredictability of fees.
Two commenters generally agreed that activity-based fees for the Market Activity Fees are appropriate.
The MSRB would maintain the existing Market Activity Fees under the proposed rule change and believes that they remain the appropriate mechanisms for assessing activity-based fees for dealers. The MSRB believes that the use of a five-year historical average of market volume for its underlying assumptions under the Multi-Year Rate Card Process would better smooth the annual volatility in market activity and therefore the amount of assessments imposed than would a model that, on an annual basis, relies on the past year's levels of activities, which can fluctuate considerably from year to year. The MSRB appreciates the concerns expressed regarding ATS-related fees and will continue to assess in the future whether the current model remains appropriate in the context of considering more broadly the full range of sources of MSRB revenues, including whether certain business models merit alternative manners of assessments, whether existing fees and charges not included in the Rate Card Fees should be modified, whether any regulated entity activities that may not currently be subject to any MSRB fees or charges should be made subject to assessment, and whether current fee models for subscriptions to MSRB data products should be revisited.
Three commenters suggested that the MSRB develop an activity-based or revenue-based fee model for municipal advisors, which they believed would be appropriate to address what they view as an imbalance in the share of MSRB costs borne by dealers as compared to municipal advisors.
The MSRB continues to believe that, for purposes of the Multi-Year Rate Card Process for establishing the Rate Card Fees pursuant to this proposed rule change, it is appropriate to maintain the existing Municipal Advisor Professional Fee, with a measured year-to-year increase to maintain the balance between dealer and municipal advisor fees determined by the MSRB when it established its original rate card process. However, with respect to municipal advisor rate card assessments, the MSRB believes that it would be appropriate, over the course of this upcoming multi-year period, to undertake a review of municipal advisory activities and any potential mechanisms for gauging levels and types of such activities that might be appropriate for use in future municipal advisor rate settings under the Multi-Year Rate Card Process. The MSRB has launched a broader retrospective rule review of its suite of municipal advisor rules
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing,
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, 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 Rule 5.1(c) (Global Trading Hours) to allow for trading of multi-listed equity options that meet certain eligibility criteria during Global Trading Hours (“GTH”) and to establish GTH sessions for designated multi-listed equity options as 7:30 a.m. ET to 9:25 a.m. ET and 4:00 p.m. ET to 4:15 p.m. ET or as permitted as a GTH session on another exchange. The Exchange also proposes to make changes to additional rules as necessary to support GTH trading for equity options. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.1(c) to allow for trading of certain multi-listed equity options during GTH, establish specific trading hours for GTH sessions during which such multi-listed equity options may trade, and modify additional rules as necessary to support trading of GTH in equity options.
By way of background, the Exchange currently offers three trading sessions:
By way of further background, the Exchange originally adopted the GTH trading session in 2014 due to global demand from investors to trade SPX and VIX options as alternatives for hedging and other investment purposes, particularly as a complementary investment tool to VIX futures.
The Exchange believes customer demand now extends to trading equity options outside of RTH. Consequently, the Exchange proposes to designate equity options that meet certain criteria as eligible for trading during GTH. The addition of certain equity options to GTH will help align trading in such products to the expanded trading that now occurs for the underlying securities and to keep pace with the continuing internationalization of securities markets. As stated previously, transactions in most options on equities may be made on the Exchange during RTH between 9:30 a.m. through 4:00 p.m., which is in alignment with the trading hours of the exchanges trading the stocks underlying CBOE options. Although the time of RTH is consistent with the regular trading hours of the other U.S. options exchanges and regular trading hours of equity exchanges that underlying Cboe listed options, many U.S. stock exchanges allow for trading products for various periods of time outside of RTH.
Securities trading has become a global industry, but investors located outside of the United States may choose not to access U.S. markets during hours of RTH. The Exchange believes there is global demand from investors for options on equities for various investment purposes. However, given that equity options trade during RTH only, it is difficult for non-U.S. investors to take advantage of trading in these options. Additionally, U.S. investors that trade in equities outside of regular trading hours are unable to access the equities options for hedging and other purposes as part of their investment strategies during trading sessions outside of RTH. In response, the proposed rule change amends Rules 5.1(c) to add equity options to the type of product the Exchange has approved for trading on the Exchange during GTH and establishes the specific hours such equity options may trade in GTH.
The Exchange proposes to offer GTH trading in equity options that meet certain criteria sessions occurring prior to the commencement of RTH, from 7:30 a.m. to 9:25 a.m. Monday through Friday and, for equity options that meet certain criteria and that are not options on ETFs, ETNs, Index Portfolio Shares, Index Portfolio Receipts, and Trust Issued Receipts that the Exchange has designated as eligible to remain open for trading until 4:15 p.m., through a session occurring immediately after RTH from 4:00 p.m. to 4:15 p.m. Monday through Friday as GTH. These GTH sessions will allow market participants to engage in the trading of designated equity options in conjunction with trading in the underlying securities during these hours. However, since trading in equity options in GTH is a new initiative, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.1(c) to limit the number of equity options classes that may be designated for GTH at 100 option classes. The limit is intended to allow the Exchange to monitor and assess the development and functioning of GTH markets for equity options within a limited group of equity options initially.
The Exchange further proposed to amend Rule 5.1(c) by establishing criteria an option class must meet to be eligible for GTH trading in new Rule 5.1(c)(2).
The Exchange may also designate as eligible for trading during Global Trading Hours any equity option that is traded on another exchange during GTH or any other extended trading hours session that is not RTH or Curb. Any equity option designated by the Exchange as eligible for GTH trading because the option is traded by another exchange during GTH or other extended trading hour session that is not RTH will not be included against the 100 option class limit in Rule 5.1(c). The Exchange believes exclusion of such equity options initially traded in a GTH or other extended trading hours session from the 100 option class limit is appropriate for competitive purposes since such listings can indicate the continued expansion of equity option trading outside of RTH. Additionally, this exclusion from the 100 option class limit is similar in structure to the rules for Short Term Options Series which allow the Exchange to list additional option classes selected by other exchanges under their short term option rules and such selections are in addition to the 50 Short Term Option Series classes that the Exchange may select.
Cboe recognizes that the proposed GTH sessions for equity options is shorter than both the GTH session for index options and extended trading hour sessions for equities. Whereas index options eligible for GTH may trade between 8:15 p.m. to 9:25 a.m. the next day
Although GTH for equity options could mirror the extended trading hours available for the securities underlying such options, the Exchange proposes to
The availability of GTH for equity options for holidays will also differ from GTH for index options for holidays. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.1(e) to clarify that, unlike GTH for index options, GTH for equity options will not occur on a holiday by stating that GTH references to holiday trading apply to GTH for index options. A GTH session for index options may (1) commence the evening prior to and extended into the morning of, or (2) commence on the evening of and extend into the morning following a domestic holiday
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 5.20 by adding new section (g) to state that the trading of equity options in GTH will be subject to the same trading halt rules as equity option trading in RTH. Trading in equity options in GTH will generally halt when the underlying security of an option is halted. Trading halt provisions for GTH index options are not applicable to equity options.
The Exchange also proposes to amend the Opening Auction Process in Rule 5.31 to incorporate GTH for equity options. The current definition of Queuing Period provides that the Queuing Period for GTH for All Sessions Classes begins at 8:00 p.m., 15 minutes prior to the commencement of GTH. The Exchange proposes to amend the definition to apply the existing Queuing Period beginning at 8:00 p.m. to index options and establishing a Queuing Period for equity options in GTH commencing at 7:15 a.m., also 15 minutes prior to the commencement of the GTH session. The Exchange further proposes to further amend the definition of Opening Rotations Triggers to establish Opening Rotation Triggers processing for equity options in GTH by duplicating the existing Opening Rotations Triggers processing of RTH equity options for GTH equity options. The proposed amendments to the definitions of Queuing Period and Opening Rotations Triggers extend existing processing framework to equity options in GTH.
