Food Safety and Inspection Service
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Antitrust Division
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Final rule.
FSIS is amending the Federal meat inspection regulations to remove the regulation that established a voluntary fee-for-service program for ante-mortem inspection of horses. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia vacated the voluntary fee-for-service program on March 28, 2007. FSIS is removing the regulation to ensure the Agency's regulations accurately reflect current requirements.
This rule is effective April 21, 2025.
Denise Eblen, Acting Deputy Under Secretary for the Office of Food Safety, at (202) 205-0495 or
On February 8, 2006, FSIS published the interim final rule “Ante-Mortem Inspection of Horses” (71 FR 6337), which established a voluntary fee-for-service program allowing horse slaughter establishments to pay FSIS to conduct ante-mortem inspections. The program was established in response to the FY 2006 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 109-97), which prohibited the use of federal funds for ante-mortem inspections of horses. To continue operating, U.S. horse slaughter businesses petitioned FSIS to implement a program under the Agricultural Marketing Act (AMA) (7 U.S.C. 1622 and 1624) that would enable horse slaughter establishments to directly fund the required inspections.
Shortly after publication of the interim final rule, an animal protection organization sued the USDA, alleging that FSIS violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4331,
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed with the animal protection organization, holding that FSIS' actions violated both NEPA and the APA. Consequently, the court vacated the interim final rule that established the fee-for-service program and permanently enjoined FSIS from implementing it. Therefore, FSIS is removing Subpart B—Horses under 9 CFR part 352 to ensure the Agency's regulations accurately reflect current requirements.
This rule is not subject to the APA requirement to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and provide the public with the opportunity to comment before issuing a final rule because it falls under the good cause exception at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The good cause exception is satisfied when notice and comment is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest”
Animals, Food labeling, Meat inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FSIS is amending 9 CFR part 352 of the Federal meat inspection regulations as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1622, 1624; 7 CFR 2.17(g) and (i), 2.55.
Done in Washington, DC.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary, moving safety zone to surround nearshore operations conducted by a cable laying barge. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Virginia Beach, Virginia. Cable lay and burial operations will create navigational hazards moving along a corridor from shore extending seaward 12 NM. This rulemaking will prohibit persons and vessels from entering the safety zone unless authorized by the
This rule is effective without actual notice from April 21, 2025 through March 1, 2026. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from March 2, 2025, until April 21, 2025.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rulemaking, call or email LCDR Justin Strassfield, Sector Virginia, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard, Telephone: (571) 608-2969; or
On January 28, 2024, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) approved the Construction and Operations Plan for the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind—Commercial (CVOW-C) Project. As explained in the Record of Decision (ROD)
To address stability requirements for the cable laying and burial process, the CLB uses multipoint anchorage configurations which are highly dynamic and which create large, unseen hazards to navigation. To mitigate these hazards, someone familiar with the CLB's current anchoring positions must determine if there are safe transit corridors within 1000 yards of the CLB to allow a vessel to transit, or if a transiting vessel must avoid the full 1000 yards radius of the safety zone. The Sector Virginia Captain of the Port (COTP) therefore determined that the hazards associated with anchorage arrangements warranted action by the Coast Guard, and the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Safety Zone; Cable Laying Corridor, Atlantic Ocean, Virginia Beach, Virginia” on Jan 15, 2025 (90 FR 3729). During the comment period that ended Jan 29, 2025, we received one submission.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. As explained in section II, above, the anchorage configurations used to support the cable laying and burial operations are highly dynamic and create large, unseen hazards to navigation. A safety zone is needed to allow a designated representative, in communication with the anchor-handling vessels, to determine if safe transit corridors exist, whether to allow transit through the safety zone, and to communicate these hazards and possible safe transit corridors, thereby allowing the Coast Guard to minimize the burden on non-project vessels seeking to transit safely through or around the safety zone.
As noted above, we received one submission. The commenter raised both environmental concerns associated with the underlying cable laying action and concerns associated with the potential effect of the proposed safety zone on navigation and commercial fishing. He requested a reduction both in the size of the safety zone and in its duration. He also requested that there be an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The establishment of the safety zone, however, is independent of authorization to conduct the underlying cable laying operations, and the environmental issues the commenter raises are therefore outside the scope of this rulemaking. The commenter may wish to direct his environmental concerns to BOEM, which, as noted in a footnote in the background section. We will, however, address the commenter's recommendations relating to the impact of the safety zone on navigation and on commercial fishing operations.
To address his commercial fishing and navigation concerns, the commenter recommended that the Coast Guard:
• Reduce the safety zone to 500 yards, which, the commenter says, would still provide a buffer around the cable-laying barge while mitigating undue restrictions on fishing vessels;
• Designate safe (static) transit corridors through the affected area, allowing vessels to navigate safely without needing COTP permission for every transit;
• Implement time-of-year restrictions that avoid peak spawning and migration periods for blue crabs and finfish species. The commenter may wish to direct his environmental concerns to BOEM, which, as noted in a footnote in the background section, evaluated the environmental effects of the CVOW-C project in a ROD announced November 3, 2023.
The Coast Guard weighed designation of the safety zone and possible alternatives, including reducing the size of the zone, or not designating any safety zone at all, against the Coast Guard's interest in mitigating navigational risk associated with the hazards created by the required anchoring arrangements. We have explained above, the reason the Coast Guard concluded there is a need to have a safety zone, and the reason we cannot designate a static safety zone which would not require vessels to obtain
The anchor lines required for proper operation of the CLB ULISSE can at times extend up to 3280 feet from the barge. In addition, the barge will continue to operate 24 hours a day in sea States that might present visibility challenges for mariners attempting to recognize the location of these lines and to assess the draft allowances the lines would allow for vessels to safely cross over them, if that is even possible, given the tension on the line and the depth of the water. While reducing the size of the safety zone is not a viable alternative, we note that the area within which the safety zone will move is limited. The operational boundaries described in this rule, which extend up to 12 miles from shore, identify a corridor within which the CLB ULLISE is expected to place anchors, and at no time will operations impact more than 20% of the waters in the corridor. As this rule describes mitigations to the risks identified by anchors, the size of the moving zone being reduced to significantly smaller than the size of the possible anchorage arrangement, was not considered a workable alternative.
Implementing time of year restrictions on the cable laying operations is beyond the scope of the Coast Guard's authorities. As we explain above, the Coast Guard is not the agency charged with approving the project and with placing restrictions on how it is accomplished. The Coast Guard's role here is limited to mitigating the navigational risks associated with the project, as it has been approved. Moreover, a decision to not support the operation with a safety zone would not prevent the project from occurring, as it is not the Coast Guard which authorized the action. Failing to designate the safety zone would merely leave the risks identified unmitigated.
We intend to by designate a US flagged vessel working with the project as a representative, thereby providing vessels seeking to transit up-to-date information on the safety of transiting to the east of the zone, to the west of the zone, or through the zone. Due to the implementation of this rule, safe transit corridors will be identified when they exist and provided to mariners who communicate with the designated representative that they will have difficulty transiting around the zone. Without this rule, the hazards would remain, and less information would be provided.
For the reasons stated above, there are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM except that the dates provided in the enforcement period paragraph have been pushed forward by a few days.
This rule establishes a safety zone on March 2, 2025, for approximately one year. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 1000 yards of the CLB ULISSE, only while it conducts cable handling and burial in the Atlantic Ocean beginning roughly 300 yards from the shore of the State Military Reservation in Virginia Beach, Virginia out to 12 NM, the U.S. Territorial Seas border. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters during the 365-day period. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration and time of day of the regulated area. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around this safety zone to the east initially without losing sight of land and the impact the nearshore recreational boaters near Rudee Inlet in Virginia Beach, Virginia would be reduced further as the CLB moves further from shore, providing safe transit options to the west along the shoreline.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard did not receive any comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zones may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of safety zones to protect the public from hazards created by cable laying and burial operations, as well as the anchoring configurations, required for the operations of the CLB ULISSE. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60a of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Under the general safety zone regulations in subpart C of this part, no vessel or person may enter or remain in any safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP, or designated representative. If a vessel or person is notified by the COTP, or designated representative that they have entered one of these safety zones without permission, they are required to immediately depart in a safe manner following the directions given.
(2) Mariners requesting to transit this safety zone must first contact the designated representative who will be monitoring VHF-FM channels 13 and 16 while work is ongoing. If permission is granted, mariners must proceed at their own risk and strictly observe any and all instructions provided by the COTP, or designated representative to the mariner regarding the conditions of entry to and exit from any location within the moving safety zone.
(d)
(e)
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Final rule.
The United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service or Agency) is making purely technical, clarifying revisions to its existing regulations governing the establishment and maintenance of grazing advisory boards on National Forest System lands (NFS). The revisions remove the provisions for grazing advisory boards to ensure consistency of the existing regulations with governing statutes.
This rule is effective May 21, 2025.
Information on this final rule may be obtained via written request addressed to the Director, Natural Resources, USDA Forest Service, 201 14th Street NW, Washington, DC 20250-1124 or by email to
Myra Black, Rangeland Program Manager at 208-867-8783 or by mail at 201 14th St. SW, Suite 2CE-02L, Washington, DC 20250. Individuals who use telecommunications devices for the hearing impaired may call 711 to reach the Telecommunications Relay Service,
This final rule makes purely technical, clarifying revisions to the Agency's existing regulations at 36 CFR 222.11 governing grazing advisory boards on NFS lands. 36 CFR 222.11 contains requirements for the establishment and maintenance of grazing advisory boards as provided by 43 U.S.C. 1753, which expired on December 31, 1985, see Public Law 94-579, Title IV, Section 403(f). Therefore, the provisions at 36 CFR 222.11 are obsolete. This technical, clarifying revision does not formulate standards, criteria, or guidelines applicable to Forest Service programs and therefore does not require public notice and opportunity to comment under section 14(a) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1612(a)).
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will determine whether a regulatory action is significant as defined by E.O. 12866 and will review significant regulatory actions. OIRA has determined that this final rule is not significant as defined by E.O. 12866. E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The Department has developed the final rule consistent with E.O. 13563.
Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (known as the Congressional Review Act) (5 U.S.C. 801
The final rule will remove the requirements for the establishment and maintenance of grazing advisory boards, which expired on December 31, 1985. Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 220.6(d)(2) exclude from documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement “rules, regulations, or policies to establish servicewide administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions.” The Department's assessment is that this final rule falls within this category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist which will require preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.
The Department has considered this final rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602
The Department has considered this final rule under the requirements of E.O. 13132,
E.O. 13175,
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277), requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for a rule that may affect family well-being. The final rule will have no impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, the Department has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment for the final rule.
The Department has analyzed the final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria in E.O. 12630,
The Department has reviewed the final rule under E.O. 13211,
The Department has analyzed the final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria in E.O. 12988,
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Department has assessed the effects of the final rule on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. The final rule will not
The final rule does not contain any recordkeeping or reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not already approved for use. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
National forests, Range management.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authority of Public Law 94-579, Title IV, Section 403(f), the Department is amending 36 CFR part 222 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1010-1012, 5101-5106; 16 U.S.C. 551, 572, 5801; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 1751, 1752, 1901; E.O. 12548 (51 FR 5985).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS approves and implements Framework Adjustment 39 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan that establishes specifications and other management measures for fishing years 2025 and 2026, including fishing effort allocation into access areas, modifying when areas open to optimize yield and minimize bycatch, and closures to protect juvenile scallops. Vessels with a limited access general category B permit may transit outside of the Northern Gulf of Maine with scallops onboard. Research set-aside program regulations are clarified. This action is necessary to prevent overfishing and improve resource yield-per-recruit and management of the fishery.
Effective on April 21, 2025.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for this action that describes the approved measures in Framework 39 and other considered alternatives and analyzes the impacts of the approved measures and alternatives. Copies of Framework 39, the EA, the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), and information on the economic impacts of this rulemaking are available upon request from Dr. Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950 and accessible via the internet in documents available at:
Emily Keiley, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9116, email:
The Council adopted Framework Adjustment 39 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP) at its December 2024 meeting. NMFS published a proposed rule for Framework 39 on March 18, 2025 (90 FR 12510). The proposed rule included a 15-day public comment period that closed on April 2, 2025. Except as explained below with respect to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), NMFS is issuing this rule pursuant to the rulemaking authority at section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
NMFS has approved all of the measures in Framework 39 recommended by the Council. This final rule implements Framework 39, which sets scallop specifications and other measures for fishing years 2025 and 2026, including changes to the catch, effort, and quota allocations and adjustments to the rotational area management program for fishing year 2025, and default specifications for fishing year 2026. The Magnuson-Stevens Act authorizes NMFS to approve, partially approve, or disapprove measures proposed by the Council based on whether the measures are consistent with the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable law. Details concerning the development of these measures were contained in the preamble of the proposed rule and are not repeated here. This final rule also addresses regulatory text that is unclear pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The OFL is based on a fishing mortality rate (F) of 0.61, equivalent to the F threshold updated through the Northeast Fisheries Science Center's most recent scallop benchmark stock assessment that was completed in September 2020 (NEFSC, 2020). The ABC and the equivalent total ACL for each fishing year are based on an F of 0.45, which is the F associated with a 75-percent probability of not exceeding the OFL. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) recommended scallop fishery ABCs of 39.5 million pounds (lb; 17,901 metric tons (mt)) for 2025 and 39.1 million lb (17,745 mt) for the 2026 fishing year, after accounting for discards and incidental mortality. In support of the Council's development of the next framework adjustment, the SSC will reevaluate the best available scientific information and, if warranted by the science at that time, the SSC may recommend modifications to the ABC for the 2026 fishing year.
Table 1 outlines the scallop fishery catch limits. After deducting the incidental target total allowable catch (TAC), the research set-aside (RSA), and the observer set-aside, the remaining ACL available to the fishery is allocated according to the following fleet proportions established in Amendment 11 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP (72 FR 20090, April 14, 2008): 94.5 percent is allocated to the limited access scallop fleet (
This action deducts 1.275 million lb (578 mt) of scallops annually for 2025 and 2026 from the ABC for use as the Scallop RSA to fund scallop research. Vessels participating in Scallop RSA are compensated through the sale of scallops harvested under RSA projects. Of the 1.275 million-lb (578-mt) allocation, NMFS has already allocated 275,181 lb (124.820 mt) to previously funded multi-year projects as part of the 2024 RSA awards process. Of the 1.275 million lb (578-mt) of scallops set aside for 2025 RSA, up to half (625,000 lb, 283.5 mt) can be harvested from the access areas (Areas I and II). No limit is set on the amount that can be harvested from open areas. The cap on access area RSA harvest is intended to spread out compensation fishing between access and open areas to prevent depletion of the access areas while allowing some access to ensure the viability of the RSA program.
This action allows vessels participating in RSA projects to harvest RSA compensation from the open area and the Area I and II Scallop Rotational Areas. All vessels are prohibited from harvesting RSA compensation pounds in all other access areas. Vessels are prohibited from fishing for RSA compensation in the NGOM, unless the vessel is fishing on an RSA compensation trip using NGOM RSA allocation that was awarded to an RSA project. Lastly, Framework 39 prohibits the harvest of RSA from any rotational area under default 2026 measures. At the start of the 2026 fishing year, RSA compensation may only be harvested from open areas. The Council will re-evaluate this default prohibition measure in the action that would set final 2026 specifications.
This action deducts one percent of the ABC for the industry-funded observer program to help defray the cost to scallop vessels that carry an observer. The observer set-aside is 394,627 lb (179 mt) for 2025 and 390,218 lb (177 mt) for 2026. The Council may adjust the 2026 observer set-aside when it develops specific, non-default measures for 2026.
In fishing year 2025, the observer compensation rates for limited access vessels in open areas fishing under days-at-sea (DAS) is 0.17 DAS per DAS fished. For access area trips, the observer compensation rate is 200 lb (90.7 kg), in addition to the vessel's trip possession limit for each day or part of a day an observer is onboard.
For LAGC IFQ trips less than 24 hours, a vessel will be able to harvest the trip limit and the daily compensation rate on the observed trip, or the vessel could harvest any unfished compensation on a subsequent trip while adhering to the commercial possession limit. LAGC IFQ vessels may possess an additional 200 lb (90.7 kg) per trip on trips less than 24 hours when carrying an observer.
For trips exceeding 24 hours, the daily compensation rate of 200 lb (90.7 kg) will be prorated at 12-hour increments. The amount of compensation a vessel can receive on one trip will be capped at 2 days (48 hours) and vessels fishing longer than 48 hours will not receive additional compensation allocation. For example, if the observer compensation rate is 200 lb/day (90.7 kg/day) and an LAGC IFQ vessel carrying an observer departs on July 1 at 2200 hours and lands on July 3 at 0100 hours, the length of the trip would equal 27 hours, or 1 day and 3
For NGOM trips, a vessel will be able to harvest the trip limit and the daily compensation rate on the observed trip. NGOM vessels may possess an additional 125 lb (56.7 kg) per trip when carrying an observer.
This action implements vessel-specific DAS allocations for each of the three limited access scallop DAS permit categories (
Framework 39 closes the Nantucket Lightship-North and South (table 3) and the Elephant Trunk (table 4). Closure of the Nantucket Lightship area is intended to optimize growth of juvenile scallops observed in the area to support future rotational access. In the mid-Atlantic, closure of the Elephant Trunk is intended to protect a strong recruitment event detected by the 2024 surveys; these scallops are currently too small to harvest, closure of the area is intended to allow them to grow while reducing incidental mortality that would occur if the area were open to fishing.
The 2024 scallop surveys show that Area I and Area II access areas hold higher densities of larger scallops and can support rotational fishing in 2025. Framework 39 keeps the Area II Scallop Rotational Area open for fishing year 2025 (table 5). In addition, it opens the Area I Rotational Area (table 6) to scallop fishing as part of the Rotational Access Area Program.
The continued expansion of the Area II boundary to include Closed Area II Extension will allow the fishery to target relatively high densities of exploitable biomass and to spread effort out across a larger area. Most scallops in the Area II access area are exploitable and have supported access area fishing for several years.
For fishing year 2025, Framework 39 combines the areas formally known as Area I, Area I-Sliver, and Area I-Quad to create the Area I Rotational Access Area (table 6).
To better enforce the Sea Scallop Rotational Area Management Program, Framework 38 prohibited all vessels fishing under a scallop declaration from entering or transiting any scallop rotational areas unless the vessel is on a declared trip into that area, or otherwise specified. Framework 38 also designated the area known as Area I (including the Area I-Quad) (table 7) as a corridor for continuous transiting. In Framework 39, the Council did not recommend any changes to the current transit regulations, so this action maintains the Area-I transit corridor.
The Area I and Area II Rotational Access Areas will be closed annually from April 1 through May 14. The areas re-open on May 15 each fishing year.
This closure will remain in place for the Area I and Area II access areas unless changed in a future action. If parts of these areas become available for open-bottom fishing in future actions (
Area II will be closed annually to directed scallop fishing from November 15 through May 15. This closure is intended to reduce bycatch of windowpane and yellowtail flounder and to optimize scallop yield. The previously implemented seasonal bycatch closure, August 15 through November 15, did not cover the time period when windowpane bycatch is highest. Catch rates of windowpane flounder have been highest from December through April. Displacing scallop fishing effort from those months is intended to reduce non-target species impacts, particularly in April when both fishing effort and windowpane catch rates are both relatively high. Scallop meat yields are also low during the winter and spring months, and displacing fishing effort in Area II from February, March, and April into the late spring and summer is intended to reduce overall scallop fishing mortality. Shifting and extending the timing of the bycatch closure will better align access to the area with times of lower flatfish bycatch, and when scallop yield is highest.
Framework 39 reverts the New York Bight Scallop Rotational Area to the open area. This area was previously managed as part of the area rotation program; however, there is not enough biomass to support rotational access, nor was there enough recruitment seen in the 2024 annual survey to support keeping this area as part of the program. The area no longer meets the criteria for either closure or controlled access as defined in 50 CFR 648.55(a)(6). This will become part of the open area and can be fished as part of the DAS program or on LAGC IFQ open area trips after the 60-day carryover period,
Table 8 provides the limited access full-time allocations for all of the access areas for the 2025 fishing year and the first 60 days the access areas that are open in the 2026 fishing year. These allocations can be landed in as many trips as needed, so long as vessels do not exceed the possession limit (also in table 7) on any one trip.
Framework 39 allows full-time limited access vessels to exchange access area allocation in 6,000-lb (2,722-kg) increments. The owner of a vessel issued a full-time limited access scallop permit can exchange unharvested scallop pounds allocated into an access area for another full-time limited access vessel's unharvested scallop pounds allocated into another access area. For example, a full-time vessel may exchange 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) from one access area for 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) allocated to another full-time vessel for another access area. Further, a full-time vessel may exchange 12,000 lb (5,443 kg) from one access area for 12,000 lb (5,443 kg) allocated to another full-time vessel for another access area. These exchanges may be made only between vessels with the same permit category; a full-time vessel may not exchange allocations with a part-time vessel, and vice versa. Part-time vessels may not exchange access area allocations.
Table 9 provides the limited access part-time allocations for all of the access areas for the 2025 fishing year and the first 60 days the access areas are open in the 2026 fishing year. Vessels can fish the allocation in either of the open access areas (
This action implements a 1.854 million-lb (841-mt) ACL for 2025 and a 1.845 million-lb (837-mt) default ACL for 2026 for LAGC vessels with IFQ permits (see table 1). These sub-ACLs provide a ceiling on overall landings by the LAGC IFQ fleet. If the fleet were to reach this ceiling, any overages would be deducted from the following year's sub-ACL. Framework 28 (82 FR 15155, March 27, 2017) changed the way the LAGC IFQ allocations are set from a direct percentage of the ACL to a percentage of the APL. The purpose of this change was to help ensure that the allocation of potential catch between the fleets is more consistent with the concept of spatial management by allocating catch to the LAGC IFQ fleet based on harvestable scallops instead of total biomass. Since Framework 28 was implemented in 2017, the LAGC IFQ allocation has been equal to 5.5 percent of the projected landings (5 percent for LAGC IFQ vessels and 0.5 percent for LAGC IFQ vessels that also have a limited access scallop permit). The annual allocation to the LAGC IFQ-only fleet for fishing years 2025 and 2026 based on APL is 901,691 lb (409 mt) for 2025 and 676,819 lb (307 mt) for 2026 (see table 1). Each vessel's IFQ is calculated from these allocations based on APL.