Whereas certain processing aspects of GTH for equity options require explicit additions to the Rules, other GTH trading rules as currently stated will apply to equity options designated for trading in GTH.
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change expands the investment opportunity of GTH to an additional type of option for GTH trading, and the expansion is consistent with the continued globalization of the securities markets while improving the alignment of the Exchange's trading hours with extended trading hours of stock exchanges. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will enhance competition by providing a service to investors that other options exchanges currently are not providing. The Exchange believes that competition among exchanges ultimately benefits the entire marketplace. Given the robust competition among the options exchanges, innovative trading mechanisms are consistent with the
While no other options exchanges currently provide trading in equity options outside of RTH, the Commission has authorized stock exchanges to be open for trading outside of those hours pursuant to the Act. As the proposed rule change expands the GTH initiative, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to trade a limited number of equity option classes for which demand is anticipated to be the highest during GTH upon implementation of GTH trading in equity options.
Apart from specific trading hours and holidays, much of the Exchange's existing GTH trading rules will apply to GTH for equity options, and in the case of trading halts, the Exchange's RTH rules for equity options generally apply. As a result, GTH for equity options will largely exist in the framework already established by rules that have been approved by the Commission as being consistent with the goals of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because all Trading Permit Holders may obtain authorization to trade during GTH; however, the proposed rule change does not impose additional burdens on those Trading Permit Holders that do not elect to trade during Extended Trading Hours. The Exchange believes the obligations imposed on Trading Permit Holders to be eligible to trade during GTH is an appropriate balance of obligations of additional requirements with the benefits of additional trading sessions.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because the proposed rule change is a new competitive initiative that will benefit the marketplace and investors. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change will enhance competition by providing new trading sessions to investors that other options exchanges currently are not providing. Additionally, all options exchanges are free to compete in the same manner. The Exchange does not believe that the level of competition among options exchanges will change during RTH because of the introduction of GTH trading for equity options. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change could increase its competitive position outside of the United States by providing investors with an additional investment access with respect to their global trading strategies during times that correspond with regular trading hours outside of the United States.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written 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 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its functionality relating to the processing of auction responses. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange currently offers a variety of auction mechanisms which provide price improvement opportunities for eligible orders. Particularly, the Exchange offers the following auction mechanisms: Complex Order Auction (“COA”),
In June 2023, in order to provide responses to these auctions with increased opportunities to participate in the auction, even during periods of high message traffic, and thus potentially provide customers with additional opportunities for price improvement, the Exchange adopted new functionality that applies across all of its auction mechanisms to increase the likelihood that timely submitted auction responses may participate in the applicable auction, even during periods of high message traffic.
In May 2025, the Exchange increased the permissible maximum length of this Exchange-determined time period for SPX options.
The proposed rule change proposes to make expand the recent proposed rule change to all non-FLEX classes,
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will remove impediments to a free and open market, as it will allow the Exchange's System to potentially process more, if not all, timely submitted auction responses, particularly in times of volatility and high message traffic. This may provide further opportunities for auctioned orders to receive price improvement, which ultimately benefits investors. In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will continue to appropriately balance providing investors with timely processing of their options quote and order messages and providing investors who submit orders that are auctioned with additional liquidity. Indeed, the proposed rule change may allow more investors additional opportunities to receive price improvement through an auction mechanism. Additionally, because the proposed functionality may provide liquidity providers that submit auction responses with additional execution opportunities in auctions, the Exchange believes they may be further encouraged to submit more auction responses, which may contribute to a deeper, more liquid auction process that provides investors with additional price improvement opportunities. The Exchange believes the proposal will continue to allow the Exchange to set each auction response period or exposure time to an amount of time that provides Trading Permit Holders submitting responses with sufficient time to respond to, compete for, and provide price improvement for orders, but also continues to provide auctioned orders with improved execution opportunities and minimal impact on market and execution risk.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will result in increased execution opportunities for liquidity providers that submit auction responses and enhance the potential for price improvement for orders submitted to each mechanism to the benefit of investors and public interest. The proposed rule change will permit the Exchange to set a longer time period in all classes in which the System may process auction responses the System receives before the end of an auction response or exposure period (as identified by each auction response message's NIC timestamp). The Exchange believes the proposed increase in maximum time will increase the possibility that timely submitted auction responses are processed by the Exchange and have an opportunity for execution in the applicable auction mechanism, even if there is a deep pending message queue. The Exchange believes the proposed maximum amount of additional time for processing will permit the Exchange to respond to times of high message traffic. The Exchange generally experiences significant increases in volumes and messages traffic when the market experiences volatility. As a result, the Exchange has observed deeper pending message queues, which results in an increased number of timely received auction responses not being processed as part of the execution at the conclusion of an auction. Based on these observations, the Exchange believes the proposed maximum time may increase the number of timely received auction responses that may execute against an auction order.
The sunset period permitted the Exchange to evaluate whether a longer auction response processing time would continue to be appropriate in times of high volatility. For example, in 2025 prior to May 12 (the date on which the Exchange implemented the longer auction processing response time for SPX options), the percentage of auction responses in SPX that were received by the System before the end of the auction period (
While the proposed increase is significant, the Exchange notes that the combined maximum length of the auction response or exposure period plus the auction response processing period is the same length as the maximum permissible auction response or exposure period for certain auctions.
Additionally, the Exchange understands some Trading Permit Holders choose to submit auction responses towards the end of an auction response period to better ensure the response is at a price that the market participant is willing to trade given the market at the time the auction response period concludes. This is particularly true during times of higher volatility, as have recently occurred, which times also result in higher message traffic and thus makes it more likely these auction responses will not participate in the auction. As such, extending the auction response period in each auction would not itself prevent auction responses from continuing to miss the auction notwithstanding being timely submitted. Therefore, the Exchange believes extending the auction response processing time is preferable to extending the auction response or exposure period, which the Exchange believes would not prevent auction responses from continuing to miss the auction notwithstanding being timely submitted.
The Exchange believes the proposed increase in maximum auction response processing time for all options will provide an adequate amount of time to provide pending auction responses with execution opportunities in times of high message traffic and will continue to have a de minimis impact on other message traffic. Even in times of high message traffic, auction responses continue to represent a small percentage of volume on the Exchange. Auction responses account for a small fraction of message traffic submitted to the Exchange. The Exchange believes the processing of such a small amount of message traffic, even after the conclusion of an auction response period, would therefore continue to have de minimis, if any, impact on the processing of non-auction response messages waiting in the queue, even if that processing occurs over a longer timeframe. The Exchange also notes that all messages are currently processed one at a time by the System. Therefore, the System still needs to “process” all pending auction responses, regardless of whether that processing involves canceling the pending auction response because it wasn't processed in time to participate in the auction or actually processing the response to participate in the auction. Either way, the non-auction response messages will still have to wait for processing of any pending responses ahead of it, regardless of the length of the auction response processing time. Further, updates to prices in the market will still be processed in the same order, and thus executions of the responses at the end of the buffer will not trade through the market at that time. The Exchange notes the proposed rule change makes no changes to how the auction response processing functionality will work (or how any auctions work). Additionally, all message traffic (including auction responses) will continue to be processed in time-priority. Therefore, the Exchange believes any impact of processing additional auction responses for inclusion in an auction rather than cancelling those responses will have minimal impact on message traffic behind them.
The Exchange continues to believe in the vast majority of cases, the additional time needed after the conclusion of an auction response period, if any, to process all pending auction responses will be shorter than the proposed maximum (and possibly zero). This is a further benefit of being able to increase the length of the auction response processing time rather than the length of an auction response period. Unlike an auction response period, which must run in its entirety, the auction response processing is adaptable. For example, if the System is “caught up” and processes all auction responses received prior to the completion of a 100 millisecond auction response period within 50 milliseconds after the end of the auction period, the total processing time would be 150 milliseconds. The System only uses the portion of the auction response processing time it needs to process responses timestamped prior to the end of the auction period. To the extent the Exchange determines a lesser amount of time would be sufficient, the Exchange could implement an additional amount of time for processing auction responses that is less than the combined time of 1000 milliseconds, which time would be announced with reasonable advance notice to market participants via Exchange Notice.
The markets have experienced periods of high volatility in recent weeks, which generally results in increased market traffic. The Exchange has observed during these higher market traffic times an increase in the number of auction responses not being able to participate in auctions, notwithstanding being timely submitted within the auction response period, except recently in SPX given the longer auction processing time during the current sunset period. This higher traffic generally occurs across all classes. The Exchange believes permitting an increased auction response processing time in all classes would better provide market participants with additional opportunities for price improvements with very little, if any, impact to non-auction response message traffic, thereby removing impediments to a free and open market and ultimately protecting and benefiting investors. Additionally, because the proposed rule change may provide liquidity providers that submit auction responses with additional execution opportunities in auctions, the Exchange believes they may be further encouraged to submit more auction responses, which may contribute to a deeper, more liquid auction process that provides investors with additional price improvement opportunities.
Given the current maximum auction response processing time in classes and other SPX (and if the current higher time applicable to SPX were to sunset), investors may miss out on opportunities to receive price improvement through
Given the much longer length of FLEX auctions, which may last three seconds to five minutes (
The Exchange does not believe the proposed functionality raises any novel legal or regulatory issues as the proposed maximum auction response processing time is significantly shorter than the longest maximum auction response or exposure period permissible in the Exchange's Rules.
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 changes will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as the proposed rule change would apply equally to all Trading Permit Holders that submit auction responses. The proposed rule change would permit a longer auction processing time for all classes on the Exchange, and thus market participants in all classes would be able to benefit from this increased processing time, including reducing the likelihood that their auction responses are rejected. Additionally, as noted above, the Exchange believes the proposed increase in the maximum auction response processing time will have little to no impact on non-auction response message traffic and continues to be designed to prevent trade-throughs given all messages, including market price updates, will continue to be processed in time priority. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as the proposed change affects how the System processes auction responses that may only participate in auctions that occur on the 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 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-CBOE-2025-074 and should be submitted on or before October 24, 2025.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGX”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposal to modify Rule 11.21 to adopt a Retail Price Improvement program. The Exchange also proposes to modify Rule 11.6(e)(2) and Rule 11.10(a)(4)(C)-(D) in order to describe the behavior of orders containing a Non-Displayed instruction. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.21 to adopt a Retail Price Improvement Program on the Exchange (the “EDGX RPI Program”) for the benefit of retail investors. As described in greater detail below, the purpose of the EDGX RPI Program would be to attract retail order flow to the Exchange and allow such Retail Orders
The proposed EDGX RPI Program is structured similarly to the retail liquidity programs (“RLPs”) offered by the Exchange's affiliate, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (“BYX”), as well as retail liquidity programs offered by competitor exchanges such as the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”), NYSE National, Inc. (“NYSE National”), Nasdaq BX, Inc. (“Nasdaq BX”) and Investors Exchange LLC (“IEX”).
The Commission has long recognized that U.S. capital markets should be structured with the interests of retail investors in mind.
The Exchange has established itself as a venue that seeks to provide a positive experience for orders submitted on behalf of retail investors. Currently, EDGX offers Retail Priority, which changes the order allocation priority model from price-time priority to a price-retail priority-time priority model.
The Exchange believes that its current product offerings aimed at providing higher execution quality for retail investors can be further augmented. Accordingly, the Exchange now seeks to introduce an RPI Program on EDGX in order to provide an additional, lit market on which retail investors can submit order flow with the potential for price improvement. As proposed, the EDGX RPI Program will offer RMOs the ability to submit Retail Orders to the Exchange. Users
Rule 11.21 is currently titled “Retail Orders” and sets forth in the following subparagraphs: (a) the definitions of RMO and Retail Order, (b) the qualification and application process for becoming an RMO, (c) the failure of an RMO to abide by Retail Order requirements, (d) appeals of disapproval or disqualification, (e) order designation, and (f) attribution. The Exchange proposes to amend the title of Rule 11.21 from “Retail Orders” to “Retail Price Improvement Program.” Next, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.21(a)(2) to add a sentence at the end of the current rule text that provides that a Retail Order shall operate in accordance with proposed Rule 11.21(f).
The Exchange next proposes to introduce proposed Rule 11.21(a)(3) to define a Retail Price Improvement Order, as described below.
• A “Retail Price Improvement Order” or “RPI Order” consists of non-displayed interest on the Exchange that is eligible to interact with incoming Retail Orders and that is identified by the Retail Liquidity Identifier described in paragraph (e) below. To be executable, an RPI Order for a security priced at or above $1.00 must be priced at least $0.001 better than the Protected NBB or Protected NBO and may be priced in $0.001 increments (
• An RPI Order may be entered as a limit order, in a sub-penny increment with an explicit limit price, as a MidPoint Peg Order (as defined in Rule 11.8(d)) (an “RPI MidPoint Peg Order”), or as a Primary Peg Order (as defined in Rule 11.6(j)(2)). An RPI Order that is also a Primary Pegged Order (“RPI Primary Pegged Order”) must be entered with a positive (for buy orders) or negative (for sell orders) offset (“Offset Amount”). The ranked price of an RPI Primary Pegged Order is the price that results after application of the Offset Amount, as described in Rule 11.6(j)(2). An RPI Primary Pegged Order may have its Offset Amount entered in pricing increments of $0.001. An RPI MidPoint Peg Order and an RPI Primary Pegged Order will not execute during a locked market.
• The System
Proposed Rule 11.21(a)(3) is largely identical to the proposed definition of RPI Order in the Exchange's recent filing to introduce an Enhanced RPI Order to the BYX RPI Program.
• Protected NBBO for security ABC is $10.00 × $10.05.
• User 1 enters displayed limit order to buy ABC at $10.00 for 100 shares.
• User 2 enters an RPI MidPoint Peg Order to buy ABC at $10.03 for 100 shares. User 2's RPI MidPoint Peg Order is posted to the EDGX Book and ranked at a price of $10.025, non-displayed.
• The RPI Indicator is displayed for User 2's RPI MidPoint Peg Order.
• User 3 enters a Retail Order to sell ABC at $10.00 for 100.
•
Additionally, the Exchange's proposed definition of RPI Order provides that an RPI Order will not remove a resting Retail Order upon entry, but rather an RPI Order will be posted to the EDGX Book and may only execute against an incoming Retail Order. The Exchange notes that unlike Retail Orders in the current BYX RPI Program,
• Protected NBBO for security ABC is $10.00 × $10.05.
• User 1 enters displayed limit order to buy ABC at $10.00 for 100 shares.
• User 2 enters an RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.001 for 100 shares. User 2's RPI Order is posted to the EDGX Book and ranked at a price of $10.001, non-displayed.
• The RPI Indicator is displayed for User 2's RPI Order.
• User 3 enters a Retail Order to sell ABC at $10.00 for 100.
•
• Protected NBBO for security ABC is $10.00 × $10.05.
• User 1 enters a Retail Order to sell ABC at $10.05 for 100.
• User 2 enters an RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.05 for 100. User 2's RPI Order is posted to the EDGX Book and ranked at a price of $10.045.
• The RPI Indicator is displayed for User 2's RPI Order.
• User 3 enters a Retail Order to sell ABC at $10.00 for 100.