This action implements a 185,188-lb (84-mt) ACL for 2025 and a default 185,188-lb (84-mt) ACL for 2026 for limited access scallop vessels with IFQ permits (see table 1). These sub-ACLs provide a ceiling on overall landings by this fleet. If the fleet were to reach this ceiling, any overages would be deducted from the following year's sub-ACL. The annual allocation to limited access vessels with IFQ permits is 90,390 lb (41 mt) for 2025 and 90,390 lb (41 mt) for 2026 (see table 1). Each vessel's IFQ is calculated from these allocations based on APL.
Framework 39 allocates LAGC IFQ vessels a fleet-wide number of trips for fishing year 2025 and no default trips for fishing year 2026 (see table 10). The scallop catch associated with the total number of trips for all areas combined (571 trips) for fishing year 2025 is equivalent to 5.5 percent of total projected catch from access areas.
LAGC Access Area trips can be taken in any of the available areas (Area I or Area II). Once the Regional Administrator has determined that the total number of LAGC IFQ access area trips have been or are projected to be taken, all of the access areas will then be closed to LAGC IFQ fishing.
This action sets total allowable landings (TAL) in the NGOM of 712,093 lb (323,000 kg) for fishing year 2025. This action deducts 25,000 lb (11,340 kg) of scallops annually for 2025 and 2026 from the NGOM TAL to increase the overall Scallop RSA to fund scallop research. In addition, this action deducts one percent of the NGOM ABC from the NGOM TAL for fishing years 2025 and 2026 to support the industry-funded observer program to help defray the cost to scallop vessels that carry an observer (table 11), resulting in a NGOM set-aside of 675,563 lb (306,430 mt).
Amendment 21 developed landing limits for all permit categories in the NGOM and established an 800,000-lb (362,874-kg) NGOM Set-Aside trigger for the NGOM directed fishery, with a sharing agreement for access by all permit categories for allocation above the trigger. Allocation above the trigger (
This action reopens the NGOM, effective on 0001 hours on April 21, 2025. The NGOM was closed on April 11, 2025, when the default NGOM set-aide was projected to be harvested. The NGOM set-aside approved and implemented in this action is higher than the default 2025 NGOM set-aside. Therefore, this action reopens the NGOM to allow for the harvest of the remaining 2025 NGOM set-aside. The NGOM will be closed when we project that the 2025 NGOM set-aside of 675,563 lb (306,430 kg) has been harvested.
This action relieves a restriction to allow vessels issued an LAGC Category B permit to possess scallops and transit, with gear stowed, outside of the NGOM scallop management area. Vessels issued a NGOM scallop permit continue to be prohibited from declaring into or fishing for scallops outside of the NGOM scallop management area. Vessels issued an LAGC Category B permit fishing in the NGOM continue to be limited to no more than 1,666 lb (756 kg) of in-shell scallops shoreward of the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) demarcation line.
This action sets a 50,000-lb (22,680-kg) scallop incidental landings target TAL for each respective fishing year, 2025 and 2026, to account for mortality from vessels that catch scallops while fishing for other species and ensure that F targets are not exceeded. NMFS may adjust this target TAC in a future action if vessels catch more scallops under the incidental target TAC than predicted.
This rule includes one revision to add regulatory text to clarify the conditions related to research set-aside harvest. Regulatory text has been added at § 648.56(i) to clarify that fishing vessels harvesting research set-aside pounds are not allowed to also harvest commercial pounds on the same trip.
These revisions are consistent with section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which provides authority to the Secretary of Commerce to promulgate regulations necessary to ensure that amendments to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP are carried out in accordance with the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
We received nine comments on the proposed rule during the public comment period. Three comments, and parts of other comments, were not relevant to the proposed rule. We respond to relevant comments below, organized by topic. We are not responding to the comments that cited general concerns and recommendations about offshore wind, right whales, or scallop management and commercial fishing outside the scope of this rulemaking.
While there is uncertainty about the future catch rates, winter months are when scallop meat yield is lowest, and we typically observe declines in catch rates (lower landings per unit effort, (LPUE)). The seasonal variability in LPUE was the primary reason this action delays the opening of Areas I and II to May 15, to shift fishing effort to better align with times when meat yield is best and LPUE is highest.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. Pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is necessary to discharge NMFS' responsibilities and to carry out the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is not significant pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and is not a regulatory action under E.O. 14192.
This final rule does not contain policies with federalism or “takings” implications, as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.
This action does not contain any collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that expedited implementation of this rule will benefit the public, and is necessary to achieve management objectives for the scallop fishery, windowpane and yellowtail flounder stocks, and to prevent harms to scallop fishery participants. As explained in more detail below, this constitutes good cause, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), to waive the 30-day delay in the rule's effective date and to make the final Framework 39 measures effective upon publication in the
If this action is not implemented as soon as possible, it will delay positive economic benefits to the scallop fleet. Delayed implementation will negatively impact the access area rotation program by delaying fishing in areas that should be available, adversely affect scallop stocks by delaying harvest until times when scallop meats are smaller, resulting in increased mortality, and by creating confusion in the Atlantic sea scallop industry because of the differences in the default and Framework 39 measures.
Framework 39 will increase allocations throughout the fleet. Currently Framework 38 default measures are in effect. The default measures, including access area designations, DAS, IFQ, RSA, and observer set-aside allocations, automatically went into effect on April 1, 2025. Most of these default measures are set at lower harvest levels than what will be implemented under Framework 39. These default allocations were intentionally set at levels low enough to avoid exceeding the final Framework 39 allocations. Under the existing default measures, each full-time vessel has 15 DAS and no access area trips. The specification measures in Framework 39 will provide full-time vessels with an additional 9 DAS (24 DAS total) and 24,000 lb (5,443 kg) in access area allocations. In addition, the NGOM set-aside under the default measures is only 47 percent of the Framework 39 NGOM set-aside and further delay in implementing the full set-aside for this area would have negative economic impacts on the scallop fishery. Framework 39 will also open the Closed Area I and II Access Areas allowing the fleet to sustainably fish in the area. Expedited implementation of Framework 39 will, accordingly, benefit the public most directly affected by its measures.
For these reasons, NMFS has determined that there is good cause for the measures in this final rule to become effective immediately upon publication in the
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 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.
Pursuant to section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), NMFS has completed a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) in support of Framework 39, as included below. This FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a summary of the significant issues raised by public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS' responses to those comments, a summary of the analyses completed in the Framework 39 EA, and the preamble to this final rule. A summary of the IRFA was published in the proposed rule for this action and is not repeated here. A description of why this action was considered, the objectives of, and the legal basis for this rule is contained in Framework 39 and in the preambles to the proposed rule and this final rule and are not repeated here. All of the documents that constitute the FRFA (including the preambles of the proposed and final rules) are available from NMFS and/or the Council, and a copy of the IRFA, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the EA are available upon request (see
We received no comments specific to the IRFA or on the economic impacts of the rule more generally. See above for responses to comments on the proposed rule.
The proposed regulations would affect all vessels with limited access, LAGC IFQ, and LAGC NGOM scallop permits. Framework 39 (section 5.6) and the LAGC IFQ Performance Evaluation (2017) provide extensive information on the number of vessels that would be affected by the proposed regulations, their home and principal state, dependency on the scallop fishery, and revenues and profits (see
For RFA purposes, NMFS defines a small business in a shellfish fishery as a firm that is independently owned and operated with receipts of less than $11 million annually (see 50 CFR 200.2). Individually permitted vessels may hold permits for several different fisheries, harvesting species of fish that are regulated by several different fishery management plans, in addition to those impacted by the proposed action. Furthermore, multiple permitted vessels and/or permits may be owned by entities affiliated through stock ownership, common management, identity of interest, contractual relationships, or economic dependency. For the purposes of this analysis, “ownership entities” are defined as those entities with common ownership as listed on the permit application. Only permits with identical ownership are categorized as an “ownership entity.” For example, if five permits have the same seven persons listed as co-owners on their permit applications, those seven persons would form one “ownership entity” that holds those five permits. If two of those seven owners also co-own additional vessels, that ownership arrangement would be considered a separate “ownership entity” for the purpose of this analysis.
On June 1 of each year, ownership entities are identified based on a list of all permits for the most recent complete calendar year. The current ownership dataset is based on the calendar year 2023 permits and contains average gross sales associated with those permits for calendar years 2019 through 2023. Matching the potentially impacted 2023 fishing year permits described above (
This action contains no new collection-of-information, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements. This final rule does not require specific action on behalf of regulated entities other than to ensure they stay within the established specifications.
During the development of Framework 39, NMFS and the Council considered ways to reduce the regulatory burden on, and provide flexibility for, the regulated entities in this action. Framework 39 allows the LAGC IFQ fleet to fish 2025 access area trips in either Area I or Area II. Further, Framework 39 allows part-time vessels to fish access area trips in either Area I or Area II. This could have potentially slight positive impacts on the resource overall by spreading out effort and providing more access in areas with higher catch rates. It also could potentially reduce total area swept because the LAGC IFQ and part-time vessels will have the opportunity to fish on high densities of scallops in all open access areas. Alternatives to the measures in this final rule are described in detail in Framework 39, which includes an EA, RIR, and IRFA (see
Overall, this rule minimizes adverse long-term impacts by ensuring that management measures and catch limits result in sustainable fishing mortality rates that promote stock rebuilding, and as a result, maximize optimal yield. The measures implemented by this final rule also provide additional flexibility for fishing operations in the short-term.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency will publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule and will designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency will explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a bulletin to permit holders that also serves as a small entity compliance guide was prepared. This final rule and the guide (
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 648 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(9)
(b) * * *
(3)
(i) Vessels on compensation fishing trips, harvesting scallops for RSA compensation, may not fish for, or land scallops except for RSA compensation. Vessels on compensation fishing trips may not fish for, or land scallops on DAS, access area allocation, or IFQ allocation.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Area 1 Scallop Transit Area.
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) The following access area allocations and possession limits for limited access vessels shall be effective for the 2025 and 2026 fishing years:
(
(
(
(
(
(
(c)
(e)
(1)
(2)
(g) * * *
(1) An LAGC scallop vessel may only fish in the scallop rotational areas specified in § 648.60 or in paragraph (g)(3)(iv) of this section, subject to any additional restrictions specified in § 648.60, subject to the possession limit and access area schedule specified in the specifications or framework adjustment processes defined in § 648.55, provided the vessel complies with the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (6) through (9) and (d) through (g) of this section. A vessel issued both a NE multispecies permit and an LAGC scallop permit may fish in an approved SAP under § 648.85 and under multispecies DAS in the Area II and Area I, Scallop Rotational Areas specified in § 648.60, when open, provided the vessel complies with the requirements specified in this section and this paragraph (g), but may not fish for, possess, or land scallops on such trips.
(3) * * *
(v)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(2)
(b) * * *
(2)
(ii) [Reserved]
(g)
(2) [Reserved]
(h)
(2) [Reserved]
(a) * * *
(1) A vessel fishing under a NGOM scallop permit may only fish for scallops in the NGOM scallop management area.
(4) A vessel issued a NGOM scallop permit may possess scallops outside the NGOM management unit if all fishing gear is stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2.
(b) * * *
(1) The following landings limits will be effective for the NGOM for the 2025 and 2026 fishing years.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a heavy maintenance check that found elongation on the upper section of the vertical member's assembly at the frame (FR) 24A cargo panel sub-structure. This proposed AD would require a check for certain repairs, and as applicable, repetitive detailed visual inspections of the vertical member's upper part and the upper fittings at FR 24A in the forward cargo compartment and corrective actions. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 5, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Airbus material identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Tim Dowling, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3667; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Tim Dowling, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3667; email
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2025-0083, dated April 14, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0083) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, -153N, -171N, and -173N airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -215, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes; Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -251NX, -252N, -252NX, -253N, -253NX, -253NY, -271N, -271NX, -272N, and -272NX airplanes. Model A320-215 and A321-271NY airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this proposed AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability. The MCAI states that during heavy maintenance checks, elongation was found on the upper section of the vertical member's assembly (Y-765, Y-254, Y254, and
The FAA is proposing this AD to detect and correct damage of the FR 24A vertical members assembly in the forward cargo compartment. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to affected parts hitting the 80VU rack and subsequent loss of several 80VU computers, with multiple system failures or partial disconnection of systems, which could result in reduced control of the airplane.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1CFU and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1CFV, both dated September 26, 2024, specify procedures for a maintenance records check for certain existing repairs, and depending on the results of the check, contacting Airbus for instructions, repetitive detailed visual inspections for damage (
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the material already described, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
The initial compliance time for the proposed check and, as applicable, the detailed visual inspections is the later of: Before exceeding 30,000 flight hours since first flight, 15,000 flight cycles since first flight, or 72 months since airplane date of manufacture, whichever occurs first; and within 36 months.
The proposed repetitive compliance time for applicable detailed visual inspections is at intervals not to exceed 30,000 flight hours, 15,000 flight cycles, or 72 months, whichever occurs first.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 1,938 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by June 5, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, -153N, -171N, and -173N airplanes.
(3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes.
(4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -251NX, -252N, -252NX, -253N, -253NX, -253NY, -271N, -271NX, -272N, and -272NX airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/furnishings.
This AD was prompted by a heavy maintenance check that found elongation on the upper section of the vertical member's assembly at the frame (FR) 24A cargo panel sub-structure. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and correct damage of the FR 24A vertical members assembly in the forward cargo compartment. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to affected parts hitting the 80VU rack and subsequent loss of several 80VU computers, with multiple system failures or partial disconnection of systems, which could result in reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes: Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1CFU, dated September 26, 2024, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1CFU, dated September 26, 2024.
(2) For Model A319-151N, -153N, -171N, and -173N airplanes; Model A320-251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes; and Model A321-251N, -251NX, -252N, -252NX, -253N, -253NX, -253NY, -271N, -271NX, -272N, and -272NX airplanes: Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1CFV, dated September 26, 2024, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1CFV, dated September 26, 2024.
(1) Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1CFU, dated September 26, 2024, and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1CFV, dated September 26, 2024, refer to “the effective date of the AD,” this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1CFU, dated September 26, 2024, and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1CFV, dated September 26, 2024, refer to a compliance time “since aircraft entry into service (EIS)” or “since aircraft EIS,” for this AD, replace that text with “since airplane date of manufacture.”
(3) Where the “Conditions” column of Table 2 in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1CFU, dated September 26, 2024, and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1CFV, dated September 26, 2024, refers to “All aircraft,” for this AD, replace that text with “All aircraft on which the vertical member has not been repaired as per RDAF and it has not been repaired in accordance with SRM 53-21-29-300-002.”
(4) Where the “Conditions” column of Table 3 in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1CFU, dated September 26, 2024, and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1CFV, dated September 26, 2024, refers to “All aircraft,” for this AD, replace that text with “All aircraft on which the upper fitting has not been repaired in accordance with SRM 53-21-29-283-003.”
(5) Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance” and the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1CFU, dated September 26, 2024, and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1CFV, dated September 26, 2024, specify “should be replaced,” for this AD, replace that text with “must be replaced.”
Although Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1CFU, dated September 26, 2024, and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1CFV, dated September 26, 2024, specify to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
For more information about this AD, contact Tim Dowling, Aviation Safety
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1CFU, dated September 26, 2024.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1CFV, dated September 26, 2024.
(3) For Airbus material identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve under the Clean Air Act (CAA) a request from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) to revise the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) to incorporate revisions to nitrogen oxides (NO
Comments must be received on or before May 21, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0761 at
Cecilia Magos, Air and Radiation Division (AR18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-7336,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), often called the “good neighbor” provision, requires each State to include provisions in its SIP to prohibit emissions from within that State that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in a downwind State. On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA published the NO
To implement the requirements of the NO
On May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162), EPA published the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which required eastern States, including Indiana, to submit SIPs that prohibited emissions consistent with annual and ozone season NO
To meet the requirements of CAIR, IDEM promulgated rules at 326 IAC 24-1, 326 IAC 24-2, and 326 IAC 24-3 that required EGUs to participate in the CAIR annual SO
CAIR was remanded to EPA by the D.C. Circuit in
On October 26, 2016 (81 FR 74504), EPA published the CSAPR Update to address the good neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS by establishing new statewide budgets in eastern States for ozone season NO
On December 17, 2018 (83 FR 64472), EPA approved a November 27, 2017, submission from IDEM requiring EGUs to participate in CSAPR State trading programs integrated with the Federal CSAPR trading programs and largely administered by EPA. The State's trading program rules were codified at 326 IAC 24-5, 326 IAC 24-6, and 326 IAC 24-7. The SIP revision also removed from the Indiana SIP the regulations at 326 IAC 24-1, 326 IAC 24-2, and portions of 326 IAC 24-3 that had established the State CAIR trading programs which the CSAPR trading programs replaced. However, the December 17, 2018, SIP action left in place the portions of 326 IAC 24-3 establishing ozone season NO
After evaluating the various options available following promulgation of the CSAPR Update, IDEM chose to meet NO
On July 24, 2020 (85 FR 44738), EPA published a final rule approving Indiana's request to modify its SIP. Given EPA's approval of these revisions, the Indiana SIP currently contains a rule at 326 IAC 10-2 that establishes a cap on the collective ozone season NO
In September 2019, the D.C. Circuit remanded the CSAPR Update to EPA in
On June 5, 2023 (88 FR 36654), EPA published the Good Neighbor Plan to address the good neighbor obligations of 23 States, including Indiana, with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. As published, the Good Neighbor Plan requires EGUs in 22 States, including Indiana, to participate in a revised version of the CSAPR NO
As a result of the series of Federal and State actions described in the preceding paragraphs of this section, Indiana is meeting its obligations under the NO
On March 8, 2019 (84 FR 8422), EPA published final amendments to the NO
Indiana's October 21, 2021, submission requests that EPA approve into Indiana's SIP revisions to the rule at 326 IAC 10-2 that already addresses ongoing NO
The rule 326 IAC 10-2 pertains to the State's ongoing NO
The alternative monitoring and reporting requirements for non-EGUs are set forth in new rule section 326 IAC 10-2-8.5, which is structured into paragraphs (a) through (h). Paragraph (a) generally provides that a source may use an alternative monitoring method consistent with the remaining requirements of the section if IDEM approves the method into the source's operating permit as sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the emissions budget for non-EGUs under 326 IAC 10-2-9.
Paragraph (b) requires a large non-EGU seeking authorization to use alternative monitoring to submit an application for a new or amended operating permit in accordance with 326 IAC 2.
Paragraph (c) specifies the permissible alternative monitoring methods and identifies the required contents of an application. Under section 326 IAC 10-2-8.5(c)(1), the specified permissible methods include: (A) monitoring of NO
Paragraph (d) provides that the alternative monitoring method may be used only after issuance of an operating permit in accordance with 326 IAC 2 specifying the applicable requirements for one of the permissible methods under paragraph (c).
Paragraph (e) sets forth ongoing requirements for use of an alternative monitoring method, including compliance with all terms and conditions specified in the operating permit, installation of all required data collection and recording systems required for alternative monitoring, recording and reporting of data from the monitoring systems as required by the operating permit, reporting of NO
Paragraph (f) prohibits operation of a large affected unit without accounting for all ozone season NO
Paragraph (g) states that section 326 IAC 10-2-8.5 does not authorize exceptions or alternatives to any requirements of 40 CFR part 75 that may apply to a source under a different legal authority.
Paragraph (h) provides for IDEM to annually report to EPA all NO
In addition to the new section 326 IAC 10-2-8.5 setting forth permissible alternative monitoring and reporting requirements, Indiana's SIP submission includes conforming revisions and other minor revisions to existing rule provisions at 326 IAC 10-2-3, 326 IAC 10-2-4, and 326 IAC 10-2-8. The conforming revisions generally provide that the otherwise applicable requirements under sections 326 IAC 10-3 through 10-8 to monitor and report ozone season NO
Under the ongoing requirements of the NO
In EPA's rulemaking amending the NO
In Indiana's case, the relevant control measure is the collective cap of 8,008 tons of ozone seasons NO
While the alternative monitoring requirements available under Indiana's rule would not provide the same degree of detailed reporting or quality
EPA proposes to find that the monitoring and reporting provisions of Indiana's 326 IAC 10-2 as revised by the addition of new rule section 326 IAC 10-2-8.5, with conforming revisions to rule sections 326 IAC 10-2-3, 326 IAC 10-2-4, and 326 IAC 10-2-8, would meet Indiana's ongoing requirements under 40 CFR 52.121(i)(1) for monitoring and reporting provisions for existing and new large non-EGUs sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the control measure already approved for these units for NO
CAA section 110(l) provides that EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Indiana's submission includes a demonstration intended to show that CAA section 110(l) does not prohibit approval of this SIP revision.
As noted in section II.B of this document, this proposed action would not alter the NO
For these reasons, EPA proposes to find that the revisions will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA is therefore proposing to find that CAA section 110(l) does not prohibit approval of this SIP revision.
EPA is proposing to approve revisions concerning NO
In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Indiana rule(s) 326 IAC 10-2-3, 326 IAC 10-2-4, 326 IAC 10-2-8, and 326 IAC 10-2-8.5, effective October 14, 2021, discussed in section III of this preamble. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; closing comment period.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is closing the reopened comment period on the proposed Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Large Municipal Waste Combustors Voluntary Remand Response and 5-Year Review. The original proposed rule was published on January 23, 2024, with a 60-day comment period closing March 25, 2024. This comment period was reopened on January 16, 2025, for an additional 6 months. The EPA is providing notice that the comment period for this rule will now close on May 30, 2025. We believe that a 6.5-month comment period in total is sufficient for interested stakeholders to submit comments and additional data.