•
The Exchange next proposes to make two amendments to Rule 11.21(d) (Appeal of Disapproval or Disqualification). First, the Exchange proposes to rename the Retail Attribution Panel described in Rule 11.21(d)(1) as the RPI Panel, to align with the name change of Rule 11.21 from Retail Orders to the Retail Price Improvement Program. The proposed change will ensure that the name of the review panel on the Exchange matches the name of the review panel on the Exchange's affiliate, BYX, thus causing less confusion for RMOs or RMO applicants seeking to avail themselves of the panel.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.21(e) (currently titled Order Designation) by changing the title to “Retail Liquidity Identifier,” deleting the rule text that describes how an RMO may designate an order as a Retail Order from current Rule 11.21(e), moving the rule text of current Rule 11.21(e) that describes the designation of a Retail Order when routed to an away Trading Center to proposed Rule 11.24(h)
• For securities priced at or above $1.00, an identifier shall be disseminated through proprietary data feeds or as appropriate through the Consolidated Quotation System, when an RPI Order with a ranked price at least $0.001 better than the Protected NBB or Protected NBO for a particular security, is available in the System (“Retail Liquidity Identifier”). The Retail Liquidity Identifier shall reflect the symbol for the particular security and the side (buy or sell) of the RPI Order, but shall not include the ranked price or size of the RPI Order. The Retail Liquidity Identifier will only be disseminated when an RPI Order is priced better than the Protected NBB or Protected NBO and will not disseminate if the price of the Protected NBB or Protected NBO moves such that the RPI Order is no longer priced higher than the Protected NBB or lower than the Protected NBO.
The Exchange notes that its proposed rule text for Rule 11.21(e) is nearly identical to the rule text in its BYX Enhanced RPI Proposal, except that the Exchange is not seeking to introduce an Enhanced RPI Order and will only seek to display the Retail Liquidity Identifier (“RLI”) when an RPI Order, rather than RPI Interest as described in the BYX Enhanced RPI Proposal, is priced better than the Protected NBB or Protected NBO in securities priced at or above $1.00 by at least $0.001. The proposed rule text describes that the RLI will be disseminated over the Exchange's proprietary data feeds and the Consolidated Quotation System when there is an RPI Order priced at least $0.001 above the Protected NBB or below the Protected NBO in securities priced at or above $1.00. The RLI will not be disseminated if an RPI Order is priced equal to, below (for buy orders), or above (for sell orders) the Protected NBB or Protected NBO, even if the ranked price of the RPI Order does not change. In the event that the Protected NBB or Protected NBO moves such that a resting RPI Order is again priced above the Protected NBB or below the Protected NBO, the RLI will then be disseminated.
The purpose of the Identifier is to provide relevant market information to RMOs that there is available RPI Interest available on the Exchange, thereby incentivizing RMOs to send Retail Orders to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that even in instances where the Identifier is not being disseminated due to RPI Interest not having a ranked price at least $0.001 above (for buy orders) or below (for sell orders) the Protected NBB or Protected NBO, RMOs continue to be incentivized to submit Retail Orders to the Exchange. While RMOs may not be aware of potential RPI Interest on the Exchange during periods when the Identifier is not being disseminated, the Exchange does not believe that RMOs are harmed by the Exchange accepting RPI Interest that is not executable at the time of receipt by the Exchange and therefore not disseminating an Identifier because there may be additional hidden liquidity on the EDGX Book with which a Retail Order submitted by an RMO may interact. First, not all RMOs rely on the Identifier when submitting Retail Orders to the Exchange. In addition, Retail Orders may continue to be submitted even when the Identifier is not being disseminated and will continue to be eligible to execute against contra-side hidden liquidity that may be priced equal to or above (for buy orders) or below (for sell order) the Protected NBB or Protected NBO.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.21(f) (currently titled Attribution) by changing the title to “Retail Order Designation,” moving the text of current Rule 11.21(f) to proposed Rule 11.24(h) (Attribution), and introducing rule text that describes how RMOs may designate Retail Orders submitted to the Exchange to interact with contra-side interest. Proposed Rule 11.21(f) is based off BYX Rule 11.24(f) (Retail Order Designation) and will contain a nearly identical definition of a Type 1 Retail Order
The Exchange proposes to introduce Rule 11.21(f)(1), which describes a Type 1 Retail Order. Type 1-designated Retail Orders must be designated as IOC and will interact with available contra-side RPI Orders and other price improving contra-side interest but will not interact with other available contra-side interest in the System that is not offering price improvement or route to other markets. The portion of a Type 1-designated Retail Order that does not execute against contra-side RPI Orders or other price improving liquidity will be immediately and automatically cancelled.
The Exchange also proposes to introduce Rule 11.21(f)(2), which describes a Type 2 Retail Order. Type 2-designated Retail Orders will be executed, posted to the EDGX Book, or cancelled according to the User's instructions. A Type 2-designated Retail Order will be ineligible to execute with a resting RPI Order that is not priced better than the Protected NBB or Protected NBO. A Type 2-designated Retail Order can either be submitted as an EDGX Only Order or as an order eligible for routing pursuant to Rule 11.11.
The Exchange proposes to introduce Rule 11.21(g) titled Order Priority which will describe how RPI Orders will be ranked and executed upon receipt by the Exchange. RPI Orders in the same security shall be ranked according to price then time of entry into the System, as provided for in Rule 11.9 and executions shall occur in price/time priority in accordance with Rule 11.9. Any remaining unexecuted RPI interest will remain available to interact with other incoming Retail Orders. Any remaining unexecuted portion of the Retail Order will cancel or execute in accordance with paragraph (f) above. RPI Orders are ineligible to execute at prices that are equal to or inferior to the Protected NBB or Protected NBO. An RPI Order that is priced equal to or inferior to the Protected NBB or Protected NBO will not be cancelled and will become eligible to execute against Retail Orders should the RPI Order become priced better to the Protected NBB or Protected NBO at a later time. The Exchange has provided the following examples to demonstrate how RPI Order priority will function.
• Protected NBBO for security ABC is $10.00 × $10.05.
• User 1 enters an RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.015 for 500 shares.
• User 2 enters an RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.02 for 500 shares.
• User 3 enters an RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.035 for 500 shares.
• User 4 enters a Retail Order to sell ABC at $10.00 for 1,000 shares.
•
• Protected NBBO for security ABC is $10.00 × $10.05.
• User 1 enters an RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.015 for 500 shares.
• User 2 enters an RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.02 for 100 shares.
• User 3 enters an RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.035 for 500 shares.
• User 4 enters a Retail Order to sell ABC at $10.00 for 1,000 shares.
•
• Protected NBBO for security ABC is $10.00 × $10.05.
• User 1 enters an RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.015 for 500 shares.
• User 2 enters an RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.02 for 100 shares.
• User 3 enters a Non-Displayed Order to buy ABC at $10.03 for 500 shares.
• User 4 enters a Retail Order to sell ABC at $10.00 for 1,000 shares.
•
The Exchange proposes to introduce Rule 11.21(h) titled Attribution, which will contain details about how RMOs may designate Retail Orders to be identified as such. The Exchange notes that the text from current Rule 11.21(f) (Attribution) will be relocated to proposed Rule 11.21(h) with minor changes in order to incorporate rule text from current Rule 11.21(e). Pursuant to proposed Rule 11.21(h), and as is currently described in Rule 11.21(f), an RMO may designate a Retail Order to be identified as a Retail Order on the EDGX Book Feed on an order-by-order basis. An RMO may also instruct the Exchange to identify all its Retail Orders as Retail Orders on a port-by-port basis where that port is also designated as a Retail Order Port. An RMO that instructs the Exchange to identify all its Retail Orders as Retail Orders on a Retail Order Port will be able to override such setting and designate any individual Retail Order from that port as Attributable or Non-Attributable, as set forth in Rule 11.6(a). The Exchange proposes to relocate the language from current Rule 11.21(e) (Order Designation) to proposed Rule 11.21(h) stating that a Retail Order will be identified as a Retail Order when routed to an away Trading Center unless otherwise instructed by an RMO as this language more appropriately describes order attribution rather than how an order will interact with contra-side interest as is proposed in proposed Rule 11.21(f). The Exchange proposes to keep the existing language from current attribution Rule 11.21(f) stating all Retail Priority Orders, as defined in Interpretations and Policies .01 to Rule 11.9, will be identified as such on the EDGX Book Feed in order to avoid investor confusion. The Exchange notes that it is proposing non-substantive changes to the existing rule text being relocated from current Rules 11.21(e) and 11.21(f) to proposed Rule 11.21(h) to clarify that the term “Retail” refers to a Retail Order.
As discussed in proposed Rule 11.21(a)(3), the EDGX RPI Program will be limited to trades occurring at prices equal to or greater than $1.00 per share. The Exchange notes that it will periodically notify the membership regarding the securities included in the EDGX RPI Program through an information circular, which is the same practice utilized by its affiliate, BYX, in its current RPI Program.
The Exchange notes that in addition to being substantially similar to the proposed RPI Program on its affiliate equity exchange, BYX, the proposed EDGX RPI Program is similar to other retail liquidity programs offered by the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”),
First, the Exchange notes that its proposal differs from all other retail liquidity programs as it is proposing to allow Retail Orders to be entered with any time-in-force and is not limiting Retail Orders to only be entered with a time-in-force of IOC. The Exchange believes allowing Retail Orders to be entered with any time-in-force instruction rather than limiting the time-in-force to IOC will provide for additional execution opportunities for Retail Orders and will create a deeper pool of liquidity on the Exchange, which provides for greater execution opportunities for all Users and provides for overall enhanced price discovery and price improvement opportunities on the Exchange. While a resting Retail Order will not be eligible to interact with a resting RPI Order that was not originally executable upon receipt of the Retail Order due to the RPI Order's requirement to execute only against incoming Retail Orders, the ability of the Retail Order to execute against other liquidity on the Exchange, including hidden liquidity that may offer price improvement, stands to provide additional execution opportunities to the Retail Order that it otherwise would not have received if required to be entered with a time-in-force of IOC.
Next, the Exchange notes that its proposed RPI Order may be entered in price increments of $0.001, which is identical to the corresponding RPI Orders on BYX, NYSE, and Nasdaq BX but differs from the price increments of RPI Orders on IEX and NYSE National, whose equivalent RPI Orders may only be entered in $0.005 increments. The Exchange believes that providing Users the ability to enter RPI Orders in $0.001 increments while simultaneously proposing to allow RPI Orders to be entered as MidPoint Peg Orders provides Users the appropriate balance in having the ability to control how much price improvement is offered to contra-side Retail Orders using $0.001 increments while also having more certainty and control over its order flow by choosing to utilize the MidPoint Peg Order type. If a User chooses to submit an RPI Order with a limit price in a $0.001 increment, the User risks being priced lower than other hidden liquidity on the EDGX Book and not earning an execution against an incoming Retail
The Exchange believes that the distinctions highlighted above will make the EDGX RPI Program an attractive alternative to other retail liquidity programs and provide RMOs with the ability to submit Retail Orders to the Exchange with a chance at receiving additional price improvement compared to what is already available on the Exchange.
The Exchange currently permits orders to be entered with a Non-Displayed instruction (a “Non-Displayed Order”) pursuant to Rule 11.6(e)(2). The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 11.6(e)(2) and Rule 11.10(a)(4)(C)-(D) in order to more accurately describe the price at which a Non-Displayed Order posts to the EDGX Book and at what price a Non-Displayed Order may execute in certain situations. The Exchange believes the below changes to Rule 11.6(a)(2) and Rule 11.10(a)(4)(C)-(D) are necessary in order to provide market participants with greater certainty and clarity regarding the entry and execution of orders with Non-Displayed instructions on the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to introduce Rule 11.6(a)(2)(A), which provides that when a Non-Displayed Order is entered, the Non-Displayed Order will be executed against previously posted orders on the EDGX Book that are priced equal to or better than the price of the Non-Displayed Order, up to the full amount of such previously posted orders, unless such executions would trade through a Protected Quotation.
The Exchange next proposes to introduce Rule 11.6(a)(2)(B), which describes the price at which a Non-Displayed Order is posted and ranked on the EDGX Book in the event that it is not executed pursuant to proposed Rule 11.6(a)(2)(A). Proposed Rule 11.6(a)(2)(B)(i) provides if the limit price of a Non-Displayed Order would lock either a Protected Quotation or the EDGX Book, the Non-Displayed Order will be posted on the EDGX Book at the locking price and will be executed as set forth in Rule 11.10(a)(4)(C). If, however, an inbound Non-Displayed Order cannot execute due to User instruction and does not contain a price slide instruction, the Non-Displayed Order will be cancelled. An inbound Non-Displayed Order that cannot execute upon entry and contains a price slide instruction will be ranked at the locking price upon entry. Proposed Rule 11.6(a)(2)(B)(ii) provides if the limit price of the Non-Displayed Order would cross a Protected Quotation and the Non-Displayed Order contains a price slide instruction, the Non-Displayed Order will be executed as set forth in Rule 11.6(l)(1)(B) or cancel, based on User instruction. If the entered limit price of the Non-Displayed Order would cross a Protected Quotation and the Non-Displayed Order does not contain a price slide instruction, the Non-Displayed Order will cancel or route, based on User instruction. Proposed Rule 11.6(a)(2)(B)(iii) provides in situations where there is a resting Non-Displayed Order on the buy (sell) side of the market and an incoming Non-Displayed Order on the sell (buy) side of the market is unable to execute due to User instruction and posts to the EDGX Book at a price that locks the resting Non-Displayed Order, an incoming Non-Displayed Order on the buy (sell) side of the market may execute with the resting Non-Displayed Order on the sell (buy) side of the market at the locking price ahead of the Non-Displayed Order on the buy (sell) side of the market.
In conjunction with the proposed changes to Rule 11.6(a)(2), the Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 11.10(a)(4)(C)-(D) to better describe the execution of Non-Displayed Orders in situations where a locked market exists on the EDGX Book. Rule 11.10(a)(4)(C) currently states that certain orders are permitted to post and rest on the EDGX Book at prices that lock contra-side liquidity, provided, however, that the System will never display a locked market. The Exchange proposes to add language to Rule 11.10(a)(4)(C) to provide that consistent with Rule 11.9, which sets forth the Exchange's rule regarding priority of orders, Non-Displayed Orders and orders subject to display-price sliding as set forth in Rule 11.6(k)(1) (defined as the “Resting Orders”) cannot be executed pursuant to Rule 11.10 when such Resting Orders would be executed at prices equal to displayed orders on the opposite side of the market (the “Locking Price”).
The Exchange proposes to implement the RPI Program on EDGX during the first half of 2026 and will announce the date via Trade Desk Notice.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Commission has repeatedly emphasized that the U.S. capital markets should be structured with the interests of retail investors in mind
The Exchange believes the proposed EDGX RPI Program promotes just and equitable principles of trade and is not unfairly discriminatory. While the proposed EDGX RPI Program would differentiate among its Members, the Exchange does not believe that such segmentation is inconsistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act, as it does not permit
The Exchange believes that the proposed RPI Order behavior that does not permit an RPI Order to execute immediately against resting Retail Orders upon entry is not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed RPI Order is an optional order type that any liquidity provider may utilize as part of its investment strategy. As an example, a liquidity provider may choose to submit a limit order with a time-in-force of Day, and that order may execute immediately upon entry with hidden liquidity on the EDGX Book. Conversely, another liquidity provider may choose to submit an RPI Order knowing that the order will not execute immediately upon entry, but rather will be posted to the EDGX Book, foregoing potentially receiving an immediate executions in exchange for the strong likelihood of executing against an incoming, contra-side Retail Order, which is generally a more desirable outcome for more sophisticated market participants.