Comments on the proposed rule, published at 89 FR 4243 on January 23, 2024, must be received on or before May 30, 2025.
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0183, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For questions about this proposed action, contact U.S. EPA, Attn: Noel Cope, Mail Drop: E143-02, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, RTP, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2128; and email address:
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (
The
Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), or other online file sharing services (
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notification of withdrawal of advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
On October 4, 2021, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking that published on October 4, 2021, at 86 FR 54667, is withdrawn as of April 21, 2025.
Jerome Ford, Assistant Director-Migratory Birds Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, telephone: 703-358-2606, email:
On October 4, 2021, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding; whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by May 21, 2025 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
On February 20, 2025, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the Oxnard Harbor District, grantee of FTZ 205, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 205, on behalf of Rincon Power, LLC, in Carpinteria, California.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
ZF Transmissions Gray Court LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facilities in Gray Court and Fountain Inn, South Carolina, within Subzone 38K. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on April 15, 2025.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished products include: plug-in hybrid electric vehicle transmissions; electric rear axle drives; stators; electric motors; electric drives; intermediate shafts for electric vehicles; and, input shafts for electric vehicles (duty rate ranges from 2.5% to 6.5%).
The proposed foreign-status materials/components include: plastic components (protection caps; rectangular rings; brackets); rubber components (sealing rings; sealing sleeves; shaft seals; gaskets); steel components (mushroom head bolts; screw plugs; washers; collector rings; retaining clips; pins; compression springs; wave springs; leg springs; angular ball bearings; ball bearings; sprocket wheels; tube assemblies; gear spiders; hose couplings; output flanges; sprocket wheels; spur gears; end yokes; sleeves; catches; end yokes; hubs); aluminum components (screw plugs; alloy marking plates; tube assemblies; bell housings; plates; cylinders); plates (type; centering; intermediate; guiding); pump covers; thermal bypass valves; valve housings; taper roller bearing outer rings; shaft seals; lamination stack assembly stators; assemblies (housing; oil guide ring; cooling connection); grounding rings; hydraulically actuated parking lock pistons; sensors (positions; speed); PEEK wires; wiring harnesses; hydraulic control unit adapters; bearing brackets; connecting bars; torque converters; disc carriers; gears (idler; input; output; parking interlock; ring; planetary); oil baffles; oil catchers; oil trays; oil pans; output housings; pinions; pistons; planet carriers; shafts (quill; splined); sensor rings; support shims; sun gear shafts; transmission counting discs; guide bushes; ring gear carriers; selector shafts; guiding plates; clamping sleeves; oil tubes; bearing rings; breathers; end discs; thrust washers; stators; open differentials; clutch disks; dog clutches; shift levers; and, sensor units (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 9.0%). The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under section 1702(a)(1)(B) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (section 1702), section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (section 232), or section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 1702, section 232 and section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Juanita Chen at
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 crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, (solar cells) from the People's Republic of China (China) during the period of review (POR), January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022. We are rescinding this review with respect to the companies listed in Appendix III. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable April 21, 2025.
Jose Rivera, 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) 482-0842, respectively.
On February 8, 2024, Commerce initiated this administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on solar cells from China.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The products covered by this order are crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, and building integrated materials. For a complete description of the scope of this order,
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), Commerce will rescind an administrative review when there are no reviewable suspended entries. Based on our analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) information, we preliminarily determine that 65 companies had no entries of subject merchandise during the POR. On December 5, 2024, we notified parties that we intended to rescind this administrative review with respect to the companies for which have no reviewable suspended entries.
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs preliminarily found to be countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a countervailable subsidy,
There are 7 companies for which a review was requested and not rescinded, which had reviewable entries, and which were not selected as mandatory respondents or found to be cross-owned with a mandatory respondent.
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,
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.22l(b)(4)(i), we calculated a countervailable subsidy rate for the mandatory respondent Light Energy. We determined the countervailable subsidy rate for High Hope based entirely on adverse facts available, in accordance with section 776 of the Act. We also assigned an individual estimated subsidy rate based on adverse facts available to Light Energy's unaffiliated supplier, Yangzhou Jinghua, in accordance with section 776 of the Act. As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the POR, January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022:
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).
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 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 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 (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 CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
For the companies listed in Appendix III 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, 2022, through December 31, 2022, 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 rescission in the
For the companies remaining subject to the review, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at the subsidy rates calculated in the final results of this review. 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
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 the results of our analysis of the issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
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).
1. Anji Dasol Solar Energy Science & Technology Co., Ltd.
2. BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd.; Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd.; BYD Company Ltd.
3. Changzhou Trina PV Ribbon Materials Co., Ltd.; Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.; Changzhou Trina Solar Yabang Energy Co., Ltd.; Hubei Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.; Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science and Technology Co., Ltd.; Trina Solar Co., Ltd.; Turpan Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.; Yancheng Trina Solar Energy Technology Co., Ltd.
4. Shenzhen Sungold Solar Co., Ltd.
5. Toenergy Technology Hangzhou Co., Ltd.
6. Trina Solar Science & Technology (Thailand) Ltd.
7. Yingli Energy (China) Company Ltd.
1. Astronergy Co., Ltd.
2. Astronergy Solar
3. Baoding Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd.
4. Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd.
5. Donghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd.; Hebei Ningjin Songgong Semiconductor Co., Ltd.; Hebei Ningtong Electronic Materials Co., Ltd.; Hebei Yujing Electronic Science and Technology Co., Ltd.; Hefei JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd.; JA (Hefei) Renewable Energy Co., Ltd; Jing Hai Yang Semiconductor Material (Donghai) Co., Ltd.; JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.; JA SOLAR TECHNOLOGY YANGZHOU CO., LTD.; Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd.; JA Solar Investment China Co., Ltd; Donghai JingAo Solar Energy Science and Technology Co., Ltd.; Solar Silicon Valley Electronic Science and Technology Co., Ltd.; Beijing Jinfeng Investment Co., Ltd.; Ningjin Songgong Electronic Materials Co., Ltd.; Jinglong Industry and Commerce Group Co., Ltd.; Ningjin County Jingyuan New Energy Investment Co., Ltd.; Hebei Jinglong New Materials Technology Group Co., Ltd.; Hebei Jinglong Sun Equipment Co. Ltd.; Hebei Jingle Optoelectronic Technology Co., Ltd.; Ningjin Jingxing Electronic Material Co., Ltd.; Ningjin Saimei Ganglong Electronic Materials Co., Ltd.; JA Solar (Xingtai) Co., Ltd.; Xingtai Jinglong Electronic Material Co., Ltd.; Xingtai Jinglong PV Materials Co., Ltd.; JA PV Technology Co., Ltd.; Ningjin Jinglong PV Industry Investment Co., Ltd.; Baotou JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd.; Xingtai Jinglong New Energy Co., Ltd.; Ningjin County Jing Tai Fu Technology Co., Ltd.; JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd.; Jinglong Technology Holdings Co., Ltd.; Ningjin Guiguang Electronics Investment Co., Ltd.; Ningjin Longxin Investment Co., Ltd.; Beijing JA Solar PV Technology Co., Ltd.; Solar Silicon Peak Electronic Science and Technology Co., Ltd.; Jingwei Electronic Materials Co., Ltd.; Taicang Juren PV Material Co., Ltd.
6. Beijing Tianneng Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd.
7. Boviet Solar Technology Co., Ltd.
8. BYD H.K. CO., Ltd.
9. Canadian Solar International Limited
10. Canadian Solar (USA) Inc.
11. Canadian Solar Inc.; Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc.; Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc.; Changshu Tegu New Materials Technology Co., Ltd.; Changshu Tlian Co., Ltd.; CSI Cells Co., Ltd.; CSI New Energy Holding Co., Ltd.; CSI Solar Manufacture Inc.; CSI Solar Power (China) Inc.; CSI Solar Technologies Inc.; CSI Solartronics (Changshu) Co., Ltd.; CSI-GCL Solar Manufacturing (Yancheng) Co., Ltd.; Suzhou Sanysolar Materials Technology Co., Ltd.; Changshu Tegu New Material Technology Co., Ltd.
12. Changzhou Trina Hezhong Photoelectric Co., Ltd.
13. Chint Solar (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.; Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.; Haining Chint Solar Energy Technology Co., Ltd.; Chint New Energy Technology (Yancheng) Co., Ltd.; Chint Solar (Yancheng) Co., Ltd.; Jiuquan Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.; Chint Group Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Chint Electrics Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Chint New Energy Development Co., Ltd.; Chint Solar (Jiuquan) Co., Ltd.; Chint Solar (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
14. Chint Solar (Hong Kong) Company Limited
15. CSI Modules (Dafeng) Co., Ltd.
16. CSI Solar Co., Ltd.
17. CSI Solar Manufacturing (Fu Ning) Co., Ltd.
18. DelSolar (Wujiang) Ltd.
19. DelSolar Co., Ltd.
20. De-Tech Trading Limited HK
21. Dongguan Sunworth Solar Energy Co., Ltd.
22. Eoplly New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.
23. ERA Solar Co., Ltd.
24. ET Solar Energy Limited
25. Fuzhou Sunmodo New Energy Equipment Co., Ltd.
26. GCL System Integration Technology Co., Ltd.
27. Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd.
28. Hangzhou Sunny Energy Science and Technology Co., Ltd.
29. Hengdian Group DMEGC Magnetics Co., Ltd.
30. Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd.
31. Jiangsu Jinko Tiansheng Solar Co., Ltd.
32. Jinko Solar Import And Export Co., Ltd.; Jinko Solar Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd.; Jiangxi Jinko Photovoltaic Materials Co., Ltd.; Xinjiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd.; JinkoSolar (Chuzhou) Co., Ltd.; JinkoSolar (Shangrao) Co., Ltd.; JinkoSolar (Sichuan) Co., Ltd.; JinkoSolar (Yiwu) Co., Ltd.; JinkoSolar Technology (Haining) Co., Ltd.; Ruixu Industrial Co., Ltd.; Yuhuan Jinko Solar Co., Ltd.; Jinko Solar (Shanghai) Management Co., Ltd.
33. Jinko Solar International Limited
34. Lightway Green New Energy Co., Ltd.; Light Way Green New Energy Co., Ltd.
35. Lixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd.
36. Longi (HK) Trading Ltd.
37. LONGi Solar Technology Co., Ltd.; LERRI Solar Technology Co., Ltd.
38. Luoyang Suntech Power Co., Ltd.
39. Nice Sun PV Co., Ltd.
40. Ningbo ETDZ Holdings, Ltd.
41. ReneSola Jiangsu Ltd.
42. Renesola Zhejiang Ltd.
43. Risen Energy Co., Ltd.; Risen (Wuhai) New Energy Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Twinsel Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.; Risen (Luoyang) New Energy Co., Ltd.; Risen Energy (Changzhou) Co., Ltd.; Risen Energy (Yiwu) Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Boxin Investment Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Sveck New Material Co., Ltd.; Changzhou Sveck Photovoltaic New Material Co., Ltd. (including Changzhou Sveck Photovoltaic New Material Co., Ltd. Jintan Danfeng Road Branch); Changzhou Sveck New Material Technology Co., Ltd.; Ninghai Risen Energy Power Development Co., Ltd.; Risen (Ningbo) Electric Power Development Co., Ltd.; Risen Energy (Ningbo) Co., Ltd.; Changzhou Jintan Ningsheng Electricity Power Co., Ltd.; Risen (Changzhou) Import and Export Co., Ltd.; Jiujiang Shengchao Xinye Technology Co., Ltd.; Jiujiang Shengchao Xinye Trade Co., Ltd. Ruichang Branch.
44. Risen Energy (HongKong) Co., Ltd.
45. Risen Solar Technology Sdn. Bhd.
46. Shanghai Nimble Co., Ltd.
47. Shenzhen Topray Solar Co., Ltd.
48. Shenzhen Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd.
49. Sumec Hardware & Tools Co., Ltd.
50. Sunpreme Solar Technology (Jiaxing) Co., Ltd.
51. Suntech Power Co., Ltd.
52. Suntimes Technology Co., Limited
53. Systemes Versilis, Inc.
54. Taimax Technologies Inc.
55. Taizhou BD Trade Co., Ltd.
56. Talesun Energy
57. Talesun Solar
58. tenKsolar (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
59. Tianjin Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd.
60. Trina (Hefei) Science and Technology Co., Ltd.
61. Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd.
62. Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic Co., Ltd.
63. Yingli Green Energy International Trading Company Limited
64. Zhejiang ERA Solar Technology Co., Ltd.
65. Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology Limited Liability Company
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) will hold a meeting of its Citizen Science Operations Advisory Panel (AP) via webinar.
The Citizen Science Operations Advisory Panel meeting will be held via webinar on Wednesday, May 14, 2025, from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m.
The meeting will be held via webinar and is open to the public. Webinar registration information and additional meeting details are available from the Council's website at:
Julia Byrd, Citizen Science Program Manager, SAFMC; phone: (843) 302-8439 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The Citizen Science Operations AP serves as advisors to the Council's Citizen Science Program. Advisory panel members include representatives from the Council's Citizen Science Advisory Panel Pool, NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Regional Office, NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Fisheries Science Center, and the Council's Science and Statistical Committee. Their responsibilities include developing programmatic recommendations, reviewing policies, providing program direction/multi-partner support, identifying citizen science research needs, and providing general advice.
Agenda items for this meeting include: a Citizen Science Program and Project update; discussion on ways to measure and communicate Program impact; discussion of Program organizational structure; and other business.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold meetings of its Archipelagic Plan Team (APT) and Pelagic Plan Team (PPT) to discuss fishery management issues and develop recommendations for future management of fisheries in the Western Pacific Region.
The APT will meet on Monday and Tuesday, May 5-6, 2025, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time (HST). The APT will meet jointly with the PPT on Wednesday, May 7, 2025, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. HST. The PPT will meet on Thursday and Friday, May 8-9 2025, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. HST. For specific times and agendas, see
The meeting will be held in a hybrid format with in-person and remote participation (Webex) options available for the members, and public attendance limited to web conference via Webex. In-person attendance for members will be hosted at the Council office, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813. Specific information on joining the meeting, connecting to the web conference and making oral public comments will be posted on the Council website at
Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; phone: (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax).
The APT meeting will be held Monday and Tuesday, May 5-6, 2025, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time (HST) (7:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. Samoa Standard Time (SST); 4:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. on May 6-7, 2025, Chamorro Standard Time (ChST)). The APT will meet jointly with the PPT on Wednesday, May 7, 2025, between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. HST (7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Samoa Standard Time (SST); 4:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. on May 8, 2025, Chamorro Standard Time (ChST)). The PPT will meet on Thursday and Friday, May 8-9, 2025, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. HST (7:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. Samoa Standard Time (SST); 4:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. on May 9-10, 2025, Chamorro Standard Time (ChST)). Opportunities to present oral public comment will be provided on the agenda. The order of the agenda may change, and will be announced in advance at the meeting. The meeting may run past the scheduled times noted above to complete scheduled business.
These meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Please direct requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids to Kitty M. Simonds (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 100 Data Scoping Webinar for Gulf Gray Triggerfish.
The SEDAR 100 assessment process of Gulf gray triggerfish will consist of a Data Workshop, and a series of assessment webinars, and a Review Workshop. See
The SEDAR 100 Data Scoping Webinar will be held Monday, May 12, 2025, from 1 p.m. until 3 p.m., Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; phone: (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop, (2) a series of assessment webinars, and (3) A Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a
The items of discussion during the Data scoping webinar are as follows:
Participants will discuss what data may be available for use in the assessment.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
On April 15, 2025, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL25-71-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, instituting an investigation to determine whether Elwood Energy LLC's Rate Schedule is unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential, or otherwise unlawful.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL25-71-000 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. EL25-71-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2024), within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFile” link at
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
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
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
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
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
Since 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has maintained a Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket (“Docket”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLA requires EPA to establish a Docket that contains certain information reported to EPA by Federal facilities that manage hazardous waste or from which a reportable quantity of hazardous substances has been released. This document identifies the Federal facilities not previously listed on the Docket and identifies Federal facilities reported to EPA since the last update on October 23, 2024. In addition to the list of additions to the Docket, this document includes a section with revisions of the previous Docket list and a section of Federal facilities that are to be deleted from the Docket. Thus, the revisions in this update include two additions, zero deletions, and zero corrections to the Docket since the previous update.
This list is current as of March 11, 2025.
Electronic versions of the Docket and more information on its implementation can be obtained at
Section 120(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9620(c), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), requires EPA to establish the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket. The Docket contains information on Federal facilities that manage hazardous waste and such information is submitted by Federal agencies to EPA under sections 3005, 3010, and 3016 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6925, 6930, and 6937.
CERCLA section 120(d) requires EPA to take steps to assure that a Preliminary Assessment (PA) be completed for those sites identified in the Docket and that the evaluation and listing of sites with a PA be completed within a reasonable time frame. The PA is designed to provide information for EPA to consider when evaluating the site for potential response action or inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL).
The Docket serves three major purposes: (1) to identify all Federal facilities that must be evaluated to determine whether they pose a threat to human health and the environment sufficient to warrant inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL); (2) to compile and maintain the information submitted to EPA on such facilities under the provisions listed in section 120(c) of CERCLA; and (3) to provide a mechanism to make the information available to the public. Previous Docket updates are available at
This document provides some background information on the Docket. Additional information on the Docket requirements and implementation are found in the Docket Reference Manual, Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket found at
In prior updates, information was also provided regarding No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) status changes. However, information on NFRAP and NPL status is no longer being provided separately in the Docket update as it is now available at:
Contact the following Docket Coordinators for information on Regional Docket repositories:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
This section includes a discussion of the additions, deletions and corrections to the list of Docket facilities since the previous Docket update.
These Federal facilities are being added primarily because of new information obtained by EPA (for example, recent reporting of a facility pursuant to RCRA sections 3005, 3010, or 3016 or CERCLA section 103). CERCLA section 120, as amended by the Defense Authorization Act of 1997, specifies that EPA take steps to assure that a Preliminary Assessment (PA) be completed within a reasonable time frame for those Federal facilities that are included on the Docket. Among other things, the PA is designed to provide information for EPA to consider when evaluating the site for potential response action or listing on the NPL. This document includes two additions.
There are no statutory or regulatory provisions that address deletion of a facility from the Docket. However, if a facility is incorrectly included on the Docket, it may be deleted from the Docket. The criteria EPA uses in deleting sites from the Docket include: a facility for which there was an incorrect report submitted for hazardous waste activity under RCRA (
Changes necessary to correct the previous Docket are identified by both EPA and Federal agencies. The
In compiling the newly reported Federal facilities for the update being published in this document, EPA extracted the names, addresses, and identification numbers of facilities from four EPA databases—the WebEOC, the Biennial Inventory of Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Activities, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System (RCRAInfo), and SEMS—that contain information about Federal facilities submitted under the four provisions listed in CERCLA section 120(c).
EPA assures the quality of the information on the Docket by conducting extensive evaluation of the current Docket list and contacts the other Federal Agency (OFA) with the information obtained from the databases identified above to determine which Federal facilities were, in fact, newly reported and qualified for inclusion on the update. EPA is also striving to correct errors for Federal facilities that were previously reported. For example, state-owned or privately-owned facilities that are not operated by the Federal government may have been included. Such problems are sometimes caused by procedures historically used to report and track Federal facilities data. Representatives of Federal agencies are asked to contact the EPA HQ Docket Coordinator at the address provided in the
Certain categories of facilities may not be included on the Docket, such as: (1) Federal facilities formerly owned by a Federal agency that at the time of consideration was not Federally-owned or operated; (2) Federal facilities that are small quantity generators (SQGs) that have not, more than once per calendar year, generated more than 1,000 kg of hazardous waste in any single month; (3) Federal facilities that are very small quantity generators (VSQGs) that have never generated more than 100 kg of hazardous waste in any month; (4) Federal facilities that are solely hazardous waste transportation facilities, as reported under RCRA section 3010; and (5) Federal facilities that have mixed mine or mill site ownership.
An EPA policy issued in June 2003 provided guidance for a site-by-site evaluation as to whether “mixed ownership” mine or mill sites, typically created as a result of activities conducted pursuant to the General Mining Law of 1872 and never reported under section 103(a) of CERCLA, should be included on the Docket. For purposes of that policy, mixed ownership mine or mill sites are those located partially on private land and partially on public land. This policy is found at
EPA tracks the NPL status of Federal facilities listed on the Docket. An updated list of the NPL status of all Docket facilities, as well as their NFRAP status, is available at
The information is provided in three tables. The first table is a list of additional Federal facilities that are being added to the Docket. The second table is a list of Federal facilities that are being deleted from the Docket. The third table is for corrections.
The Federal facilities listed in each table are organized by the date reported. Under each heading is listed the name and address of the facility, the Federal agency responsible for the facility, the statutory provision(s) under which the facility was reported to EPA, and a code.
The statutory provisions under which a Federal facility is reported are listed in a column titled “Reporting Mechanism.” Applicable mechanisms are listed for each Federal facility: for example, sections 3005, 3010, 3016 of RCRA, 103(c) of CERCLA, or Other. “Other” has been added as a reporting mechanism to indicate those Federal facilities that otherwise have been identified to have releases or threat of releases of hazardous substances. The National Contingency Plan at 40 CFR 300.405 addresses discovery or notification, outlines what constitutes discovery of a hazardous substance release, and states that a release may be discovered in several ways, including: (1) a report submitted in accordance with section 103(a) of CERCLA,
The complete list of Federal facilities that now make up the Docket and the NPL and NFRAP status are available to interested parties and can be obtained at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; reopening of comment period.