The Exchange further believes the proposed change would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the public interest because proposed Rule 11.21 is based on BYX Exchange Rule 11.24, providing for the BYX RPI Program, and is also similar to rules providing for the NYSE, NYSE National, IEX, and Nasdaq BX retail liquidity programs. The Exchange believes that its proposal to permit an RPI Order to be entered in pricing increments of $0.001 or as an RPI MidPoint Peg Order provides Users the appropriate balance in having the ability to control how much price improvement is offered to contra-side Retail Orders while also having more certainty and control over its order flow. For example, if a User chooses to submit an RPI Order with a limit price in a $0.001 increment, the User risks being priced lower than other hidden liquidity on the EDGX Book and not earning an execution against a Retail Order. Additionally, the User's RPI Order may be subject to movement in the NBBO and become unexecutable if the order is no longer priced at least $0.001 better than the Protected NBB or Protected NBO. Alternatively, a User who elects to enter an RPI MidPoint Peg Order knows that any execution will occur at the NBBO midpoint and that its order will remain executable, as it will always be priced at least $0.001 better than the Protected NBB or Protected NBO as it is a pegged order with a limit price that updates as the NBBO updates.
Proposed Rule 11.21 sets forth definitions, order types, processes for RMO application, qualification, disapproval and disqualification for the Program, and the operation, priority, and attribution of orders in the Program that are based on rules previously approved by the Commission for retail price improvement programs currently offered by equity exchanges. Accordingly, the Exchange also believes the proposed change would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the public interest by promoting consistency among
The Exchange believes that the introduction of the EDGX RPI Program promotes just and equitable principles of trade and is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act as it encourages Users to submit RPI Orders with limit prices that are priced at least $0.001 better than the Protected NBB or Protected NBO in exchange for the ability to guarantee the opportunity to execute against a contra-side Retail Order. As previously stated, all Users are eligible to submit RPI Orders. While the Exchange believes that most RPI Orders will be submitted by or on behalf of professional traders, retail investors will have the opportunity to receive better-priced executions should their executing broker choose to submit a marketable Retail Order to the Exchange. The Exchange believes the introduction of the EDGX RPI Program will deepen the Exchange's pool of available liquidity, increase marketable retail order flow to the Exchange and provide additional competition for marketable retail order flow, most of which is currently executed off-exchange in the OTC markets. Promoting competition for retail order flow among execution venues stands to benefit retail investors, who may be eligible to receive greater price improvement on the Exchange by interacting with an RPI Order than they would if their order was internalized by a broker-dealer on the OTC market.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to permit Retail Orders to be entered with any time-in-force and not be limited to a time-in-force of IOC as is the case with existing retail liquidity programs promotes just and equitable principles of trade and is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it provides an RMO submitting orders on behalf of retail customers additional control over how its Retail Orders will interact with liquidity resting on the EDGX Book. For instance, an RMO may choose to submit a Retail Order with a time-in-force of IOC, which would behave identical to a Retail Order submitted to the Exchange's affiliate RPI Program on BYX, and would immediately cancel if it does not receive an execution against an RPI Order or other price improving liquidity on the EDGX Book.
The Exchange views the ability to enter Retail Orders with any time-in-force an important feature that benefits retail investors by increasing both the likelihood and speed with which their non-marketable Retail Orders are executed. If speed is a priority, then an RMO is free to select a time-in-force of IOC and will only receive an execution if there is a resting RPI Order priced at least $0.001 better than the NBBO or a hidden order providing price improvement. If, however, speed is not a concern and an RMO would like to increase its odds that its Retail Order will be filled on the Exchange after posting to the EDGX Book, the RMO may elect to submit its order as a Retail Priority Order. RMOs are also free to simply choose to designate a Retail Order with a time-in-force other than IOC and not as a Retail Priority Order, which would permit the Retail Order to post to the EDGX Book or route to an away market and receive an execution under standard price/display/time priority. The Exchange has already proven that it can attract Retail Orders through its retail priority offering
The Exchange believes its proposal to introduce additional rule text describing the entry and execution of Non-Displayed Orders on the Exchange promotes just and equitable principles of trade by providing additional clarity and transparency to market participants on how the System processes Non-Displayed Orders. Specifically, the Exchange is providing additional information regarding the price at which a Non-Displayed Order is posted and ranked on the EDGX Book when a Non-Displayed Order either locks or crosses a Protected Quotation or when a Non-Displayed Order locks the EDGX Book. By introducing the proposed rule text, Users will have a better understanding of how a Non-Displayed Order is posted and ranked during certain scenarios involving locked and crossed markets, which benefits all Users and the marketplace as a whole. In addition, the Exchange believes its proposal to introduce additional rule text describing the entry and execution of Non-Displayed Orders on the Exchange is not unfairly discriminatory as all Users and market participants will be subject to the same application of the Exchange's rules and will have equal access to the Exchange rulebook.
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 believes that the proposal does not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the proposed rule change is designed to increase intramarket competition for retail order flow by introducing a retail liquidity program on a regulated market. The proposed change could encourage additional competition by promoting additional trading opportunities for retail investors at both the NBBO midpoint as well as at sub-penny increments priced better than the Protected NBB or Protected NBO. The proposed change regarding Non-Displayed Order entry and execution is not being made for competitive reasons, but rather to provide Users with additional clarity and transparency about what price a Non-Displayed Order is posted and ranked during certain scenarios involving locked and crossed markets.
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act. As discussed above, IEX, NYSE, NYSE National, and Nasdaq BX each operate RLPs and the Exchange believes that its proposed rule change will allow it to compete for
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 (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 GraniteShares 4x Long Russell 1000 Daily ETF (“4x Long Fund”) and the GraniteShares 4x Short Russell 1000 Daily ETF (“4x Short Fund” together with the 4x Long Fund, the “Funds”), each a series of GraniteShares ETP Trust (the “Trust”), under Rule 14.11(f)(4) (“Trust Issued Receipts”). The shares of the Funds are referred to herein as “Shares.”
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade Shares of the Funds under Rule 14.11(f)(4), which governs the listing and trading of Trust Issued Receipts
The Funds have the ability to engage in Over-the-Counter (“OTC”) swaps referencing the Index (hereinafter referred to as “Russell Swap
The Funds are commodity pools and GraniteShares Advisors LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, serves as the sponsor of the Trust (the “Sponsor”). The Sponsor is a commodity pool operator.
If the Sponsor to the Trust issuing the Trust Issued Receipts is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such Sponsor to the Trust shall erect and maintain a “fire wall” between the Sponsor and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio. The Sponsor is not a broker-dealer or affiliated with a broker-dealer. In the event that (a) the Sponsor becomes a broker-dealer or newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new sponsor is a broker-dealer or becomes affiliated with a broker-dealer, it will implement and maintain a fire wall with respect to its relevant personnel or such broker-dealer affiliate, as applicable, regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the portfolio, and will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the portfolio.
The Funds will only enter into Russell Swap Agreements with major global financial institutions, the selection of which will be subject to the Sponsor's due diligence and risk management measures in place. The Funds will seek, where possible, to use counterparties, as applicable, whose financial status is such that the risk of default is reduced; however, the risk of losses resulting from default is still possible. Specifically, the Sponsor will consider the counterparty's credit quality and financial strength, ability to provide the required exposure to the Index, and operational capabilities for derivatives transactions.
In addition to Russell Swap Agreements, the Funds may also obtain exposure to the Index through listed options contracts traded on Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe”) (hereinafter referred to as “Russell Options Contracts”).