All 10 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regions are proposing for public comment the 2026 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity, also referred to as the “2026 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP)” or the “proposed permit.” EPA is extending the comment period for 45 days, from April 4, 2025, to May 19, 2025, in response to stakeholder requests for an extension. The proposed permit, once finalized, will replace the EPA's existing MSGP that expires on February 28, 2026. The EPA proposes to issue this permit for five (5) years. Once finalized, this permit will be available in areas where the EPA is the NPDES permitting authority. The EPA solicits comment on all aspects of the proposed general permit and seeks public comment on specific requests for information as described in this document. The public is encouraged to read the proposed permit fact sheet to better understand the proposed permit requirements. The proposed permit and fact sheet can be found at
The comment period for the notice published in the
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2024-0481 to
Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The agencies will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (
Alicia Denning, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management, Mail Code 4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-0018; email address:
On December 13, 2024, EPA published the proposed MSGP (89 FR 101000) entitled “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 2026 Issuance of the Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity.” The original deadline to submit comments was January 13, 2025. On February 3, 2025, the EPA extended the comment period to April 4, 2025 ((90 FR 8798)). On April 2, 2025, prior to the close of the comment period, the EPA posted a memo in the docket that extended the comment period on
This memorandum authorizes the posting of EPA-HQ-OW-2024-0481 to
On December 13, 2024, all ten of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Regions proposed for public comment the 2026 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity, also referred to as the “proposed 2026 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP)” or the “proposed permit.”
As initially published in the
This proposed permit will be open for public comment from 12/13/2024 to 05/19/2025.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2024-0481 via the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (
Alicia Denning, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management, Water Permits Division (4203M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-0018; email address:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before June 20, 2025. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The agency must receive comments on or before June 20, 2025.
Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Rolanda F. Smith, 202-418-2054,
The Media Bureau shall provide notice in the
The full text of these applications is available electronically via Licensing and Management System (LMS),
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the request to renew the existing information collections described below (OMB Control No. 3064-0117; -0145; and -0161). The notices of proposed renewal for these information collections were previously published in the
Comments must be submitted on or before May 21, 2025.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Manny Cabeza, Regulatory Counsel, 202-898-3767,
1.
2.
3.
Comments are invited on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b)
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than May 6, 2025.
1.
2.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a public meeting to receive comments and recommendations (including data on which recommendations are based) on the appropriate basis for establishing payment amounts for new or substantially revised Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes being considered for Medicare payment under the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule for calendar year 2026. This meeting also provides a forum for those who submitted certain reconsideration requests regarding final determinations made last year on new test codes and for the public to provide comment on the requests.
The CLFS Annual Public Meeting will be held virtually and in-person at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Central Building, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.
The CLFS Policy Team and submit all inquiries to the CLFS dedicated email box,
Section 531(b) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA) (Pub. L. 106-554) required the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to establish procedures for coding and payment determinations for new clinical diagnostic laboratory tests (CDLTs) under Part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Act) that permit public consultation in a manner consistent with the procedures established for implementing coding modifications for International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM). The procedures and Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) public meeting announced in this notice for new tests are in accordance with the procedures published on November 23, 2001 in the
Section 942(b) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173) added section 1833(h)(8) of the Act. Section 1833(h)(8)(A) of the Act requires the Secretary to establish by regulation procedures for determining the basis for, and amount of, payment for any CDLT for which a new or substantially revised Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) code is assigned on or after January 1, 2005. A code is considered to be substantially revised if there is a substantive change to the definition of the test or procedure to which the code applies (for example, a new analyte or a new methodology for measuring an existing analyte-specific test). (See section 1833(h)(8)(E)(ii) of the Act and 42 CFR 414.502.)
Section 1833(h)(8)(B) of the Act sets forth the process for determining the basis for, and the amount of, payment for new tests. Pertinent to this notice, sections 1833(h)(8)(B)(i) and (ii) of the Act require the Secretary to make available to the public a list that includes any such test for which establishment of a payment amount is being considered for a year and, on the same day that the list is made available, cause to have published in the
Two bases of payment are used to establish payment amounts for new CDLTs. The first basis, called “crosswalking,” is used when a new CDLT is determined to be comparable to an existing test, multiple existing test codes, or a portion of an existing test code. New CDLTs that were assigned new or substantially revised codes prior to January 1, 2018, are subject to provisions set forth under § 414.508(a). For a new CDLT that is assigned a new or significantly revised code on or after January 1, 2018, CMS assigns the new CDLT code the payment amount established under § 414.507 of the comparable existing CDLT. Payment for the new CDLT code is made at the payment amount established under § 414.507. (See § 414.508(b)(1)).
The second basis, called “gapfilling,” is used when no comparable existing CDLT is available. When using this method, instructions are provided to each Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) to determine a payment amount for its Part B geographic area for use in the first year. In the first year, for a new CDLT that is assigned a new or substantially revised code on or after January 1, 2018, the MAC-specific amounts are established using the following sources of information, if available: (1) charges for the test and routine discounts to charges; (2) resources required to perform the test; (3) payment amounts determined by other payers; (4) charges, payment amounts, and resources required for other tests that may be comparable or otherwise relevant; and (5) other criteria CMS determines appropriate. In the second year, the test code is paid at the median of the MAC-specific amounts. (See § 414.508(b)(2)).
Under section 1833(h)(8)(B)(iv) of the Act and § 414.506(d)(1) CMS, taking into account the comments and recommendations (and accompanying data) received at the CLFS Annual Public Meeting, develops and makes available to the public a list of proposed determinations with respect to the appropriate basis for establishing a payment amount for each code, an explanation of the reasons for each determination, the data on which the determinations are based, and a request for public written comments on the proposed determinations. Under section 1833(h)(8)(B)(v) of the Act and § 414.506(d)(2), taking into account the comments received on the proposed determinations during the public comment period, CMS then develops and makes available to the public a list of final determinations of payment amounts for tests along with the rationale for each determination, the data on which the determinations are based, and responses to comments and suggestions received from the public.
Section 216(a) of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) (Pub. L. 113-93) added section 1834A to the Act. The statute requires extensive revisions to the Medicare payment, coding, and coverage requirements for CDLTs. Pertinent to this notice, section 1834A(c)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary to consider recommendations from the expert outside advisory panel established under section 1834A(f)(1) of the Act when determining payment using crosswalking or gapfilling processes. In addition, section 1834A(c)(4) of the Act requires the Secretary to make available to the public an explanation of the payment rates for the new test codes, including an explanation of how the gapfilling criteria and panel recommendations are applied. These requirements are codified in § 414.506(d) and (e).
After the final determinations have been posted on the CMS website, the public may request reconsideration of the basis and amount of payment for a new CDLT as set forth in § 414.509. Pertinent to this notice, those requesting that we reconsider the basis for payment or the payment amount as set forth in § 414.509(a) and (b), may present their reconsideration requests at the following year's CLFS Annual Public Meeting provided the requestor made
We are following our usual process, including an annual public meeting to determine the appropriate basis and payment amount for new and reconsidered codes under the CLFS for CY 2026. The public hybrid meeting will be conducted virtually and will occur on-site at the CMS Central Building. Please note that CMS reserves the right to shift the meeting format from hybrid to virtual-only, if for some reason, a hybrid format is not possible. If there is a need to a virtual-only format, we will alert the public as soon as possible and post updated information on the CMS website at
This meeting is open to the public. Registration is only required for those interested in presenting public comments during the meeting or attending the meeting in-person at the CMS campus at the address specified in the
During this hybrid meeting, registered persons from the public may discuss and make recommendations for specific new and reconsidered codes for the CY 2026 CLFS. The Medicare Advisory Panel on CDLTs (Advisory Panel on CDLTs) may participate in this CLFS Annual Public Meeting by gathering information and asking questions to presenters, and will hold its next public meeting, virtually and in-person, on July 23 and 24, 2025. The public meeting for the Advisory Panel on CDLTs will focus on the discussion of and recommendations for test codes presented during the June 27, 2025, CLFS Annual Public Meeting. The Panel meeting also will address any other CY 2026 CLFS issues that are designated in the Panel's charter and specified on the meeting agenda. The announcement for the next meeting of the Advisory Panel on CDLTs is included in a separate notice published elsewhere in this issue of the
Due to time constraints, presentations must be brief, lasting no longer than 10 minutes. Written presentations must be electronically submitted to CMS on or before May 29, 2025. In addition, if presenting in-person, presenters should make copies available for approximately 50 meeting participants, since CMS will not be providing additional copies to the public. Presentation slots will generally be assigned based upon chronological order of receipt of presentation materials. In the event there is not enough time for presentations by everyone who is interested in presenting, we will only accept written presentations from those who submitted written presentations within the submission window and were unable to present due to time constraints. Presentations must be sent via email to our CLFS dedicated email box,
Presenters should submit all presentations using a standard PowerPoint template. In addition to the standard PowerPoint template available, presenters may also provide the same information from the PowerPoint presentation into a provided Excel worksheet template. Submitting the same information that is requested for the PowerPoint presentation into the Excel worksheet template will aid with triaging and reviewing recommendation information during the meeting and after the meeting, during the code review process. The standard PowerPoint presentation and Excel worksheet templates are available on the CMS website at
For reconsidered and new codes, presenters should address all of the following five items:
• Reconsidered or new code(s) with the most current code descriptor.
• Test purpose and method with a brief comment on how the new test is different from other similar analyte or methodologies found in tests already on the CLFS.
• Test costs.
• Charges.
• Recommendation with rationale for one of the two bases (crosswalking or gapfilling) for determining payment for reconsidered and new tests.
Additionally, presenters should provide the data on which their recommendations are based. Presentations regarding reconsidered and new test codes that do not address the previous five items for presenters may be considered incomplete and may not be considered by CMS when making a determination. However, we may request missing information following the meeting to prevent a recommendation from being considered incomplete.
Taking into account the comments and recommendations (and accompanying data) received at the CLFS Annual Public Meeting, we intend to post our proposed determinations with respect to the appropriate basis for establishing a payment amount for each new test code and our proposed determinations with respect to the reconsidered codes along with an explanation of the reasons for each determination, the data on which the determinations are based, and a request for public written comments on these determinations on our website by early September 2025. This website can be accessed at
The Division of Ambulatory Services in the CMS Center for Medicare is coordinating the CLFS Annual Public Meeting registration. Beginning May 1,
• Name.
• Organization/Company name.
• Email addresses.
• Indicate if individual is a presenter.
• Indicate how individual is participating in the meeting (that is, in-person or virtual).
• Indicate if individual is a “Foreign National” visitor.
When registering, individuals who want to make a presentation must also specify which test codes they will be presenting comments. A confirmation will be sent upon receipt of the registration. Individuals must register by the date specified in the
Registration details may not be revised once they are submitted. If registration details require changes, a new registration entry must be submitted by the date specified in the
After registering, a confirmation email will be sent upon receipt of the registration. The email will provide information to the presenter or in-person attendee in preparation for the meeting. Registration is only required for individuals giving a presentation during the meeting or attending the meeting at the CMS campus. Presenters or in-person attendees must register by the deadline specified in the
If you are not presenting during the CLFS Annual Public Meeting or cannot attend in person, you may view the meeting via webinar or listen-only by teleconference. If you would like to listen to or view the meeting, teleconference dial-in and webinar information will appear on the final CLFS Annual Public Meeting agenda, which will be posted on the CMS website when available at
Individuals viewing or listening to the meeting who are hearing or visually impaired and have special requirements, or a condition that requires special assistance, should send an email to the resource box (
This hybrid meeting will be held in a Federal government building; therefore, Federal security measures are applicable. In planning your arrival time, we recommend allowing additional time to clear security. We suggest that you arrive at the CMS campus and parking facilities between 9 a.m. and 9:45 a.m. E.D.T., so that you will be able to arrive promptly at the meeting by 10 a.m. E.D.T. Individuals who are not registered in advance will not be permitted to enter the building and will be unable to attend the meeting. We note that the public may not enter the CMS building earlier than 9:15 a.m. E.D.T. (45 minutes before the convening of the meeting).
Security measures include the following:
• Presentation of government-issued photographic identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel. Persons without proper identification may be denied access to the building.
• Interior and exterior inspection of vehicles (this includes engine and trunk inspection) at the entrance to the grounds. Parking permits and instructions will be issued after the vehicle inspection.
• Passing through a metal detector and inspection of items brought into the building. We note that all items brought to CMS, whether personal or for the purpose of demonstration or to support a demonstration, are subject to inspection. We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set-up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for demonstration or to support a demonstration.
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Acting Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Stephanie Carlton having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Vanessa Garcia, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by June 20, 2025.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
Disclosure of whether prescription drug coverage is creditable provides Medicare with important information relating to whether prescription drug benefits offered by an entity to Medicare Part D eligible individuals is expected to pay at least as much as the standard benefits under Medicare Part D. The form is used as a reporting tool where entities offering prescription drug coverage indicate whether the coverage being provided is considered creditable or non-creditable.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the public meeting dates for the Medicare Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests (the Panel) on Wednesday, July 23, 2025, and Thursday, July 24, 2025. The purpose of the Panel is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on issues related to clinical diagnostic laboratory tests.
The Panel meeting will be held
The CLFS Policy Team via email,
The Medicare Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests (CDLTs) (the Panel) is authorized by section 1834A(f)(1) of the Social Security Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1395m-1), as established by section 216(a) of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) (Pub. L. 113-93), enacted on April 1, 2014. The Panel is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory panels.
Section 1834A(f)(1) of the Act directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to consult with an expert outside advisory panel established by the Secretary, composed of an appropriate selection of individuals with expertise in issues related to clinical diagnostic laboratory tests, which may include the development, validation, performance, and application of such tests. Such individuals may include molecular pathologists, researchers, and individuals with expertise in laboratory science or health economics.
The Panel will provide input and recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), on the following:
• The establishment of payment rates under section 1834A of the Act for new clinical diagnostic laboratory tests, including whether to use “crosswalking” or “gapfilling” processes to determine payment for a specific new test.
• The factors used in determining coverage and payment processes for new clinical diagnostic laboratory tests.
• Other aspects of the payment system under section 1834A of the Act.
A notice announcing the establishment of the Panel and soliciting nominations for members was published in the October 27, 2014
The Agenda for the July 23 and July 24, 2025, hybrid Panel meeting will provide for discussion and comment on the following topics as designated in the Panel's charter:
• Calendar Year (CY) 2026 Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) new and reconsidered test codes, which will be posted on the CMS website at
• Other CY 2026 CLFS issues designated in the Panel's charter and further described on our Agenda.
A detailed Agenda will be posted approximately 2 weeks before the meeting, on the CMS website at
This meeting is open to the public. Stand-by speakers may participate in the meeting in-person via teleconference and webinar. A stand-by speaker is an individual who will speak on behalf of a company or organization if the Panel has any questions during the meeting about technical information described in the public comments or presentation previously submitted or presented by the organization or company at the recent CLFS Annual Public Meeting for CY 2026 on June 27, 2025. The public may also attend the hybrid meeting in-person or view and/or listen-only to the meeting via teleconference and webinar. Please note that CMS reserves the right to shift the meeting format from hybrid to virtual-only, if for some reason, a hybrid format is not possible. If there is a need to shift to a virtual-only format, we will alert the public as soon as possible and post updated information on the CMS website at
Beginning May 1, 2025 and ending May 30, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. E.D.T., registration may be completed by stand-by speakers and in-person attendees. Individuals who intend to view and/or listen to the meeting virtually do not need to register. Stand-by speakers and individuals who intend to attend the meeting at the CMS campus must register online at
• Name.
• Indicate if individual is registering as a “Stand-by speaker” or “In-Person Attendee.”
• Organization or company name.
• Email addresses that will be used by the speaker to connect to the virtual meeting.
• Indicate if individual is a “Foreign National” visitor
• New or Reconsidered Code(s) for which the company or organization individual is representing submitted a comment or presentation, if applicable.
Registration details may not be revised once they are submitted. If registration details require changes, a new registration entry must be submitted by the date specified in the
After registering, a confirmation email will be sent upon receipt of the registration. The email will provide information to the attendee in preparation for the meeting. Registration is only required for stand-by speakers and members of the public attending the meeting at the CMS campus (address specified in the
The Panel's recommendations will be posted approximately 2 weeks after the meeting on the CMS website at
The hybrid meeting will be held in a Federal government building; therefore, Federal security measures are applicable. In planning your arrival time, we recommend allowing additional time to clear security. We suggest that you arrive at the CMS campus and parking facilities between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. E.D.T., so that you will be able to arrive promptly at the meeting by 10:00 a.m. E.D.T. Individuals who are not registered in advance will not be permitted to enter the building and will be unable to attend the meeting. We note that the public may not enter the CMS building earlier than 9:15 a.m. E.D.T. (45 minutes before the convening of the meeting).
Security measures include the following:
• Presentation of government-issued photographic identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel. Persons without proper identification may be denied access to the building.
• Interior and exterior inspection of vehicles (this includes engine and trunk inspection) at the entrance to the grounds. Parking permits and instructions will be issued after the vehicle inspection.
• Passing through a metal detector and inspection of items brought into the building. We note that all items brought to CMS, whether personal or for the purpose of demonstration or to support a demonstration, are subject to inspection. We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set-up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for demonstration or to support a demonstration.
Individuals attending, viewing, or listening to the meeting who are hearing or visually impaired and have special requirements, or a condition that requires special assistance, must send an email to the resource box (
The Secretary's Charter for the Medicare Advisory Panel on CDLT's is available on the CMS website at
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Acting Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Stephanie Carlton having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Vanessa Garcia, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a virtual public meeting of the Medicare Evidence Development & Coverage Advisory Committee (MEDCAC) (“Committee”) will be held on Wednesday, June 25, 2025.
To allow for broader public participation in the meeting, the Panel meeting will be held virtually.
Tara Hall, MEDCAC Coordinator, via email at
MEDCAC, formerly known as the Medicare Coverage Advisory Committee (MCAC), is advisory in nature, with all final coverage decisions resting with CMS. MEDCAC is used to supplement CMS' internal expertise. Accordingly, the advice rendered by the MEDCAC is most useful when it results from a process of full scientific inquiry and thoughtful discussion, in an open forum, with careful framing of recommendations and clear identification of the basis of those recommendations. MEDCAC members are valued for their background, education, and expertise in a wide variety of scientific, clinical, and other related fields. (For more information on MEDCAC, see the MEDCAC Charter (
This notice announces the Wednesday, June 25, 2025, virtual public meeting of the Committee. The MEDCAC panel will examine which clinical endpoints in studies of devices to manage tremor in Parkinson's disease and essential tremor should be of interest to CMS. Given the increased emphasis on new and innovative medical products for difficult-to-manage conditions, some studies of new medical technologies have focused on short-term data with greater reliance on intermediate outcomes and surrogate endpoints. Furthermore, studies of new devices are often not representative of the Medicare beneficiary population in terms of demographics, comorbidity prevalence or care setting. As a result, there are more frequent evidence gaps with respect to the health outcomes that are clinically meaningful for CMS beneficiaries in assessments of medical technologies. The MEDCAC panel will consider a review of the relevant clinical research and professional guidance literature, along with expert commentary. By voting on specific questions, and by their discussions, MEDCAC panel members will advise CMS about the ideal clinical endpoints in research studies of devices to manage tremor in Parkinson's disease and essential tremor, as well as appropriate measurement instruments and follow-up durations, to help to provide clarity and transparency of National Coverage Analyses (NCAs). This meeting is open to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2, section 10(a)).
Background information about this topic, including panel materials, is available at
The Committee will deliberate openly on the topics under consideration. Interested persons may observe the deliberations, but the Committee will not hear further comments during this time except at the request of the chairperson. The Committee will also allow a 15-minute unscheduled open public session for any attendee to address issues specific to the topics under consideration. At the conclusion of the day, the members will vote, and the Committee will make its recommendation(s) to CMS.
CMS' Coverage and Analysis Group is coordinating meeting registration. While there is no registration fee, individuals must register to attend. You may register online at
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35).
The Chief Medical Officer and Acting Director of the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Dora Hughes, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Chyana Woodyard, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that MOBIC (meloxicam) tablets, 7.5 milligrams (mg) and 15 mg, were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination means that FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) that refer to this drug product, and it will allow FDA to continue to approve ANDAs that refer to the product as long as they meet relevant legal and regulatory requirements.
Beth Holck, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6280, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7133,
Section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(j)) allows the submission of an ANDA to market a generic version of a previously approved drug product. To obtain approval, the ANDA applicant must show, among other things, that the generic drug product: (1) has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, route of administration, strength, conditions of use, and (with certain exceptions) labeling as the listed drug, which is a version of the drug that was previously approved and (2) is bioequivalent to the listed drug. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
Section 505(j)(7) of the FD&C Act requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (21 CFR 314.161). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
MOBIC (meloxicam) tablets, 7.5 mg and 15 mg, are the subject of NDA 020938, held by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and initially approved on April 13, 2000. MOBIC is indicated for relief of the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and juvenile rheumatoid arthritis in patients who weigh more than 60 kilograms.
MOBIC (meloxicam) tablets, 7.5 mg and 15 mg, are currently listed in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book.
Pharmobedient Consulting, LLC submitted a citizen petition dated November 8, 2024 (Docket No. FDA-2024-P-5304), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether MOBIC (meloxicam) tablets, 7.5 mg and 15 mg, were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that MOBIC (meloxicam) tablets, 7.5 mg and 15 mg, were not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that MOBIC (meloxicam) tablets, 7.5 mg and 15 mg, were withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of MOBIC (meloxicam) tablets, 7.5 mg and 15 mg, from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have found no information that would indicate that this drug product was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list MOBIC (meloxicam) tablets, 7.5 mg and 15 mg, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of approved ANDAs that refer to these drug products. Additional ANDAs for these drug products may also be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for these drug products should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an amendment to the notice of joint meeting of the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee. This meeting was announced in the
Jessica Seo, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-7699, email:
In the
On page 97625, in the third column, the
The meeting will be held on May 5, 2025, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time.
On page 97626, in the first column, the second paragraph in the
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2024-N-5331. The docket will close on May 4, 2025. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
On page 97626, in the first column, the third paragraph, the first sentence is changed to read as follows:
Comments received on or before April 21, 2025, will be provided to the Committees.
On page 97627, in the first column, the
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 1001
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the issuance of approval of a product redeeming a priority review voucher. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorizes FDA to award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA is required to publish notice of the issuance of priority review vouchers as well as the approval of products redeeming a priority review voucher. FDA has determined that the supplemental application (Supplement-24) for TREMFYA (guselkumab), approved March 20, 2025, meets the criteria for redeeming a priority review voucher.