The Funds may also invest in money market instruments (
If the 4x Long Fund is successful in meeting its objective, its value (before fees and expenses) on a given day should gain approximately four times as much on a percentage basis as the level of the Index when it rises. Conversely, its value (before fees and expenses) should lose approximately four times as much on a percentage basis as the level of the Index when it declines. The 4x Long Fund primarily acquires long exposure to the Index through Financial Instruments, including swap agreements, futures contracts, forward contracts, and options contracts that reference the Index, such that the 4x Long Fund has exposure intended to approximate four times the daily performance of the Index at the time of the net asset value (“NAV”) calculation of the 4x Long Fund. In the event that the 4x Long Fund is unable to meet its investment objective solely through one type of Financial Instrument, it may invest in other Financial Instruments referencing the Index, including both cleared and non-cleared swap agreements with major global financial institutions. The 4x Long Fund may also invest in money market instruments that may serve as collateral to the 4x Long Fund's investments in Financial Instruments.
If the 4x Short Fund is successful in meeting its objective, its value (before fees and expenses) on a given day should gain approximately four times as much on a percentage basis as the level of the Index when it declines. Conversely, its value (before fees and expenses) should lose approximately four times as much on a percentage basis as the level of the Index when it rises. The 4x Short Fund primarily acquires short exposure to the Index through Financial Instruments, including swap agreements, futures contracts, forward contracts, and options contracts that reference the Index, such that the 4x Short Fund has exposure intended to approximate negative four times the daily performance of the Index at the time of the NAV calculation of the 4x Short Fund. In the event that the 4x Short Fund is unable to meet its investment objective solely through one type of Financial Instrument, it may invest in other Financial Instruments referencing the Index, including both cleared and non-cleared swap agreements with major global financial institutions. The 4x Short Fund may also invest in Cash and Cash Equivalents that may serve as collateral to the 4x Short Fund's investments in Financial Instruments.
The Funds are not actively managed by traditional methods, which typically involve effecting changes in the composition of a portfolio on the basis of judgments relating to economic, financial and market considerations with a view toward obtaining positive results under all market conditions. Rather, the Funds seek to remain fully invested at all times in Russell Derivative Products (and Cash and Cash Equivalents as collateral) that provide exposure to the Index consistent with its investment objective without regard to market conditions, trends or direction.
In seeking to achieve the Funds' investment objectives, the Sponsor uses a mathematical approach to investing. Using this approach, the Sponsor determines the type, quantity and mix of investment positions that the Sponsor believes in combination should produce daily returns consistent with the Funds' objectives. The Sponsor relies upon a pre-determined model to generate orders that results in repositioning the Funds' investments in accordance with their investment objectives.
The Funds are daily target funds designed for tactical, short-term use rather than long-term buy-and-hold strategies due to the compounding effects inherent in daily rebalancing. The Funds are “leveraged”, which
The Funds will create and redeem Shares from time to time only in large blocks of a specified number of Shares or multiples thereof (“Creation Units”). A Creation Unit is a block of at least 10,000 Shares. Except when aggregated in Creation Units, the Shares are not redeemable securities.
On any Business Day,
The procedures by which an authorized participant can redeem one or more Creation Units mirror the procedures for the purchase of Creation Units. On any Business Day, an authorized participant may place an order with the Administrator to redeem one or more Creation Units. The redemption proceeds from the Funds consist of the cash redemption amount. The cash redemption amount is equal to the NAV of the number of Creation Unit(s) of each Fund requested in the authorized participant's redemption order as of the time of the calculation of a Fund's NAV on the redemption order date, less transaction fees.
The NAV for each Fund's Shares will be calculated by the Administrator on each Business Day and will be disseminated daily to all market participants at the same time.
The closing prices and settlement prices of the Russell Futures Contracts will also be readily available from the websites of CFE (
Quotation information regarding the Shares will be disseminated through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”). Quotation information regarding Russell Futures Contracts and Russell Options Contracts will be available from the exchanges on which such instruments are traded. Quotation information relating to Russell Options Contracts will also be available via the Options Price Reporting Authority. Quotation and last-sale information for Russell Swap Agreements will be available from nationally recognized data service providers, such as Reuters and Bloomberg, through subscription agreements, or from a broker-dealer who makes markets in such instruments. Quotation and last-sale information for Russell Swap Agreements will be valued on the basis of quotations or equivalent indication of value supplied by a third-party pricing service or broker-dealer who makes markets in such instruments. Pricing information regarding Cash Equivalents in which the Funds will invest is generally available through nationally recognized data service providers, such as Reuters and Bloomberg, through subscription agreements.
In addition, the Funds' website at
In addition, in order to provide updated information relating to the Funds for use by investors and market professionals, an updated Intraday Indicative Value (“IIV”) will be calculated. The IIV is an indicator of the value of each Fund's holdings, which will include the Russell Derivative Products and Cash and Cash Equivalents less liabilities of each Fund at the time the IIV is disseminated. The IIV will be calculated and widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors every 15 seconds throughout Regular Trading Hours.
In addition, the IIV will be published on the Exchange's website and will be available through on-line information services such as Bloomberg and Reuters.
The IIV disseminated during Regular Trading Hours should not be viewed as
Additional information regarding the Funds and the Shares, including investment strategies, risks, creation and redemption procedures, fees, portfolio holdings, disclosure policies, distributions and taxes will be included in the Registration Statement.
The Shares of each Fund will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under BZX Rule 14.11(f)(4). The Exchange represents that, for initial and continued listing, the Funds and the Trust must be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act. A minimum of 100,000 Shares of each Fund will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange. The Exchange will obtain a representation from the Sponsor of the Shares that the NAV per Share for each Fund will be calculated daily and will be made available to all market participants at the same time.
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of each Fund. 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 securities and/or the financial instruments composing the daily disclosed portfolio of the Fund; or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present.
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. The Exchange will allow trading in the Shares from 8:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. ET and has the 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, with the exception of securities that are priced less than $1.00, for which the minimum price variation for order entry is $0.0001.
Trading of the Shares through the Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance procedures for derivative products, including Trust Issued Receipts. All of the Russell Futures Contracts and Russell Options Contracts held by each Fund will trade on markets that are a member of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) or affiliated with a member of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
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: (1) the procedures for creation and redemption of Shares in Creation Units (and that the Shares are not individually redeemable): (2) BZX Rule 3.7, which imposes suitability obligations on Exchange members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (3) Interpretation and Policy .01 of BZX Rule 3.7 which imposes a duty of due diligence on its members to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares;
Further, the Exchange notes that FINRA has implemented increased sales practice and customer margin requirements for FINRA members applicable to inverse, leveraged and inverse leveraged securities (which include the Shares) and options on such securities, as described in FINRA Regulatory Notices 09-31 (June 2009), O9-53 (August 2009), and 06-65 (November 2009) (collectively, “FINRA Regulatory Notices”). Members that carry customer accounts will be required to follow the FINRA guidance set forth in these notices. As noted above, the Funds will seek daily investment results, before fees and expenses, that correspond to the Index, which measures daily performance of the Index and the daily inverse (
In addition, the Information Circular will advise members, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to each Fund. Members
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 Funds represents an established product structure rather than a novel regulatory concept. 4X leveraged equity products currently trade in U.S. markets, including the MAX S&P 500 4X Leveraged ETN (Ticker: SPYU), demonstrating that this leverage level applied to broad-based U.S. equity indices has been deemed consistent with existing regulatory frameworks and investor protection standards. The regulatory acceptance of similar leveraged products establishes that 4X leverage on major equity indices does not present unprecedented risks or regulatory concerns that would warrant different treatment under the Act.