Quyen Tran, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2771, email:
FDA is announcing the approval of a product redeeming a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff), FDA will report the issuance of rare pediatric disease priority review vouchers and the approval of products for which a voucher was redeemed. FDA has determined that the supplemental application (Supplement-24) for TREMFYA (guselkumab) meets the redemption criteria.
For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529 of the FD&C Act, go to
Food and Drug Administration, Health and Human Services.
Notice of availability; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice of availability that appeared in the
Holli Kubicki, Office of Policy, Regulations, and Information, Human Foods Program, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2378.
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the issuance of approval of a product redeeming a priority review voucher. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorizes FDA to award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA is required to publish notice of the issuance of priority review vouchers as well as the approval of products redeeming a priority review voucher. FDA has determined that the supplemental application (Supplement-06) for AMVUTTRA (vutrisiran), approved March 20, 2025, meets the criteria for redeeming a priority review voucher.
Quyen Tran, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2771, email:
FDA is announcing the approval of a product redeeming a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff), FDA will report the issuance of rare pediatric disease priority review vouchers and the approval of products for which a voucher was redeemed. FDA has determined that the supplemental application (Supplement-06) for AMVUTTRA (vutrisiran) meets the redemption criteria.
For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529 of the FD&C Act, go to
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HRSA is publishing this notice of petitions received under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the Program), as required by the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended. While the Secretary of HHS is named as the respondent in all proceedings brought by the filing of petitions for compensation under the Program, the United States Court of Federal Claims is charged by statute with responsibility for considering and acting upon the petitions.
For information about requirements for filing petitions, and the Program in general, contact Lisa L. Reyes, Clerk of Court, United States Court of Federal Claims, 717 Madison Place NW, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 357-6400. For information on HRSA's role in the Program, contact the Director, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 8W-25A, Rockville, Maryland 20857; (301) 443-6593, or visit our website at:
The Program provides a system of no-fault compensation for certain individuals who have been injured by specified childhood vaccines. Subtitle 2 of Title XXI of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10
A petition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table (the Table) set forth at 42 CFR 100.3. This Table lists for each covered childhood vaccine the conditions that may lead to compensation and, for each condition, the time period for occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration. Compensation may also be awarded for conditions not listed in the Table and for conditions that are manifested outside the time periods specified in the Table, but only if the petitioner shows that the condition was caused by one of the listed vaccines.
Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-12(b)(2), requires that “[w]ithin 30 days after the Secretary receives service of any petition filed under section 2111 the Secretary shall publish notice of such petition in the
Section 2112(b)(2) also provides that the special master “shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to submit relevant, written information” relating to the following:
1. The existence of evidence “that there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the illness, disability, injury, condition, or death described in the petition is due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine described in the petition,” and
2. Any allegation in a petition that the petitioner either:
a. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition not set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table but which was caused by” one of the vaccines referred to in the Table, or
b. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or significant aggravation of which did not occur within the time period set forth in the Table but which was caused by a vaccine” referred to in the Table.
In accordance with Section 2112(b)(2), all interested persons may submit written information relevant to the issues described above in the case of the petitions listed below. Any person choosing to do so should file an original and three (3) copies of the information with the Clerk of the United States Court of Federal Claims at the address listed above (under the heading
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel PAR Panel: International and Cooperative Projects for the Emerging Global Leader Award, May 07, 2025, 08:00 a.m. to May 08, 2025, 04:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
This meeting is being amended to change the meeting from a 2-day to a 1-day meeting on 05/07/2025. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors of the NIH Clinical Center.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(9)(B), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual grant applications conducted by the Clinical Center, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Nursing Research.
The meeting will be held virtually and is open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to attend the virtual meeting and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The open session will be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting website
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice; request for applications.
The U.S. Coast Guard is accepting applications to fill one vacancy on the Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee (Committee). The Committee provides advice and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security via the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard on matters relating to Great Lakes pilotage, including review of proposed Great Lakes pilotage regulations and policies.
Complete applications must reach the U.S. Coast Guard on or before May 6, 2025.
Applications must include (a) a cover letter that expresses support from the nominating group, the applicant's interest in an appointment to the Committee, and details regarding the applicant's qualifications to serve as a representative of the groups and/or viewpoints identified in the open position, (b) a resume detailing the applicant's relevant experience for the position applied for, and (c) a brief 2-3 paragraph biography written in third person perspective. Applications should be submitted via email with the subject line “Application for GLPAC” to Mr. Francis Levesque at
Mr. Francis Levesque, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee; telephone 571-308-4941 or email at
The Committee is a Federal advisory committee, and operates under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 9307, as well as the
Meetings of the Committee will be held with the approval of the Designated Federal Officer. The Committee is required to meet at least once per year. Additional meetings may be held at the request of a majority of the Committee or at the discretion of the Designated Federal Officer.
For this vacancy, the member serves a term of office of up to three years. The member may serve a maximum of six consecutive years. All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary or other compensation from the Federal Government. The only compensation the members may receive is for travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, and actual reasonable expenses incurred in the performance of their direct duties for the Committee in accordance with Federal Travel Regulations.
We will consider nominations for one position:
• One member chosen from among nominations made by shippers whose cargoes are transported through Great Lakes ports.
To be eligible, applicants who are nominated should have particular expertise, knowledge, and experience regarding the regulations and policies on the pilotage vessels on the Great Lakes, and at least five years of practical experience in maritime operations.
The member who fills the position described above will be appointed to represent the interest of their respective groups and viewpoints and is not a Special Government Employee as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202(a). As a representative, the member is expected to represent and speak on behalf of
If you are appointed as a member of the Committee, you will be required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement and a Gratuitous Services Agreement.
If you are interested in applying to become a member of the Committee, email your application to
The U.S. Coast Guard will not consider incomplete or late applications.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
60-Day notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on one currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0051, abstracted below that we will submit to OMB for a revision in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection involves information to validate compliance with regulatory requirements aimed at enhancing surface transportation security, including security coordinator information, reporting of significant security concerns, location and shipping information, chain of custody and control requirements, security training programs and, security training records.
Send your comments by June 20, 2025.
Comments may be emailed to
Christina A. Walsh at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227-2062.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Sections 1570.201 and 1570.203 require that owner/operators of certain freight railroad carriers, certain rail hazardous materials shipper and receiver facilities, certain passenger railroad carriers, certain public transportation agencies, certain rail transit systems, and certain over-the-road bus operators providing fixed route service to designate and submit contact information for a security coordinator and at least one alternate security coordinator to TSA; and to report to TSA significant security concerns, which include security incidents, suspicious activities, and threat information.
Section 1580.203 requires that owner/operators of certain freight railroad carriers, certain rail hazardous materials shipper and receiver facilities that handle certain categories and quantities of rail security-sensitive materials (RSSM) to provide location and shipping information on rail cars under their physical custody and control to TSA upon request. The specified categories and quantities of RSSM cover explosive materials, materials poisonous by inhalation, and radioactive materials.
Section 1580.205 requires a secure chain of physical custody for rail cars containing rail security-sensitive materials (RSSM) which, in turn, requires that owner/operators of certain freight railroad carriers and certain rail hazardous materials shippers and
Sections 1580.113, 1582.113, and 1584.113 requires that owner/operators of certain freight railroads, public transportation and passenger railroads, and over-the-road bus companies submit a security training program to TSA and maintain security training records.
In light of the revision to consolidate the collections, TSA will request OMB to discontinue OMB Control Number 1652-0066
The total number of respondents for this collection is 2,070 and the annual burden is approximately 66,995 hours.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Public land order.
This Order withdraws, subject to valid existing rights, approximately 109,651 acres of Federal lands from settlement, sale, location, and entry under the general land laws, including the United States mining laws, mineral leasing laws, and geothermal leasing laws, for a period of 3 years for use by the Department of the Army for border security purposes. This withdrawal also transfers administrative jurisdiction of the lands to the Department of the Army.
This PLO takes effect on April 15, 2025.
Jillian Aragon, Project Manager, New Mexico, telephone: 505-635-9701, email:
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact Ms. Aragon. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1714, and in accordance with subsection 204(e) of that Act, it is determined that an emergency situation exists and that extraordinary measures must be taken to preserve values that would otherwise be lost. It is therefore ordered as follows:
1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described Federal lands are hereby withdrawn from settlement, sale, location, and entry under the general land laws, including the United States mining laws, mineral leasing laws, and geothermal leasing laws, and jurisdiction over such lands is hereby transferred to the Department of the Army for border security purposes.
All Federal lands, to include Federal interest in lands, other than those that constitute “property” under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, as amended, including the 60-foot strip of land lying contiguous to and parallel with the international border between the United States and Mexico, currently subject to Presidential Proclamation No. 758, 35 Stat. 2136 (May 27, 1907) (commonly known as the “Roosevelt Reservation”), located in the counties of Dona Ana, Luna and Hildalgo, state of New Mexico, and situate in the following described locations:
The 60-ft strip reserved by the Presidential Proclamation of May 27, 1907.
That portion lying southerly of the southerly right-of-way boundary of NM State Highway 9;
Including the 60-ft strip reserved in conformity with the Presidential Proclamation of May 27, 1907.
That portion lying southerly of the southerly right-of-way boundary of NM State Highway 9;
Including the 60-ft strip reserved in conformity with the Presidential Proclamation of May 27, 1907.
That portion lying southerly of the southerly right-of-way boundary of NM State Highway 9;
Including the 60-ft strip reserved in conformity with the Presidential Proclamation of May 27, 1907.
That portion lying southerly of the southerly right-of-way boundary of NM State Highway 9;
Including the 60-ft strip reserved in conformity with the Presidential Proclamation of May 27, 1907.
That portion lying southerly of the southerly right-of-way boundary of NM State Highway 9;
Including the 60-ft strip reserved in conformity with the Presidential Proclamation of May 27, 1907.
Excepting that portion lying northerly of the southerly right-of-way boundary of NM State Highway 9;
That portion lying southerly of the southerly right-of-way boundary of NM State Highway 9;
Including the 60-ft strip reserved in conformity with the Presidential Proclamation of May 27, 1907.
Excepting that portion lying northerly of the southerly right-of-way boundary of NM State Highway 9;
That portion lying southerly of the southerly right-of-way boundary of NM State Highway 9;
Including the 60-ft strip reserved in conformity with the Presidential Proclamation of May 27, 1907.
That portion lying southerly of the southerly right-of-way boundary of NM State Highway 9;
That portion lying southerly of the southerly right-of-way boundary of NM State Highway 9;
Including the 60-ft strip reserved in conformity with the Presidential Proclamation of May 27, 1907.
That portion lying southerly of the southerly right-of-way boundary of NM State Highway 9;
Including the 60-ft strip reserved in conformity with the Presidential Proclamation of May 27, 1907.
Excepting that portion lying northerly of the southerly right-of-way boundary of NM State Highway 9;
That portion lying southerly of the southerly right-of-way boundary of NM State Highway 9;
Including the 60-ft strip reserved in conformity with the Presidential Proclamation of May 27, 1907.
Excepting that portion lying northerly of the southerly right-of-way boundary of NM State Highway 9;
Including the 60-ft strip reserved in conformity with the Presidential Proclamation of May 27, 1907.
Excepting that portion lying northerly of the southerly right-of-way boundary of NM State Highway 9;
That portion lying southerly of the southerly right-of-way boundary of NM State Highway 9;
Including the 60-ft strip reserved in conformity with the Presidential Proclamation of May 27, 1907.
Excepting that portion lying northerly of the southerly right-of-way boundary of NM State Highway 9;
Including the 60-ft strip reserved in conformity with the Presidential Proclamation of May 27, 1907.
Excepting that portion lying northerly of the southerly right-of-way boundary of NM State Highway 9;
Including the 60-ft strip reserved in conformity with the Presidential Proclamation of May 27, 1907.
Including the 60-ft strip reserved in conformity with the Presidential Proclamation of May 27, 1907.
Including the 60-ft strip reserved in conformity with the Presidential Proclamation of May 27, 1907.
Including the 60-ft strip reserved in conformity with the Presidential Proclamation of May 27, 1907.
Including the 60-ft strip reserved in conformity with the Presidential Proclamation of May 27, 1907.
Including the 60-ft strip reserved in conformity with the Presidential Proclamation of May 27, 1907.
Including the 60-ft strip reserved in conformity with the Presidential Proclamation of May 27, 1907.
Including the 60-ft strip reserved in conformity with the Presidential Proclamation of May 27, 1907.
The 60-ft strip reserved in conformity with the Presidential Proclamation of May 27, 1907.
The 60-ft strip reserved in conformity with the Presidential Proclamation of May 27, 1907.
The areas described above aggregate approximately 109,651 acres of Federal lands in Dona Ana, Luna, and Hidalgo Counties.
2. This withdrawal will expire 3 years from the effective date of this Order, unless it is extended in accordance with subsections (c)(1) or (d), whichever is applicable, and (b)(1) of section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Managment Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of expedited reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on polyester textured yarn from China and India would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
March 7, 2025.
Camille Bryan ((202) 205-2811), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these investigations effective February 14, 2024, following receipt of petitions filed with the Commission and Commerce by Cornerstone Chemical Company, Waggaman, Louisiana. The Commission scheduled the final phase of the investigations following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of melamine are being subsidized by the governments of Germany, India, Qatar, and Trinidad and Tobago within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)) and imports of melamine from Germany, India, Japan, Netherlands, Qatar, and Trinidad and Tobago are being sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The investigation schedules became staggered when Commerce postponed the final determination for its antidumping duty investigation regarding India, and aligned the final determination for its countervailing duty investigation regarding India with the corresponding antidumping duty investigation, but did not postpone the final determinations in the remaining antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations. Following notification of final determinations by Commerce that imports of melamine from India were being subsidized by the government of India within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)) and sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 735(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(a)), notice of the supplemental scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's countervailing duty and antidumping duty investigations was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to § 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on March 31, 2025. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5603 (March 2025), entitled
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on February 17, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
On September 15, 2004, ASTM 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 December 20, 2024. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on March 14, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Specifically, 3i Technologies Sdn. Bhd, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA; InWave Ltd., Urom, HUNGARY; Ace Micro Services Ltd, Nairobi, REPUBLIC OF KENYA; Home Tech Solution, Ottawa, CANADA; SmartWings Home LLC, Austin, TX; Siterwell Electronics Co., Limited, Ningbo, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Seacomp, Carlsbad, CA; D-3 Technology Co. Limited, Hong Kong, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Arcadyan Technology Corporation, Hsinchu City, REPUBLIC OF CHINA(TAIWAN); WePower Technologies LLC, Sagaponack, NY; and Bluesalve Partners LLC, Ashburn, VA have been added as parties to this venture.
Also, Smart Systems LLC, Moscow, RUSSIAN FEDERATION; F3 Wireless, Minneapolis, MN; Quext, LLC, Lubbock, TX; DEN Smart Home, Enschede, KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS; Danfoss A/S, Nordborg, KINGDOM OF DENMARK; Viva Labs AS, Oslo, KINGDOM OF NORWAY; and Hubbell, Shelton, CT have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
Additionally, the following members have changed their names: Bluesalve Partners LLC to Blueconnect Partners, Ashburn, VA; Control4 to Snap One, Salt Lake City, UT; and U-tec Group Inc. to Xthings Industry LLC, Fremont, CA.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or the planned activity of the venture. Membership in this venture remains open, and the Joint Venture intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 19, 2020, the Joint Venture 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 December 16, 2024. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on February 17, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Specifically, Air Space Intelligence Federal Inc., Washington, DC; AISensation LLC, Caldwell, TX; Amaero Advanced Materials & Manufacturing, Inc., McDonald, TN; American Flowform Products LLC., Billerica, MA; Ansys Government Initiatives, Exton, PA; Barber-Nichols LLC., Arvada, CO; Chromatic 3D Materials Inc., Golden Valley, MN; Cornerstone Global LLC., Apex, NC; Deep Analytics LLC., Montpelier, VT; Deterrence Defense, Inc., Denver, CO; EverGlade Consulting, LLC. Houston, TX; Fortem Technologies, Inc., Pleasant Grove, UT; Grid Aero, Inc., San Leandro, CA; Halliburton Energy Services, Alvarado, TX; Hidden Level, Syracuse, NY; Hornady Manufacturing, Grand Island, NE; J12 Solutions LLC., Huntsville, AL; LIFT, Detroit, MI; Materials Engineering And Technical Support Services Corp., Westerville, OH; Nammo Pocal, Inc., Scranton, PA; Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation/Mission Systems, McCellan, CA; Snoe Inc., Machining And Welding, Mountain View, CA; Strategic Enterprise Solutions Corp., Warner Robins, GA; Taylor Defense Products LLC., Louisville, MS; TB2 Aerospace, Breckenridge, CO; Tri-Power Design LLC., Denville, NJ; Velo3D, Inc., Fremont, CA; and ZeroMark, Inc.,
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 NAC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 2, 2000, NAC 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 November 15, 2024. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on March 17, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, EdWire Inc., San Antonio, TX; Minnesota Department of Education, Minneapolis, MN; Australian Council for Educational Research, Alexandria, COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA; Katy Independent School District, Katy, TX; Wiley, Hoboken, NJ; and Indiana Commission for Higher Education, Indianapolis, IN, 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 1EdTech Consortium intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 7, 2000, 1EdTech Consortium 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 December 18, 2024. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on March 6, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, NanoVMs, Inc., San Francisco, CA, has withdrawn as a party 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 ADC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 11, 2021, ADC 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 December 10, 2024. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on March 19, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
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 Rust Foundation intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 14, 2022, Rust Foundation 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 January 8, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on April 2, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
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 BSSC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On July 9, 2024, BSSC 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 December 19, 2024. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on April 9, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Specifically, Connecticut Center for Advanced Technology, Inc., East Hartford, CT; Velo3D, Inc., Fremont, CA; Edison Welding Institute, Inc., Columbus, OH; Hanwha Defense USA, Inc., McLean, VA; Defense Unicorns, Inc., Colorado Springs, CO; NCS Technologies, Inc., Manassas, VA; Product Development Associates, Inc., Burnsville, MN; Rapid Innovation & Security Experts, Inc., Colorado Springs, CO; Computer Conversions Corp., East Northport, NY; Gnostech LLC, Warminster, PA; Industry Defense Systems LLC, Lansdale, PA; AForge LLC, Lorton, VA; Ansys Government Initiatives, Inc., Exton, PA; One Off Robotics LLC, Chattanooga, TN; Einhorn Engineering PLLC, Seattle, WA; Marine Electric Systems, Inc., South Hackensack, NJ; Mikel, Inc., Middletown, RI; Stress Aerospace and Defense LLC, Houston, TX; Decryptor, Inc., Richardson, TX; Liburdi Turbine Services, Mooresville, NC; Defense Operations & Execution Solutions, Inc., West Melbourne, FL; Leslie Controls, Inc., Tampa, FL; McLaughlin Research Corp., New London, CT; MZA Associates Corp., Albuquerque, NM; RJA Technologies LLC, New York, NY; Nano Nuclear Energy, Inc., New York, NY; Chugach Information Technology, Inc., Anchorage, AK; Daniel H. Wagner Associates, Inc., Hampton, VA; and Olson Custom Designs LLC, Indianapolis, IN, have been added as parties to this venture.
Also, Progeny Systems LLC, Manassas, VA; Redfish Trading LLC, San Antonio, TX; Tapestry Solutions, Inc., San Diego, CA; Temple Allen Industries, Rockville, MD; Vigor Marine LLC, Portland, OR; Vitro Technology Corp., Austin, TX; BMT Designers & Planners, Arlington, VA; Design Automation Associates, Inc., Windsor Locks, CT; DMS South, Lancaster, TX; GSD LLC, Williamsburg, VA; Huckworthy LLC, Cape Charles, VA; Intelligent Automation, Rockville, MD; Iron EagleX, Inc., Tampa, FL; NanoVMs, Inc., San Francisco, CA; and Optiv, Denver, CO, 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 MSTIC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On October 21, 2020, MSTIC 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 January 10, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on March 31, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Specifically, Aclara Technologies, Inc., Bethesda, MD; Air Refueling Tanker Transport (ART2) LLC, Saint Louis, MO; Alaska Rare Earth LLC, Klawock, AK; Alcoa of Australia Ltd., Booragoon WA, COMMONWEALTH OF
Also, Goex Industries LLC, Minde, LA has withdrawn as a party 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 DIBC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On February 21, 2024, DIBC 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 January 10, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on March 19, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
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 Bytecode Alliance Foundation intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 20, 2022, Bytecode Alliance Foundation 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 August 12, 2024. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on April 1, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Specifically, LifePort LLC, Woodland, WA; Morphix Technologies, Inc., Virginia Beach, VA; Soar Technology LLC, Ann Arbor, MI; Sustainable Advancement of Green Energy-SAGE Pacific LLC, Kapolei, HI; and Training Center Pros, Inc. dba EOD Gear, Franklin, TN, have been added as parties to this venture.
Also, General Atomics, San Diego, CA; NTELX, Inc., Asheville, NC; Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA; and TIAX LLC, Lexington, MA, 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 CWMD intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On January 31, 2018, CWMD 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 January 6, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on April 9, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, halstrup-walcher GmbH, Kirchzarten, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, has withdrawn as a party 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 ODVA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On June 21, 1995, ODVA 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 January 8, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on March 20, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Chongqing Cable Networks Co., Ltd., Chongqing, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Grupo Televisa, S.A.B., Mexico City, UNITED MEXICAN STATES; StarHub Cable Vision Ltd., Singapore, SINGAPORE; Millicom International Cellular S.A., Coral Gables, FL; WASU Digital TV Media Group Co. Ltd., Hangzhou, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Taiwan Broadband Communications, Co. Ltd., Taipei City, REPUBLIC OF CHINA (TAIWAN); Jiangsu Broadcasting Cable Information Network Corp. Ltd., Nanjing, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; and Beijing Gehua CATV Co. Ltd., Beijing, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, have been terminated as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the venture. Membership in this venture remains open, and CableLabs intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On August 8, 1988, CableLabs 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 August 19, 2024. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on March 11, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, CSPEED Inc., Palo Alto, CA; DeepSight Technology Inc., Santa Clara, CA; Luna Innovations, Blacksburg, VA; Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., Raritan, NJ; Seagate Technology LLC, Fremont, CA; and Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 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 AIM Photonics intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On June 16, 2016, AIM Photonics 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 December 6, 2024. A notice was published in the
On November 22, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to John Stanton, M.D., of Clarksville, Tennessee (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration No. BS1750048, alleging that Registrant's registration should be revoked because Registrant is “currently without authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Tennessee, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.”