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 and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in Exchange Rule 14.11(f). 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 applicable federal securities laws. If the Sponsor to the Trust Issued Receipts is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such Sponsor and the Trust shall erect and maintain a “fire wall” between the Sponsor and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to either Fund's portfolio. The Sponsor is not a broker-dealer or affiliated with a broker-dealer. In the event that (a) the Sponsor becomes a broker-dealer or newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new sponsor is a broker-dealer or becomes affiliated with a broker-dealer, it will implement and maintain a fire wall with respect to its relevant personnel or such broker-dealer affiliate, as applicable, regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the portfolio, and will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the portfolio. The Exchange, FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and the underlying Russell Futures Contracts and Russell Options Contracts via the ISG from other exchanges who are members or affiliates of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
This proposal is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV will be calculated daily and that the NAV and each of the Fund's holdings will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information is publicly available regarding the Funds and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. Moreover, NAV calculation times will be posted on
This proposal is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading the Shares and may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that this proposal 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 purposes of the Act. This proposal will facilitate the listing of an additional exchange-traded product on the Exchange, which will enhance competition among listing venues, to the benefit of issuers, investors and the marketplace more broadly. Market participants on other exchanges are welcome to trade at the Exchange if they determine that this proposal to list and trade the Shares has made the Exchange more attractive or favorable.
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.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program (MREIDL), dated October 1, 2025.
Issued on October 1, 2025.
Jennifer Talarico, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
This notice establishes the application filing period for the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program (MREIDL).
Effective October 1, 2025 small businesses employing military reservists may apply for economic injury disaster loans if those employees are ordered to perform active service for a period of more than 30 consecutive days, and those employees are essential to the success of the small businesses' daily operations.
The purpose of the MREIDL program is to provide funds to an eligible small business to meet its ordinary and necessary operating expenses that it could have met, but is unable to meet, because an essential employee was ordered to perform active service for more than 30 consecutive days in his or her role as a military reservist. These loans are intended only to provide the amount of working capital needed by a small business to pay its necessary obligations as they mature until operations return to normal after the essential employee is released from active service.
Applications for the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal (
Please contact the SBA disaster assistance customer service center by email at
The interest rates are published quarterly in the
The number assigned is 213250.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Minnesota dated September 30, 2025.
Issued on September 30, 2025.
Jennifer Talarico, 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, applications for disaster loans may be
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 213236 and for economic injury is 213240.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration is Minnesota.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
The Susquehanna River Basin Commission will hold a public hearing on October 29, 2025. The Commission will hold this hearing in person and telephonically. At this public hearing, the Commission will hear testimony on the projects and actions listed in the Supplementary Information section of this notice. Such projects and actions are intended to be scheduled for Commission action at its next business meeting, scheduled for December 4, 2025, which will be noticed separately. The public should note that this public hearing will be the only opportunity to offer oral comments to the Commission for the listed projects and actions. The deadline for the submission of written comments is November 10, 2025.
The public hearing will convene on October 29, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. The public hearing will end at 9:00 p.m. or at the conclusion of public testimony, whichever is earlier. The deadline for submitting written comments is Monday, November 10, 2025.
This public hearing will be conducted in person and telephonically. You may attend in person at Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 N Front St., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, or join by telephone at Toll-Free Number 1-877-304-9269 and then enter the guest passcode 2619070 followed by #.
Jason Oyler, General Counsel and Secretary to the Commission, telephone: (717) 238-0423 or
Information concerning the project applications is available at the Commission's Water Application and Approval Viewer at
The public hearing will cover a proposed regulatory program fee schedule intended to become effective on January 1, 2026. The proposed changes to the fee schedule would apply an inflation-based cost of living adjustment to the many of the Commission's regulatory fees. The public hearing will also cover the following projects:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Interested parties may appear or call into the hearing to offer comments to the Commission on any business listed above required to be the subject of a public hearing. Given the nature of the meeting, the Commission strongly encourages those members of the public wishing to provide oral comments to pre-register with the Commission by emailing Jason Oyler at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion nor omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before October 23, 2025.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2024-2648 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Nondie Hemphill, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, at 202-267-9677.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion nor omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before October 23, 2025.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2025-2168 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Kara White, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, at 202-267-9677.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion nor omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before October 23, 2025.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2000-7945 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Kara White, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, at 202-267-9677.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion nor omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before October 23, 2025.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2025-2101 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Nondie Hemphill, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, at 202-267-9677.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice of a new matching program.
This computer matching agreement sets forth the terms, conditions, and safeguards under which the Social Security Administration (SSA) will disclose tax return information to the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration (VA/VHA). VA/VHA will use the tax return information to verify veterans' employment status and earnings to determine eligibility for its health benefit programs.
Comments on this matching program must be received no later than November 3, 2025. If no public comment is received during the period allowed for comment or unless otherwise published in the
Comments may be submitted through
Ryan Heiman, Acting Executive Director, Member Services, Veterans Health Administration, 3401 SW 21st St., Bldg. 9, Topeka, KS 66604, Telephone: 785-409-2318, Email:
The Health Eligibility Center (HEC) verifies the self-reported income of certain veterans whose eligibility for medical care is based on income level. HEC is an entity within the VHA, Member Services. “Tax return information,” for purposes of this agreement, means SSA's records obtained under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 6103 concerning the amount of an individual's earnings from wages or self-employment income, the period(s) involved, and the identities and addresses of employers.
Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration (VA/VHA) and the Social Security Administration.
This agreement is executed under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 552a, as amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, and the regulations and guidance promulgated thereunder, and relevant provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), 26 U.S.C. 6103. The legal authorities for SSA to conduct this computer matching are sections 38 U.S.C. 5106, 5317, 1710, and 26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7)(D)(viii). 38 U.S.C. 5106 and 5317 requires Federal agencies to furnish VA with information the VA Secretary may request for determining eligibility for or the amount of VA benefits. 38 U.S.C. 1710 requires VA/VHA to collect income information from certain applicants for medical care and to use that income data to determine the appropriate eligibility category for the applicant's medical care.26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7) authorizes the disclosure of tax return information with respect to net earnings from self-employment and wages, as defined by relevant IRC sections, to Federal, state, and local agencies administering certain benefit programs under Title 38 of the U.S.C. 7213 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 provides SSA authority to add a death indicator to verification routines that the agency determines to be appropriate.
This computer matching agreement sets forth the terms, conditions, and safeguards under which the Social Security Administration (SSA) will disclose tax return information to the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration (VA/VHA). VA/VHA will use the tax return information to verify veterans' employment status and earnings to determine eligibility for its health benefit programs.
Veterans applying for VA Health Care Benefits
VA/VHA will provide SSA with the following information for everyone for whom VA/VHA requests tax return information: first name, last name, SSN, and date of birth (DOB). VA will not include the individual's sex in the finder file it submits to SSA. VA/VHA will provide the requested tax report year for which data is being requested.
SSA will match the data in VA/VHA's electronic file with SSA Enumeration data from the Master Files of SSN Holders and SSN Applications (referred to as the Enumeration System), 60-0058, last fully published at 87 FR 263 (January 4, 2022). SSA will subsequently run those verified SSNs against the Earnings Recording and Self- Employment Income System (referred to as the Master Earnings File (MEF)), 60-0059, last fully published at 71 FR 1819 (January 11, 2006) and amended at 78 FR 40542 (July 5, 2013) and 83 FR 54969 (November 1, 2018) to extract and disclose the needed tax return information to VA/VHA. VA/VHA will match SSA information with information extracted from its system of records “Income Verification Records-VA” (89VA10NB).
The information in these systems of records may be updated during the effective period of this agreement as required by the Privacy Act.
The Senior Agency Official for Privacy, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Merissa Larson, Chief Privacy Officer and Chair of the Data Integrity Board, Department of Veterans Affairs approved this document on August 28, 2025, for publication.