The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file a written request for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default. RFAAX 2, at 3 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a hearing. RFAA, at 2.
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] § 1316.67.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC, on April 27, 2023, the State of Tennessee Department of Health, Board of Medical Examiners revoked Registrant's Tennessee medical license. RFAAX 2 at 2. According to Tennessee online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Registrant's Tennessee medical license remains revoked.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State
According to Tennessee statute, “dispense” means “to deliver a controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery.” Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 39-17-402(7) (2024). Further, a “practitioner” means “a physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to or administer a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research in this state.”
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant lacks authority to practice medicine in Tennessee. As discussed above, an individual must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled substance in Tennessee. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to practice medicine in Tennessee and, therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in Tennessee, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. BS1750048 issued to John Stanton, M.D.
Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of John Stanton, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of John Stanton, M.D., for additional registration in Tennessee. This Order is effective May 21, 2025.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on April 15, 2025, by Acting Administrator Derek Maltz. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; receipt.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received an application for the renewal of Facility Operating License No. DPR-23, which authorizes Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke, the applicant) to operate H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (Robinson), Unit 2. The renewed license would authorize the applicant to operate Robinson, Unit 2, for an additional 20 years beyond the period specified in the current license. The current operating license for Robinson, Unit 2, expires July 31, 2030.
The subsequent license renewal application referenced in this document is available on April 21, 2025.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0076 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Andrew Siwy, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-287-9232; email:
The NRC has received an application from Duke, dated April 1, 2025 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML25091A290) filed pursuant to section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and part 54 of title 10 of the
A copy of the subsequent license renewal application for Robinson, Unit 2, is also available to local residents near the site at the following public library: Hartsville Memorial Public Library, 147 West College Avenue in Hartsville, SC 29550.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of April 21, 28, and May 5, 12, 19, 26, 2025. The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Public.
Members of the public may request to receive the information in these notices electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, at 301-415-1969, or by email at
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 21, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 5, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 19, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 26, 2025.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Chris Markley at 301-415-6293 or via email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited 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.
None.
This Notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise the ICC Governance Playbook (the “Playbook”). These revisions do not require any changes to the ICC Clearing Rules (the “Rules”).
In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The amendments are intended to (i) provide for the establishment of a Board level risk committee (the “Board Risk Committee”) and (ii) add the Board
ICC proposes amending the Playbook to add references to the Board Risk Committee which was recently formed by the Board. Section II of the Playbook would be amended to add the new Board Risk Committee to the existing chart summarizing ICC's governance structure. In addition, Section IV of the Playbook would be revised to add the Board Risk Committee to the list of ICC's primary governance committees. Furthermore, Section IV.B. would be added to the Playbook to describe the Board Risk Committee's purpose, its membership composition, the new Board Risk Committee member administration procedures, the Board Risk Committee meeting frequency, the Board Risk Committee performance review process, and the documents relevant to the Board Risk Committee.
Proposed Section IV.B.(a). of the Playbook describes the Board Risk Committee's purpose as assisting the Board in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities with respect to risk management of ICC. Without limiting the foregoing, the Board Risk Committee will oversee (i) risk management models, systems, and processes used to identify and mange systemic, market, credit, and liquidity risks at ICC and (ii) matters that could materially affect the risk profile of ICC. Such section also includes a cross reference to the Board Risk Committee charter.
As provided in proposed Section IV.B.(b). of the Playbook, the Board Risk Committee is composed of at least five (5) members, a majority of which must meet the Manager independence requirements.
The section describing the new Board Risk Committee member administrative procedures provides an overview of the steps that will be taken by the ICC legal department to onboard a new member of the Board Risk Committee (
In addition, ICC proposes to update Appendix 1 of the Playbook by deleting the placeholder language and adding a copy of the Manager Fitness Standards which were recently adopted by the ICC Nominating Committee and approved by the Board.
The amendments would also update the revision history section to the Playbook (
ICE Clear Credit believes that the proposed amendments to the Playbook are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
The proposed amendments are designed to reflect the addition of the Board Risk Committee to ICC's governance structure, consistent with requirements of Commission Rule 17Ad-25. The amendments provide details on the purpose of the Board Risk Committee and its composition. In ICC's view, the amendments will enhance the overall risk management of ICC by providing for a Board level committee focused on the risk management of ICC and are therefore consistent with the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and derivatives agreements, contracts and transactions, the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of ICC or for which
The proposed amendments are also consistent with relevant provisions of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) which provides that the “covered clearing agency shall establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, as applicable [. . .] [p]rovide for governance arrangements that are [c]lear and transparent”
The proposed amendments also are consistent with the relevant provisions of Rule 17Ad-25(d) which provides that “Each registered clearing agency must establish a risk committee (or committees) of the board to assist the board of directors in overseeing the risk management of the registered clearing agency.”
ICE Clear Credit does not believe the proposed amendments would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The amendments are being adopted to add a Board Risk Committee. The amendments do not otherwise change the rights and responsibilities of ICC or its market participants. Accordingly, ICE Clear Credit does not believe the amendments would affect the costs of clearing, the ability of market participants to access clearing, or the market for clearing services generally. Therefore, ICE Clear Credit does not believe the proposed rule change imposes any burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICC.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted materials that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to file number SR-ICC-2025-006 and should be submitted on or before May 12, 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”),
The Exchange proposes to amend proposes to amend [sic] Exchange Rule 402, Criteria for Underlying Securities to list and trade options on the iShares Ethereum [sic] Trust.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 402, Criteria for Underlying Securities,
Current Exchange Rule 402(i)(4) provides that, subject to certain other criteria set forth in that Rule, securities deemed appropriate for options trading include shares or other securities (“Exchange Traded Fund Shares” or “ETFs”) that represent certain types of interests,
The Trust is a Bitcoin-backed commodity ETF structured as a trust. Similar to any ETF currently deemed appropriate for options trading under Exchange Rule 402(i)(4), the investment objective of the Trust is for its shares to reflect the performance of Bitcoin (less the expenses of the Trust's operations), offering investors an opportunity to gain exposure to Bitcoin without the complexities of Bitcoin delivery. As is the case for ETFs currently deemed appropriate for options trading, the Trust's shares represent units of fractional undivided beneficial interest in the trust, the assets of which consist principally of Bitcoin and are designed to track Bitcoin or the performance of the price of Bitcoin and offer access to the Bitcoin market.
The Exchange believes the Trust satisfies the Exchange's initial listing standards for ETFs on which the Exchange may list options. Specifically, the Trust satisfies the initial listing standards set forth in Exchange Rule 402(a), as is the case for other ETFs on which the Exchange lists options (including trusts that hold commodities). Exchange Rule 402(i)(5)(i) requires that the ETFs must either (1) meet the criteria and standards set forth in Exchange Rule 402(a) or 402(b),
While not required by the Rules for purposes of options listings, the Exchange believes the Trust satisfies the criteria and guidelines set forth Exchange Rule 402(b). Pursuant to Rule 402(a), a security (which includes an ETF) on which options may be listed and traded on the Exchange must be registered (with the Commission) and be an NMS stock (as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Act, and be characterized by a substantial number of outstanding shares that are widely held and actively traded.
As of March 5, 2025, based on the data presented in the Cboe Proposal, the Trust had the following number of shares outstanding:
Further, the below table presented in the Cboe Proposal contains information regarding the number of beneficial holders of the Trust as of the specified dates:
The Exchange also believes the shares of the Trust are actively traded. As of March 5, 2025, based on the data presented in the Cboe Proposal, the total trading volume (by shares) for the trust for the six-month period of September 5, 2024, through March 5, 2025, and the approximate average daily volume (“ADV”) (in shares and notional) over the 30-day period of September 5, 2024, through March 5, 2025, for the Trust was as follows:
As demonstrated above, as of March 5, 2025, based on the data presented in the Cboe Proposal, the six-month trading volume for the Trust as of that date was substantially higher than 2,400,000 shares (approximately 55 times that amount), which is the minimum 12-month volume the Exchange generally requires for an underlying security in order to list options on that security as set forth in Exchange Rule 402(b)(4). The Exchange believes this data demonstrates the Trust is characterized as having shares that are actively traded.
Options on the Trust will be subject to the Exchange's continued listing standards set forth in Exchange Rule 403(g), for ETFs deemed appropriate for options trading pursuant to Exchange Rule 402(i). Specifically, Exchange Rule 403(g) provides that ETFs that were initially approved for options trading pursuant to Exchange Rule 402(i) shall be deemed not to meet the requirements for continued approval, and the Exchange shall not open for trading any additional series of option contracts of the class covering that such ETFs, if the ETFs cease to be an NMS stock or the ETFs, are delisted from trading pursuant to Exchange Rule 403(b)(4), are halted or suspended from trading in their primary market. Additionally, options on ETFs may be subject to the suspension of opening transactions in any of the following circumstances: (1) in the case of options covering ETFs approved for trading under Exchange Rule 402(i)(5)(i)(A), in accordance with the terms of paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (3) of Exchange Rule 403; (2) in the case of options covering ETFs approved for trading under Exchange Rule 402(i)(5)(i)(B)(as is the case for the Trust), following the initial twelve-month period beginning upon the commencement of trading in the ETFs on a national securities exchange and are defined as an NMS stock, there are fewer than 50 record and/or beneficial holders of such ETFs for 30 or more consecutive trading days; (3) the value of the index or portfolio of securities, non-U.S. currency, or portfolio of commodities including commodity futures contracts, options on commodity futures contracts, swaps, forward contracts and/or options on physical commodities and/or financial
Options on the Trust will be physically settled contracts with American-style exercise.
Pursuant to Exchange Rule 404, Interpretations and Policies .06, which governs strike prices of series of options on ETFs, the interval between strike prices of series of options on ETFs approved for options trading pursuant to Exchange Rule 402(i) shall be fixed at a price per share which is reasonably close to the price per share at which the underlying security is traded in the primary market at or about the same time such series of options is first open for trading on the Exchange, or at such intervals as may have been established on another options exchange prior to the initiation of trading on the Exchange. With respect to the Short Term Options Series or Weekly Program, during the month prior to expiration of an option class that is selected for the Short Term Option Series Program, the strike price intervals for the related non-Short Term Option (“Related non-Short Term Option”) shall be the same as the strike price intervals for the Short Term Option.
Trust options will trade in the same manner as any other ETF options on the Exchange. The Exchange Rules that currently apply to the listing and trading of all ETFs options on the Exchange, including, for example, Exchange Rules that govern listing criteria, expirations, exercise prices, minimum increments, margin requirements, customer accounts and trading halt procedures will apply to the listing and trading of the Trust options on the Exchange in the same manner as they apply to other options on all other ETFs that are listed and traded on the Exchange, including the precious-metal backed commodity ETFs already deemed appropriate for options trading on the Exchange pursuant to current Exchange Rule 402(i)(4).
As mentioned above, the rules for position and exercise limits for options on ETFs, including Trust options, are determined pursuant to MIAX Rules 307 and 309, respectively, as incorporated by reference into the MIAX Sapphire Rulebook. Position and exercise limits for ETF options vary according to the number of outstanding shares and the trading volumes of the underlying ETF over the past six months, where the largest in capitalization and the most frequently traded ETFs have an option position and exercise limit of 250,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market; and smaller capitalization ETFs have position and exercise limits of 200,000, 75,000, 50,000 or 25,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market. The Exchange further notes that MIAX Rule 1502, which governs margin requirements applicable to trading on the Exchange, including options on ETFs, will also apply to the trading of the Trust options, as MIAX Chapter XV (Margins) is also incorporated by reference into the MIAX Sapphire Rulebook. Notwithstanding the position limits in MIAX Rule 307(d) and exercise limits in MIAX Rule 309, the Exchange proposes the position and exercise limits for the Trust to be 25,000 contracts on the same side pursuant to proposed Interpretations and Policies .01 to MIAX Rule 307 and proposed Interpretations and Policies.01 to MIAX Rule 309.
Today, the Exchange has an adequate surveillance program in place for options. The Exchange intends to apply those same program procedures to options on the Trust that it applies to the Exchange's other options products.
In addition, the Exchange has a Regulatory Services Agreement with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) for certain market surveillance, investigation and examinations functions. Pursuant to a multi-party 17d-2 joint plan, all options exchanges allocate amongst themselves and FINRA responsibilities to conduct certain options-related market surveillance that are common to rules of all options exchanges.
The underlying shares of spot bitcoin exchange-traded products (“ETPs”), including the Trust, are also subject to safeguards related to addressing market abuse and manipulation. As the Commission stated in its order approving proposals of several exchanges to list and trade shares of spot bitcoin-based ETPs:
In light of surveillance measures related to both options and futures as well as the Trust,
The Exchange has also analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes the Exchange and Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the listing of new series that may result from the introduction of options on Trust up to the number of expirations currently permissible under the Rules. The Exchange believes any additional traffic that may be generated from the introduction of the Trust options will be manageable.
The Exchange believes that offering options on the Trust will benefit investors by providing them with an additional, relatively lower cost investing tool to gain exposure to the price of Bitcoin and hedging vehicle to meet their investment needs in connection with Bitcoin-related products and positions. The Exchange expects investors will transact in options on the Trust in the unregulated over-the-counter (“OTC”) options market,
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposal to list and trade options on the Trust will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors because offering options on the Trust will provide investors with a greater opportunity to realize the benefits of utilizing options on the Trust, including cost efficiencies and increased hedging strategies. The Exchange believes that offering options on the Trust will benefit investors by providing them with a relatively lower-cost risk management tool, which will allow them to manage their positions and associated risks in their portfolios more easily in connection with to the price of Bitcoin and with Bitcoin-related products and positions. Additionally, the Exchange's offering of Trust options
The Exchange also believes the proposal to permit options on the Trust will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, because it is consistent with current Exchange rules previously filed with the Commission.
The Exchange believes the proposed position and exercise limits, as proposed in the filing submitted by Exchange's affiliate, MIAX, are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and promote just and equitable principles of trade, as they are designed to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impacts surrounding the use of options, such as disrupting the market in the security underlying the options. The proposed position and exercise limits for options for the Trust is 25,000 contracts, which is currently the lowest limit applicable to any equity options (including ETF options) and the position and exercise limits that apply to comparable ETFs that hold Bitcoin. The Exchange believes the proposed position and exercise limits are extremely conservative for the Trust options given the trading volume and outstanding shares for the Trust.
The Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the Trust options. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that its existing surveillance and reporting safeguards are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior which might arise from listing and trading options on ETFs, including the Trust 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. In this regard and as indicated above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a competitive response to the filing submitted by Cboe.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as the Trust will be equally available to all market participants who wish to trade such options and will trade generally in the same manner as other options. The Exchange Rules that currently apply to the listing and trading of all options on ETFs on the Exchange, including, for example, Rules that govern listing criteria, expirations, exercise prices, minimum increments, margin requirements, customer accounts, and trading halt procedures will apply to the listing and trading of the Trust options on the Exchange in the same manner as they apply to other options on all other ETFs that are listed and traded on the Exchange. Also, and as stated above, the Exchange already lists options on other commodity-based securities.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal to list and trade options on the Trust will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the extent that the advent of the Trust options trading on the Exchange may make the Exchange a more attractive marketplace to market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are free to elect to become market participants on the Exchange. Additionally, other options exchanges are free to amend their listing rules, as applicable, to permit them to list and trade options on the Trust. The Exchange notes that listing and trading the Trust options on the Exchange will subject such options to transparent exchange-based rules as well as price discovery and liquidity, as opposed to alternatively trading such options in the OTC market.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change may relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition, as it is designed to increase competition for order flow on the Exchange in a manner that is beneficial to investors by providing them with a lower-cost option to hedge their investment portfolios. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues that offer similar products. Ultimately, the Exchange believes that offering the Trust options for trading on the Exchange will promote competition by providing investors with an additional, relatively low-cost means to hedge their portfolios and meet their investment needs in connection with Bitcoin prices and Bitcoin-related products and positions on a listed options exchange.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
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”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 402, Criteria for Underlying Securities to list and trade options on the VanEck Bitcoin Trust (the “Trust”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, MIAX Pearl 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. MIAX Pearl 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 Exchange Rule 402, Criteria for Underlying Securities,
Current Exchange Rule 402(i)(4) provides that, subject to certain other criteria set forth in that Rule, securities deemed appropriate for options trading include shares or other securities (“Exchange Traded Fund Shares” or “ETFs”) that represent certain types of interests,
The Trust is a Bitcoin-backed commodity ETF structured as a trust. Similar to any ETF currently deemed appropriate for options trading under Exchange Rule 402(i)(4), the investment objective of the Trust is for its shares to reflect the performance of Bitcoin (less the expenses of the Trust's operations), offering investors an opportunity to gain exposure to Bitcoin without the complexities of Bitcoin delivery. As is the case for ETFs currently deemed appropriate for options trading, the Trust's shares represent units of fractional undivided beneficial interest in the trust, the assets of which consist principally of Bitcoin and are designed to track Bitcoin or the performance of the price of Bitcoin and offer access to the Bitcoin market.
The Exchange believes the Trust satisfies the Exchange's initial listing standards for ETFs on which the Exchange may list options. Specifically, the Trust satisfies the initial listing standards set forth in Exchange Rule 402(a), as is the case for other ETFs on which the Exchange lists options (including trusts that hold commodities). Exchange Rule 402(i)(5)(i) requires that the ETFs must either (1) meet the criteria and standards set forth in Exchange Rule 402(a) or 402(b),
While not required by the Rules for purposes of options listings, the Exchange believes the Trust satisfies the criteria and guidelines set forth Exchange Rule 402(b). Pursuant to Rule 402(a), a security (which includes an ETF) on which options may be listed and traded on the Exchange must be registered (with the Commission) and be an NMS stock (as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Act, and be characterized by a substantial number of outstanding shares that are widely held and actively traded.
As of March 5, 2025, based on the data presented in the Cboe Proposal, the Trust had the following number of shares outstanding:
The Trust had significantly more than 7,000,000 shares outstanding (approximately 7 times that amount), which is the minimum number of shares of a corporate stock that the Exchange generally requires to list options on that stock pursuant to Exchange Rule 402(b)(1). The Exchange believes this demonstrates that the Trust is characterized by a substantial number of outstanding shares.
Further, the below table presented in the Cboe Proposal contains information regarding the number of beneficial holders of the Trust as of the specified dates:
As this table shows, the Trust has significantly more than 2,000 beneficial holders (approximately 16 times more), which is the minimum number of holders the Exchange generally requires for corporate stock in order to list options on that stock pursuant to Exchange Rule 402(b)(2). Therefore, the Exchange believes the shares of the Trust are widely held.
The Exchange also believes the shares of the Trust are actively traded. As of March 5, 2025, based on the data presented in the Cboe Proposal, the total trading volume (by shares) for the trust for the six-month period of September 5, 2024, through March 5, 2025, and the approximate average daily volume (“ADV”) (in shares and notional) over the 30-day period of September 5, 2024, through March 5, 2025, for the Trust was as follows:
As demonstrated above, as of March 5, 2025, based on the data presented in the Cboe Proposal, the six-month trading volume for the Trust as of that date was substantially higher than 2,400,000 shares (approximately 55 times that amount), which is the minimum 12-month volume the Exchange generally requires for an underlying security in order to list options on that security as set forth in Exchange Rule 402(b)(4). The Exchange believes this data demonstrates the Trust is characterized as having shares that are actively traded.
Options on the Trust will be subject to the Exchange's continued listing standards set forth in Exchange Rule 403(g), for ETFs deemed appropriate for options trading pursuant to Exchange Rule 402(i). Specifically, Exchange Rule 403(g) provides that ETFs that were initially approved for options trading pursuant to Exchange Rule 402(i) shall be deemed not to meet the requirements for continued approval, and the Exchange shall not open for trading any additional series of option contracts of the class covering that such ETFs, if the ETFs cease to be an NMS stock or the ETFs, are delisted from trading pursuant to Exchange Rule 403(b)(4), are halted or suspended from trading in their primary market. Additionally, options on ETFs may be subject to the suspension of opening transactions in any of the following circumstances: (1) in the case of options covering ETFs approved for trading under Exchange Rule 402(i)(5)(i)(A), in accordance with the terms of paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (3) of Exchange Rule 403; (2) in the case of options covering ETFs approved for trading under Exchange Rule 402(i)(5)(i)(B)(as is the case for the Trust), following the initial twelve-month period beginning upon the commencement of trading in the ETFs on a national securities exchange and are defined as an NMS stock, there are fewer than 50 record and/or beneficial holders of such ETFs for 30 or more consecutive trading days; (3) the value of the index or portfolio of securities, non-U.S. currency, or portfolio of commodities including commodity futures contracts, options on commodity futures contracts, swaps, forward contracts and/or options on physical commodities and/or financial instruments and money market instruments on which the ETFs are based is no longer calculated or available; or (4) such other event shall occur or condition exist that in the opinion of the Exchange makes further dealing in such options on the Exchange inadvisable.
Options on the Trust will be physically settled contracts with American-style exercise.
Pursuant to Exchange Rule 404, Interpretations and Policies .06, which governs strike prices of series of options on ETFs, the interval between strike prices of series of options on ETFs approved for options trading pursuant to Exchange Rule 402(i) shall be fixed at a price per share which is reasonably close to the price per share at which the underlying security is traded in the primary market at or about the same time such series of options is first open for trading on the Exchange, or at such intervals as may have been established on another options exchange prior to the initiation of trading on the Exchange. With respect to the Short Term Options Series or Weekly Program, during the month prior to expiration of an option class that is selected for the Short Term Option Series Program, the strike price intervals for the related non-Short Term Option (“Related non-Short Term Option”) shall be the same as the strike price intervals for the Short Term Option.
Trust options will trade in the same manner as any other ETF options on the Exchange. The Exchange Rules that currently apply to the listing and trading of all ETFs options on the Exchange, including, for example, Exchange Rules that govern listing criteria, expirations, exercise prices, minimum increments, margin requirements, customer accounts and trading halt procedures will apply to the listing and trading of the Trust options on the Exchange in the same manner as they apply to other options on all other ETFs that are listed and traded on the Exchange, including the precious-metal backed commodity ETFs already deemed appropriate for options trading on the Exchange pursuant to current Exchange Rule 402(i)(4).
As mentioned above, the rules for position and exercise limits for options on ETFs, including the Trust options, are determined pursuant to MIAX Rules 307 and 309, respectively, as incorporated by reference into the MIAX Pearl Rulebook. Position and exercise limits for ETF options vary according to the number of outstanding shares and the trading volumes of the underlying ETF over the past six months, where the largest in capitalization and the most frequently traded ETFs have an option position and exercise limit of 250,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market; and smaller capitalization ETFs have position and exercise limits of 200,000, 75,000, 50,000 or 25,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market. The Exchange further notes that MIAX Rule 1502, which governs margin requirements applicable to trading on the Exchange, including options on ETFs, will also apply to the trading of the Trust options, as MIAX Chapter XV (Margins) is also incorporated by reference into the MIAX Pearl Rulebook. Notwithstanding the position limits in MIAX Rule 307(d) and exercise limits in MIAX Rule 309, the Exchange proposes the position and exercise limits for the Trust to be 25,000 contracts on the same side pursuant to proposed Interpretations and Policies .01 to MIAX Rule 307 and proposed Interpretations and Policies.01 to MIAX Rule 309.
Today, the Exchange has an adequate surveillance program in place for options. The Exchange intends to apply those same program procedures to options on the Trust that it applies to the Exchange's other options products.
In addition, the Exchange has a Regulatory Services Agreement with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) for certain market surveillance, investigation and examinations functions. Pursuant to a multi-party 17d-2 joint plan, all options exchanges allocate amongst themselves and FINRA responsibilities to conduct certain options-related market surveillance that are common to rules of all options exchanges.
The underlying shares of spot bitcoin exchange-traded products (“ETPs”), including the Trust, are also subject to safeguards related to addressing market abuse and manipulation. As the Commission stated in its order approving proposals of several exchanges to list and trade shares of spot bitcoin-based ETPs:
Each Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with the CME via their common membership in the Intermarket Surveillance Group. This facilitates the sharing of information that is available to the CME through its surveillance of its markets, including its surveillance of the CME bitcoin futures market.
The Exchange states that, given the consistently high correlation between the CME Bitcoin futures market and the spot bitcoin market, as confirmed by the Commission through robust correlation analysis, the Commission was able to conclude that such surveillance sharing agreements could reasonably be “expected to assist in surveilling for fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in the specific context of the [Bitcoin ETPs].”
In light of surveillance measures related to both options and futures as well as the Trust,
The Exchange has also analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes the Exchange and Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the listing of new series that may result from the introduction of options on Trust up to the number of expirations currently permissible under the Rules. The Exchange believes any additional traffic that may be generated from the introduction of the Trust options will be manageable.
The Exchange believes that offering options on the Trust will benefit investors by providing them with an additional, relatively lower cost investing tool to gain exposure to the price of Bitcoin and hedging vehicle to meet their investment needs in connection with Bitcoin-related products and positions. The Exchange expects investors will transact in options on the Trust in the unregulated over-the-counter (“OTC”) options market,
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposal to list and trade options on the Trust will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors because offering options on the Trust will provide investors with a greater opportunity to realize the benefits of utilizing options on the Trust, including cost efficiencies and increased hedging strategies. The Exchange believes that offering options on the Trust will benefit investors by providing them with a relatively lower-cost risk management tool, which will allow them to manage their positions and associated risks in their portfolios more easily in connection with to the price of Bitcoin and with Bitcoin-related products and positions. Additionally, the Exchange's offering of Trust options will provide investors with the ability to transact in such options in a listed market environment as opposed to in the unregulated OTC options market, which would increase market transparency and enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow to the benefit of all investors. The Exchange also notes that it already lists options on other commodity-based ETFs,
The Exchange also believes the proposal to permit options on the Trust will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, because it is consistent with current Exchange rules previously filed with the Commission.
The Exchange believes the proposed position and exercise limits, as proposed in the filing submitted by Exchange's affiliate, MIAX, are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and promote just and equitable principles of trade, as they are designed to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impacts surrounding the use of options, such as disrupting the market in the security underlying the options. The proposed position and exercise limits for options for the Trust is 25,000 contracts, which is currently the lowest limit applicable to any equity options (including ETF options) and the position and exercise limits that apply to comparable ETFs that hold Bitcoin. The Exchange believes the proposed position and exercise limits are extremely conservative for the Trust options given the trading volume and outstanding shares for the Trust.
The Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the Trust options. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that its existing surveillance and reporting safeguards are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior which might arise from listing and trading options on ETFs, including the Trust 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. In this regard and as indicated above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a competitive response to the filing submitted by Cboe.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as the Trust will be equally available to all market participants who wish to trade such options and will trade generally in the same manner as other options. The Exchange Rules that currently apply to the listing and
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal to list and trade options on the Trust will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the extent that the advent of the Trust options trading on the Exchange may make the Exchange a more attractive marketplace to market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are free to elect to become market participants on the Exchange. Additionally, other options exchanges are free to amend their listing rules, as applicable, to permit them to list and trade options on the Trust. The Exchange notes that listing and trading the Trust options on the Exchange will subject such options to transparent exchange-based rules as well as price discovery and liquidity, as opposed to alternatively trading such options in the OTC market.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change may relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition, as it is designed to increase competition for order flow on the Exchange in a manner that is beneficial to investors by providing them with a lower-cost option to hedge their investment portfolios. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues that offer similar products. Ultimately, the Exchange believes that offering the Trust options for trading on the Exchange will promote competition by providing investors with an additional, relatively low-cost means to hedge their portfolios and meet their investment needs in connection with Bitcoin prices and Bitcoin-related products and positions on a listed options exchange.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
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”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 402, Criteria for Underlying Securities, Exchange Rule 307, Position Limits, and Exchange Rule 309, Exercise Limits, to list and trade options on the VanEck Bitcoin Trust (the “Trust”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 402, Criteria for Underlying Securities, Exchange Rule 307, Position Limits, and Exchange Rule 309, Exercise Limits,
Current Exchange Rule 402(i)(4) provides that, subject to certain other criteria set forth in that Rule, securities deemed appropriate for options trading include shares or other securities (“Exchange Traded Fund Shares” or “ETFs”) that represent certain types of interests,
The Trust is a Bitcoin-backed commodity ETF structured as a trust. Similar to any ETF currently deemed appropriate for options trading under Exchange Rule 402(i)(4), the investment objective of the Trust is for its shares to reflect the performance of Bitcoin (less the expenses of the Trust's operations), offering investors an opportunity to gain exposure to Bitcoin without the complexities of Bitcoin delivery. As is the case for ETFs currently deemed appropriate for options trading, the Trust's shares represent units of fractional undivided beneficial interest in the trust, the assets of which consist principally of Bitcoin and are designed to track Bitcoin or the performance of the price of Bitcoin and offer access to the Bitcoin market.
The Exchange believes the Trust satisfies the Exchange's initial listing standards for ETFs on which the Exchange may list options. Specifically, the Trust satisfies the initial listing standards set forth in Exchange Rule 402(a), as is the case for other ETFs on which the Exchange lists options (including trusts that hold commodities). Exchange Rule 402(i)(5)(i) requires that the ETFs must either (1) meet the criteria and standards set forth in Exchange Rule 402(a) or 402(b),
While not required by the Rules for purposes of options listings, the Exchange believes the Trust satisfies the criteria and guidelines set forth Exchange Rule 402(b). Pursuant to Rule 402(a), a security (which includes an ETF) on which options may be listed and traded on the Exchange must be registered (with the Commission) and be an NMS stock (as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Act, and be characterized by a substantial number of outstanding shares that are widely held and actively traded.
As of March 5, 2025, based on the data presented in the Cboe Proposal, the Trust had the following number of shares outstanding:
The Trust had significantly more than 7,000,000 shares outstanding (approximately 7 times that amount), which is the minimum number of shares of a corporate stock that the Exchange generally requires to list options on that stock pursuant to Exchange Rule 402(b)(1). The Exchange believes this demonstrates that the Trust is characterized by a substantial number of outstanding shares.
Further, the below table presented in the Cboe Proposal contains information regarding the number of beneficial holders of the Trust as of the specified dates:
The Exchange also believes the shares of the Trust are actively traded. As of March 5, 2025, based on the data presented in the Cboe Proposal, the total trading volume (by shares) for the trust for the six-month period of September 5, 2024, through March 5, 2025, and the approximate average daily volume (“ADV”) (in shares and notional) over the 30-day period of September 5, 2024, through March 5, 2025, for the Trust was as follows:
As demonstrated above, as of March 5, 2025, based on the data presented in the Cboe Proposal, the six-month trading volume for the Trust as of that date was substantially higher than 2,400,000 shares (approximately 55 times that amount), which is the minimum 12-month volume the Exchange generally requires for an underlying security in order to list options on that security as set forth in Exchange Rule 402(b)(4). The Exchange believes this data demonstrates the Trust is characterized as having shares that are actively traded.
Options on the Trust will be subject to the Exchange's continued listing standards set forth in Exchange Rule 403(g), for ETFs deemed appropriate for options trading pursuant to Exchange Rule 402(i). Specifically, Exchange Rule 403(g) provides that ETFs that were initially approved for options trading pursuant to Exchange Rule 402(i) shall be deemed not to meet the requirements for continued approval, and the Exchange shall not open for trading any additional series of option contracts of the class covering that such ETFs, if the ETFs cease to be an NMS stock or the ETFs, are delisted from trading pursuant to Exchange Rule 403(b)(4), are halted or suspended from trading in their primary market. Additionally, options on ETFs may be subject to the suspension of opening transactions in any of the following circumstances: (1) in the case of options covering ETFs approved for trading under Exchange Rule 402(i)(5)(i)(A), in accordance with the terms of paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (3) of Exchange Rule 403; (2) in the case of options covering ETFs approved for trading under Exchange Rule 402(i)(5)(i)(B)(as is the case for the Trust), following the initial twelve-month period beginning upon the commencement of trading in the ETFs on a national securities exchange and are defined as an NMS stock, there are fewer than 50 record and/or beneficial holders of such ETFs for 30 or more consecutive trading days; (3) the value of the index or portfolio of securities, non-U.S. currency, or portfolio of commodities including commodity futures contracts, options on commodity futures contracts, swaps, forward contracts and/or options on physical commodities and/or financial instruments and money market instruments on which the ETFs are based is no longer calculated or available; or (4) such other event shall occur or condition exist that in the opinion of the Exchange makes further dealing in such options on the Exchange inadvisable.
Options on the Trust will be physically settled contracts with American-style exercise.
Pursuant to Exchange Rule 404, Interpretations and Policies .06, which governs strike prices of series of options on ETFs, the interval between strike prices of series of options on ETFs approved for options trading pursuant to Exchange Rule 402(i) shall be fixed at a price per share which is reasonably close to the price per share at which the underlying security is traded in the primary market at or about the same time such series of options is first open for trading on the Exchange, or at such intervals as may have been established on another options exchange prior to the initiation of trading on the Exchange. With respect to the Short Term Options Series or Weekly Program, during the month prior to expiration of an option class that is selected for the Short Term Option Series Program, the strike price intervals for the related non-Short Term Option (“Related non-Short Term Option”) shall be the same as the strike price intervals for the Short Term Option.
Trust options will trade in the same manner as any other ETF options on the Exchange. The Exchange Rules that currently apply to the listing and trading of all ETFs options on the Exchange, including, for example, Exchange Rules that govern listing criteria, expirations, exercise prices, minimum increments, margin requirements, customer accounts and trading halt procedures will apply to the listing and trading of the Trust options on the Exchange in the same manner as they apply to other options on all other ETFs that are listed and traded on the Exchange, including the precious-metal backed commodity ETFs already deemed appropriate for options trading on the Exchange pursuant to current Exchange Rule 402(i)(4).
The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rules 307 and 309. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Interpretations and Policies .01 to Exchange Rule 307 to provide a position limit of 25,000 same side option contracts for Trust option. Additionally, pursuant to the proposed change to Interpretations and Policies .01 to Exchange Rule 309, the exercise limits for options on the Trust will be equivalent to this proposed position limit.
In considering the appropriate position and exercise limits for the Trust options, the Exchange reviewed the data presented by Cboe in its proposal. The Exchange determined these proposed position and exercise limits considering, among other things, the approximate six-month ADV and outstanding shares of the Trust (which as discussed above demonstrate that the Trust is widely held and actively traded and thus justify these conservatively proposed position limits), based on the data presented on the Cboe Proposal, along with market capitalization (as of March 5, 2025):
The Exchange then compared the number of outstanding shares of the Trust to those of other ETFs. The following table presented in the Cboe Proposal provides the approximate average position (and exercise limit) of ETF options with similar outstanding shares (as of March 5, 2025), compared to the proposed position and exercise limit for the Trust options:
The
With respect to outstanding shares, if a market participant held the maximum number of positions possible pursuant to the proposed position and exercise limits, the equivalent shares represented by the proposed position/exercise limit would represent the following approximate percentage of current outstanding shares:
As this table presented in the Cboe Proposal demonstrates, if a market participant held the maximum permissible options positions in Trust options and exercised all of them at the same time, that market participant would control a small percentage of the outstanding shares of the Trust.
Exchange Rule 307(d) provides two methods of qualifying for a position limit tier above 25,000 option contracts. The first method is based on six-month trading volume in the underlying security, and the second method is based on slightly lower six-month trading volume and number of shares outstanding in the underlying security. An underlying stock or ETF that qualifies for method two based on trading volume and number of shares outstanding would be required to have the minimum number of outstanding shares as shown in middle column of the table below.
The table, presented in the Cboe Proposal, which provides the equivalent shares of the position limits applicable to equity options, including ETFs, further represents the percentages of the minimum number of outstanding shares that an underlying stock or ETF must have to qualify for that position limit (under the second method described above), all of which are higher than the percentages for the Trust.
Further, the proposed position and exercise limits for the Trust option are significantly below the limits that would otherwise apply pursuant to current Exchange Rule 307. These position and exercise limits are the lowest position and exercise limits available in the options industry, are extremely conservative and more than appropriate given the market capitalization, average daily volume, and high number of outstanding shares of the Trust.
All of the above information demonstrates that the proposed position and exercise limits for the Trust options are more than reasonable and appropriate. The trading volume, ADV, and outstanding shares of the Trust demonstrate that the Trust is actively traded and widely held, and proposed position and exercise limits are well below those of other ETFs with similar market characteristics. The proposed position and exercise limits are the lowest position and exercise limits available for equity options in the industry, are extremely conservative, and are more than appropriate given the Trust's market capitalization, ADV, and high number of outstanding shares.
Today, the Exchange has an adequate surveillance program in place for options. The Exchange intends to apply those same program procedures to options on the Trust that it applies to the Exchange's other options products.
In addition, the Exchange has a Regulatory Services Agreement with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) for certain market surveillance, investigation and examinations functions. Pursuant to a multi-party 17d-2 joint plan, all options exchanges allocate amongst themselves and FINRA responsibilities to conduct certain options-related market surveillance that are common to rules of all options exchanges.
The underlying shares of spot bitcoin exchange-traded products (“ETPs”), including the Trust, are also subject to safeguards related to addressing market abuse and manipulation. As the Commission stated in its order approving proposals of several exchanges to list and trade shares of spot bitcoin-based ETPs:
Each Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with the CME via their common membership in the Intermarket Surveillance Group. This facilitates the sharing of information that is available to the CME through its surveillance of its markets, including its surveillance of the CME bitcoin futures market.
In light of surveillance measures related to both options and futures as well as the Trust,
The Exchange has also analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes the Exchange and Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the listing of new series that may result from the introduction of options on Trust up to the number of expirations currently permissible under the Rules. The Exchange believes any additional traffic that may be generated from the introduction of the Trust options will be manageable.
The Exchange believes that offering options on the Trust will benefit investors by providing them with an additional, relatively lower cost investing tool to gain exposure to the price of Bitcoin and hedging vehicle to meet their investment needs in connection with Bitcoin-related products and positions. The Exchange expects investors will transact in options on the Trust in the unregulated over-the-counter (“OTC”) options market,
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposal to list and trade options on the Trust will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors because offering options on the Trust will provide investors with a greater opportunity to realize the benefits of utilizing options on the Trust, including cost efficiencies and increased hedging strategies. The Exchange believes that offering options on the Trust will benefit investors by providing them with a relatively lower-cost risk management tool, which will allow them to manage their positions and associated risks in their portfolios more easily in connection with to the price of Bitcoin and with Bitcoin-related products and positions. Additionally, the Exchange's offering of Trust options will provide investors with the ability to transact in such options in a listed market environment as opposed to in the unregulated OTC options market, which would increase market transparency and enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow to the benefit of all investors. The Exchange also notes that it already lists options on other commodity-based ETFs,
The Exchange also believes the proposal to permit options on the Trust will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, because it is consistent with current Exchange rules previously filed with the Commission.
The Exchange believes the proposed position and exercise limits are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and promote just and equitable principles of trade, as they are designed to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impacts surrounding the use of options, such as disrupting the market in the security underlying the options. The proposed position and exercise limits for options for the Trust is 25,000 contracts, which is currently the lowest limit applicable to any equity options (including ETF options). The Exchange believes the proposed position and exercise limits are extremely conservative for the Trust option given the trading volume and outstanding shares for each. The information above demonstrates that the average position and exercise limits of options on ETFs with comparable outstanding shares and trading volume to those of the Trust is significantly higher than the proposed position and exercise limits for the Trust options. Therefore, the proposed position and exercise limits for the Trust options are conservative relative to options on ETFs with comparable market characteristics.
Further, given that the issuer of the Trust may create and redeem shares that represent an interest in Bitcoin, the Exchange believes it is relevant to compare the size of a position limit to the market capitalization of the Bitcoin market. As of March 5, 2025, the global supply of Bitcoin was 19,832,309, and the price of one Bitcoin was approximately $90,608.57,
Therefore, if a market participant with the maximum 25,000 same side contracts in Trust options exercised all positions at one time, such an event would have no practical impact on the Bitcoin market.
The Exchange also believes the proposed limits are appropriate given position limits for Bitcoin futures. For example, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) imposes a position limit of 2,000 futures (for the initial spot
The Exchange notes, unlike options contracts, CME position limits are calculated on a net futures-equivalent basis by contract and include contracts that aggregate into one or more base contracts according to an aggregation ratio(s).
The Exchange believes the proposed position and exercise limits in this proposal will have no material impact to the supply of Bitcoin. For example, consider again the proposed position limit of 25,000 option contracts for the Trust options. As noted above, a position limit of 25,000 same side contracts effectively restricts a market participant from holding positions that could result in the receipt of no more than 2,500,000 shares of the applicable Trust (if that market participant exercised all its options). As of March 5, 2025, the Trust had the number of shares outstanding set forth in the table below. The table below, as presented in the Cboe Proposal, also sets forth the approximate number of market participants that could hold the maximum of 25,000 same side positions in the Trust that would equate to the number of shares outstanding of the Trust:
This means if 20 market participants had 25,000 same side positions in Trust options, each of them would have to simultaneously exercise all of those options to create a scenario that may put the underlying security under stress. The Exchange believes it is highly unlikely for either such event to occur; however, even if either such event did occur, the Exchange would not expect the Trust to be under stress because such an event would merely induce the creation of more shares through the trust's creation and redemption process.
As of March 5, 2025, the global supply of Bitcoin was approximately 19,832,309.
The Exchange believes the available supply of Bitcoin is not relevant to the determination of position and exercise limits for options overlying the Trust. Position and exercise limits are not a tool that should be used to address a potential limited supply of the underlying of an underlying. Position
The Exchange notes that a Registration Statement on Form S-1 was filed with the Commission for the Trust, each of which described the supply of Bitcoin as being limited to 21,000,000 (of which approximately 90% had already been mined), and that the limit would be reached around the year 2140.
Based on the above information demonstrating, among other things, that the Trust is characterized by a substantial number of outstanding shares that are actively traded and widely held, the Exchange believes the proposed position and exercise limits are extremely conservative compared to those of ETF options with similar market characteristics. The proposed position and exercise limits reasonably and appropriately balance the liquidity provisioning in the market against the prevention of manipulation. The Exchange believes these proposed limits are effectively designed to prevent an individual customer or entity from establishing options positions that could be used to manipulate the market of the underlying as well as the Bitcoin market.
The Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the Trust options. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that its existing surveillance and reporting safeguards are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior which might arise from listing and trading options on ETFs, including the Trust 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. In this regard and as indicated above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a competitive response to the filing submitted by Cboe.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as the Trust will be equally available to all market participants who wish to trade such options and will trade generally in the same manner as other options. The Exchange Rules that currently apply to the listing and trading of all options on ETFs on the Exchange, including, for example, Rules that govern listing criteria, expirations, exercise prices, minimum increments, margin requirements, customer accounts, and trading halt procedures will apply to the listing and trading of the Trust options on the Exchange in the same manner as they apply to other options on all other ETFs that are listed and traded on the Exchange. Also, and as stated above, the Exchange already lists options on other commodity-based securities.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal to list and trade options on the Trust will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the extent that the advent of the Trust options trading on the Exchange may make the Exchange a more attractive marketplace to market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are free to elect to become market participants on the Exchange. Additionally, other options exchanges are free to amend their listing rules, as applicable, to permit them to list and trade options on the Trust. The Exchange notes that listing and trading the Trust options on the Exchange will subject such options to transparent exchange-based rules as well as price discovery and liquidity, as opposed to alternatively trading such options in the OTC market.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change may relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition, as it is designed to increase competition for order flow on the Exchange in a manner that is beneficial to investors by providing them with a lower- cost option to hedge their investment portfolios. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues that offer similar products. Ultimately, the Exchange believes that offering the Trust options for trading on the Exchange will promote competition by providing investors with an additional, relatively low-cost means to hedge their portfolios and meet their investment needs in connection with Bitcoin prices and Bitcoin-related products and positions on a listed options exchange.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
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”),
The Exchange is filing a rule change in connection with a technology migration. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt: (1) Legging Order functionality identical to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 7(k); (2) Complex Order functionality identical to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 14; and (3) Complex Order Risk Protections identical to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 16. With this proposal, the Exchange would amend rule text in the following Options 3 rules related to Complex Order functionality: Section 7, Types of Orders and Order and Quote Protocols; Section 9, Trading Halts; Section 14, Complex Orders; Section 15, Simple Order Risk Protections; and Section 16, Complex Order Risk Protections. The Exchange also proposes to amend rule text in Options 5, Section 4, Order Routing and Options 8, Section 32, Types of Floor-Based (Non-System) Orders. Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend certain definitions and citations in Options 1, Section 1, Definitions; Options 2, Section 1, Application for Approval as an SQT, RSQT, or RSQTO and Assignment in Options; Options 4C, Section 2, Definitions, and Section 5, Series of U.S. Dollar-Settled Foreign Currency Options Contracts Open for Trading; and Options 7, Section 1, General Provisions.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In connection with a technology migration to an enhanced Nasdaq, Inc. (“Nasdaq”) functionality that will result in higher performance, scalability, and more robust architecture, the Exchange intends to align all complex order functionality on Phlx to Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE”) and Nasdaq MRX, LLC (“MRX”) complex order functionality. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
The Exchange proposes to amend the Legging Order type currently located at Options 3, Section 7(b)(10) that provides,
Legging Order. A Legging Order is a Limit Order on the regular order book in an individual series that represents one leg of a two-legged Complex Order (which improves the cPBBO) that is to buy or sell an equal quantity of two options series resting on the CBOOK. Legging Orders are firm orders that are included in the Exchange's displayed best bid or offer. Legging Orders are not routable and are Limit Orders with a time-in-force of DAY, as they represent an individual component of a Complex Order.
(A) A Legging Order may be automatically generated for one leg of a Complex Order at a price: (i) that matches or improves upon the best Phlx displayed bid or offer; and (ii) at which the net price can be achieved when the other leg is executed against the best displayed bid or offer (other than Legging Orders). Legging Orders will not be generated if the Exchange or a particular option has not opened, is halted or is otherwise not available for trading. Similarly, the particular Complex Order Strategy must be available for trading.
(B) A Legging Order will not be created: (i) at a price that locks or crosses the best bid or offer of another exchange, (ii) if there is an auction on either side or a Posting Period under Options 3, Section 15 regarding Acceptable Trade Range on the same side in progress in the series, (iii) the price of the Complex Order is outside of the ACE Parameter of paragraph (i), (iv) if there is already a Legging Order in that series on the same side of the market at the same price (unless it has priority based on the participant type, under existing Exchange rules), or (v) for a Complex Order if the generated Legging Order would immediately cause resting Legging Orders to be removed pursuant to section (f)(iii)(C)(4)(ix) below. Legging Orders may be generated and executed in an increment other than the minimum increment for that series and will be ranked on the order book at its generated price and displayed at a price that is rounded to the nearest minimum increment for that series. Two Legging Orders relating to the same Complex Order can be generated, but only one of those can execute as part of the execution of a particular Complex Order.
(C) A Legging Order is executed only after all other executable orders (including any non-displayed size) and quotes at the same price are executed in full. When a Legging Order is executed, the other leg of the Complex Order will be automatically executed against the displayed best bid or offer on the Exchange and any other Legging Order based on that Complex Order will be removed.
(D) A Legging Order is automatically removed from the regular order book: (i) if the price of the Legging Order is no longer at the Exchange's displayed best bid or offer on the regular Limit Order book, (ii) if execution of the Legging Order would no longer achieve the net price of the Complex Order when the other leg is executed against the Exchange's best displayed bid or offer on the regular Limit Order book (other than another Legging Order), (iii) if the Complex Order is executed in full or in part, (iv) if the Complex Order is cancelled or modified, (v) if the price of the Complex Order is outside the ACE Parameter of paragraph (i), (vi) upon receipt of a Qualified Contingent Cross Order which includes a component in which there is a Legging Order, an order that will trigger an auction under Exchange rules in a component in which there is a Legging Order (whether a buy order or a sell order), or pursuant to Options 3, Section 13(f) a PIXL Order for the account of a public customer paired with an order for the account of a public customer, (vii) if a Legging Order is generated by a different Complex Order in the same leg at a better price or the same price for a participant with a higher priority, (viii) if a Complex Order is marketable against the cPBBO where a Legging Order is present and has more than one leg in common with the existing Complex Order that generated the Legging Order, (ix) if a Complex Order becomes marketable against multiple Legging Orders, (x) if a Complex Order consisting of an unequal quantity of components is marketable against the cPBBO where a Legging Order is present but cannot be executed due to insufficient size in at least one of the components in the cPBBO, or (xi) when the Legging Order is on the book at a price which is not at the minimum price increment and which is more aggressive than the same side PBBO, and an away market moves to lock the PBBO (which is also the NBBO).
The Exchange proposes to relocate Options 3, Section 7(b)(10) to Options 3, Section 7(k) and expand and amend the description of Legging Orders to add detail to describe the current System functionality and describe changes to the functionality. The proposed functionality of Legging Orders is identical to the functionality in ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 7(k).
Generally, the Exchange proposes to amend the phrase “regular limit order book” throughout Options 3, Section 7(k) to instead state “single-leg limit order book” to conform the rule text to the order book description in ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 7(k).
With respect to the first paragraph of Options 3, Section 7(k), in order to make the rule text identical to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 7(k), the Exchange proposes to remove the words “(which improves the cPBBO),” add “resting on the top of the Complex Order Book” and replace the term “CBOOK” with “Exchange's Complex Order Book”. These changes are non-substantive and are meant to harmonize the language in Phlx's Legging Order rule to that of ISE and MRX. Further, the Exchange proposes to amend the last sentence of Options 3, Section 7(k) which currently states, “Legging Orders are not routable and are Limit Orders with a time-in-force of DAY, as they represent an individual component of a Complex Order.” The Exchange would instead provide, “Legging Orders are not routable and have a TIF of Day.” The Exchange believes the first sentence of Options 3, Section 7(k) specifies that Legging Orders are Limit Orders. All Legging Orders are Day Orders.
The Exchange proposes to add a new second paragraph to Options 3, Section 7(k), which is identical to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 7(k), to specifically explain the way the System will generate a Legging Order. The Exchange proposes to state,
The System will evaluate whether Legging Orders may be generated (1) when a Complex Options Order enters the Complex Order Book, and (2) after a time interval (to be determined by the Exchange, not to exceed 1 second) when the NBBO or Exchange best bid or offer in any component of a Complex Options Order changes. The Exchange may determine to limit the number of Legging Orders generated on an objective basis and may determine to remove existing Legging Orders in order to maintain a fair and orderly market in times of extreme volatility or uncertainty. Legging Orders are treated as having no Public Customer or Market Maker capacity on the single-leg order book, regardless of being generated from Public Customer or Market Maker Complex Options Orders.
The Exchange proposes to make clear that the System will evaluate whether Legging Orders may be generated, which occurs at the time a Complex Options Order
Finally, the Exchange proposes to provide that Legging Orders are treated as having no Public Customer capacity or Market Maker capacity on the single leg order book, regardless of being generated from Public Customer or Market Maker Complex Options Orders. A Legging Order is handled in the same manner as other orders on the single-leg order book except as otherwise provided in Options 3, Section 7(k), and is executed only after all other executable orders and quotes at the same price are executed in full. When a Legging Order is executed, the other component of the Complex Order on the Complex Order Book will be automatically executed against the best bid or offer on the Exchange. ISE has identical functionality at Options 3, Section 7(k). Additionally, this rule text at proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 7(k)(1) and add the title “Generation of Legging Orders” to describe the contents of the paragraph. The Exchange proposes to amend the rule text which currently states,
[a] Legging Order may be automatically generated for one leg of a Complex Order at a price: (i) that matches or improves upon the best Phlx displayed bid or offer; and (ii) at which the net price can be achieved when the other leg is executed against the best displayed bid or offer (other than Legging Orders). Legging Orders will not be generated if the Exchange or a particular option has not opened, is halted or is otherwise not available for trading. Similarly, the particular Complex Order Strategy must be available for trading.
The Exchange proposes to instead provide in Options 3, Section 7(k)(1) that,
[a] Legging Order may be automatically generated for one or both leg(s) of a Complex Options Order resting on top of the Complex Order Book at a price: (i) that matches or improves upon the best displayed bid or offer on the single-leg limit order book; and (ii) at which the net price can be achieved when the other leg is executed against the best displayed bid or offer on the single-leg limit order book, excluding Legging Orders. Legging Orders will be generated and executed in the minimum increment for that options series.
The Exchange is proposing to add “or both leg(s)” to the first sentence of proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)(1) (current Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(A)) to make clear a Legging Order may be generated for each leg of a two-legged Complex Order. This proposed change is new to Phlx. Today, on Phlx, a Legging Order may be automatically generated for one leg of a Complex Order at a price: (i) that matches or improves upon the best Phlx displayed bid or offer; and (ii) at which the net price can be achieved when the other leg is executed against the best displayed bid or offer (other than Legging Orders). Legging Orders will not be generated if the Exchange or a particular option has not opened, is halted or is otherwise not available for trading. Similarly, the particular Complex Order Strategy must be available for trading. At this time, the Exchange proposes to align Phlx's Legging Order functionality with ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 7(k)(3) which differs so that they will be identical. ISE and MRX permit two Legging Orders related to the same Complex Options Order to be generated, and both can execute as part of the execution of a particular Complex Options Order. With this change, Phlx notes that Legging Orders may be generated for each leg of a two-legged Complex Orders with the same quantity on both legs. Automatically generating Legging Orders, which will only be executed after all other executable interest at the same price (including non-displayed interest) is executed in full, will provide additional execution opportunities for Complex Orders, without negatively impacting any investors in the single-leg market. In fact, the generation of Legging Orders may enhance execution quality for investors in the single-leg market by improving the price and/or size of the PBBO and by providing additional execution opportunity for resting orders on the single-leg order book. The generation of Legging Orders is fully compliant with all regulatory requirements. In particular, Legging Orders are firm orders that will be displayed at the PBBO. Also, a Legging Order will be automatically removed if it is no longer displayable at the PBBO or if the net price of the Complex Order
The addition of “resting on the top of the Complex Order Book” in the first sentence of proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)(1) (current Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(A)) will make clear that the priority of orders in the Complex Order Book controls with respect to the generation of Legging Orders. The addition of this language is intended to provide greater detail with respect to the generation of Legging Order and reflects current System behavior. The proposed language is identical to ISE and MRX rule text at Options 3, Section 7(k)(1).
The Exchange proposes to amend the second sentence of proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)(1) (current Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(A)) to add “on the single-leg limit order book” in two places to conform to the language to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 7(k)(1). Additionally, the Exchange proposes to state “excluding Legging Orders” to the end of the sentence, instead of “other than Legging Orders” to clarify the meaning of the current sentence and harmonize the rule text to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 7(k)(1). The Exchange notes that the price of a Legging Order is not considered in the PBBO for purposes of determining whether the net price of a Complex Order could be achieved were it to generate a Legging Order. Below is an example of the manner in which the current System calculates the net price and excludes a Legging Order.
If Complex Order B-C sold leg C @ 3.90, it would have to buy Leg B for 4.10 or less to satisfy its net price of 0.20. Given that a Legging Order is available on Leg B's offer at 4.05, this Legging Order on Leg C would have been able to generate at 3.85 instead of 3.90 if the Legging Order at 4.05 was included in the calculation of possible net execution price, but since it is not, the Legging Order is generated at 3.90 on Leg C's offer instead of 3.85.
The Exchange is removing the last two sentences of proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)(1)
Finally, the Exchange proposes to add a sentence to proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)(1) (current Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(A)) which states, “Legging Orders will be generated and executed in the minimum increment for that options series.” Options 3, Section 3 describes the minimum increments for options traded on MRX. This rule makes clear that the minimum increment rule in Options 3, Section 3 is applicable to Legging Orders. This amendment would modify the current System behavior. Today, on Phlx, Legging Orders may be generated and executed in an increment other than the minimum increment for that series and will be ranked on the order book at its generated price and displayed at a price that is rounded to the nearest minimum increment for that series. The Exchange proposes to modify the behavior to be identical to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 7(k)(1). Additionally, MIAX Rule 518(a)(9)(iii) similarly provides that MRX's derived orders will not be created at a price increment less than the minimum established by Rule 510.
The Exchange proposes to add a title “When Legging Orders Will Not Be Generated” to proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)(2) (current Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(B)) to describe the contents of the paragraph. The Exchange proposes to state in proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)(2),
The Exchange proposes to add rule text in proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)(2)(ii) (current Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(B)(ii)) concerning “if there is an auction on either side or a Posting Period under Options 3, Section 15 regarding Acceptable Trade Range (“ATR”)
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend the provision in Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(D)(iii) that provides, “the price of the Complex Order is outside of the ACE Parameter of paragraph (i).” The Exchange instead proposes to state, “if the price of the leg(s) of a Complex Options Order is outside of the price limits described in Options 3, Section 16(a).” First, the price of the “leg(s)” of the Complex Options Order is what is looked at in this scenario, adding “leg(s)” is intended to clarify the current rule text. Second, the Exchange proposes to amend the complex order risk protections in Options 3, Section 16 to replace them with the identical risk protections that exist on ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 16. With this rule proposal, the Exchange intends to remove the existing ACE Parameter described in Options 3, Section 16(i) and replace it with price limits which are identical to ISE and MRX price limits at Options 3, Section 16(a). The proposed changes to Options 3, Section 16 risk protections for Complex Orders will be explained below in this rule change in the section related to Complex Order risk protections. With this change, in the instance where a Legging Order generated is currently outside the price parameter (because the ABBO has moved), the System will remove the Legging Order that was outside the price limits pursuant to proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)(2)(iii) and will attempt to re-generate a new Legging Order that is within the price limits described in Options 3, Section 16(a) as proposed in Options 3, Section 7(k)(4)(v). This behavior is similar to current Phlx behavior except that the price limits are being replaced with limits utilized on ISE and MRX.
The Exchange proposes removing the phrase “(unless it has priority based on the participant type, under existing Exchange rules)” from Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(D)(iv). The Exchange notes in the proposed new rule text in the second paragraph of Options 3, Section 7(k) that “Legging Orders are treated as having no Public Customer or Market Maker capacity on the single-leg order book, regardless of being generated from Public Customer or Market Maker Complex Options Orders”. With this proposal, a higher priority Legging Order (
The Exchange proposes to remove current Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(D)(v) which states,
A Legging Order will not be generated: (v) for a Complex Order if the generated Legging Order would immediately cause resting Legging Orders to be removed pursuant to section (f)(iii)(C)(4)(ix) below. Legging Orders may be generated and executed in an increment other than the minimum increment for that series and will be ranked on the order book at its generated price and displayed at a price that is rounded to the nearest minimum increment for that series.
The Exchange proposes to replace the aforementioned rule text with “A Legging Order will not be generated: (v) for Complex Orders with 2 option legs, where both legs are buying or both legs are selling and both legs are calls or both legs are puts, as described in Options 3, Section 14(d)(3)(A).” Today, ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 14(d)(3)(A) provides for this limitation. The Exchange is proposing to adopt the provision in ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 14(d)(3)(A) into Phlx's rules, as proposed below. With the addition of this limitation, Phlx proposes to adopt the same rule text within ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 7(k)(2)(v). With this change, Phlx adopts the same Complex Order functionality as ISE and MRX at Options 3, Section 14. The current functionality described in Phlx Options 3, Section 14(f)(iii)(C)(4)(ix) would be removed from Phlx Rules and is therefore no longer applicable.
The Exchange relocated the sentence related to minimum increments in current Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(B) to the end of proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)(1) and amended it. The rule text that is in current Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(B) provides, “Two Legging Orders relating to the same Complex Order can be generated, but only one of those can execute as part of the execution of a particular Complex Order” is being relocated to the end of proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)(3) and amended. The Exchange proposes to add a new Options 3, Section 7(k)(2)(vi) that states, “if the Exchange has not opened; or a particular option series has not opened or such options series is halted.” The Exchange has a similar rule in Phlx Options 3, Section 14(f)(iii)(C)(1).
The Exchange proposes to add the title “Execution of Legging Orders” to describe the contents of proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)(3), or current Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(C). As noted above, the Exchange relocated the sentence in current Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(B) that provided, “Two Legging Orders related to the same Complex Options Order can be generated, and both can execute as part of the execution of a particular Complex Options Order” to the end of proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)(3).
The Exchange proposes to add the title “Removal of Generated Legging Orders” to describe the contents of proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)(4), or current Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(D). At the end of proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)(4)(i) or current Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(D)(i) the Exchange proposes to add “or is at a price that
Current Phlx Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(D)(ii) currently states, “A Legging Order is automatically removed from the regular order book: . . . (ii) if execution of the Legging Order would no longer achieve the net price of the Complex Order when the other leg is executed against the Exchange's best displayed bid or offer on the regular Limit Order book (other than another Legging Order) . . .”. The rule text language at current Phlx Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(D)(ii) differs from the rule text at ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 7(k)(4). The Exchange proposes to amend the rule text at proposed Phlx Options 3, Section 7(k)(4) to make the language identical to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 7(k)(4) by stating, “A Legging Order is automatically removed from the single-leg limit order book if: . . . (ii) execution of the Legging Order would no longer achieve the net price of the Complex Options Order when the other leg is executed against the best displayed bid or offer on the single-leg limit order book, excluding other Legging Orders . . .”.
Current Phlx Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(D)(iii) currently states, “A Legging Order is automatically removed from the regular order book: . . . (iii) if the Complex Order is executed in full or in part.”. The rule text language at current Phlx Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(D)(iii) differs from the rule text at ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 7(k)(4). The Exchange proposes to make the rule text at Phlx Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(D)(iii) identical to the ISE and MRX rule text in Options 3, Section 7(k)(4). The Exchange proposes to amend the rule text at proposed Phlx Options 3, Section 7(k)(4) to make the language identical to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 7(k)(4) by stating, “A Legging Order is automatically removed from the single-leg limit order book if: . . . (iii) the Complex Options Order is executed in full or in part on the Complex Order Book . . .”.
Current Phlx Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(D)(v) currently states, “A Legging Order is automatically removed from the regular order book: . . . (v) if the price of the Complex Order is outside the ACE Parameter of paragraph (i) . . .”. The Exchange instead proposes to state in proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)(2)(iv), “A Legging Order is automatically removed from the single-leg limit order book if: . . . if the price of the leg(s) of a Complex Options Order is outside of the price limits described in Options 3, Section 16(a) . . .”. First, the price of the “leg(s)” of the Complex Options Order is what is looked at in this scenario; adding “leg(s)” is intended to clarify the current rule text. Second, the Exchange proposes to amend the complex order risk protections in Options 3, Section 16 to replace them with the identical risk protections that exist on ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 16. Similar to proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)(2), the Exchange intends to remove the existing ACE Parameter described in Options 3, Section 16(i) and replace it with price limits which are identical to ISE and MRX price limits at Options 3, Section 16(a). The proposed changes to Options 3, Section 16 risk protections for Complex Orders will be explained below in this rule change in the section related to Complex Order risk protections.
Under current Options 3, Section 7(b)(1)(vi) a Legging Order is removed from the order book upon receipt of Qualified Contingent Cross (“QCC”) Order which includes a component with a Legging Order and upon receipt of a Public Customer to Public Customer (“C-to-C”) cross order, which can be accomplished through a PIXL auction pursuant to Options 3, Section 13(f). Similar to ISE and MRX, the Exchange does not believe it is necessary to remove a Legging Order upon receipt of a QCC or C-to-C order because both a QCC or C-to-C order trade immediately as a two-sided order without an auction timer and do not interact with the order book. Also, Legging Orders have no priority in the System (even if generated from a Public Customer Complex Order or Market Maker Complex Order).
Similar to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 7(k)(2)(vi), Phlx will continue to remove a Legging Order if the System initiates a complex auction on either side in the Complex Options Strategy, or the System initiates a single-leg auction on either side in any component of the Complex Options Strategy. Today, the Phlx rule notes in current Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(D)(vi) that “. . . . an order that will trigger an auction under Exchange rules in a component in which there is a Legging Order (whether a buy order or a sell order).” The Exchange is proposing to amend the wording of this sentence in proposed Phlx Options 3, Section 7(k)(2)(vi) to conform the rule text to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 7(k)(2)(vi).
Finally, the Exchange proposes to not include in Options 3, Section 7(k)(3) the rule text in current Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(D)(viii)-(xi). First, current Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(D)(viii) states that a Legging Order will be removed from the regular book, “. . . if a Complex Order is marketable against the cPBBO where a Legging Order is present and has more than one leg in common with the existing Complex Order that generated the Legging Order.” With this proposal, Phlx will permit a Complex Order to trade with two Legging Orders at the same time pursuant to proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)(3).
Second, the Exchange proposes to exclude from Options 3, Section 7(k)(2) the rule text in current Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(D)(ix) that states that a Legging Order will be removed from the regular order book, “. . .if a Complex Order becomes marketable against multiple Legging Orders.” Instead, proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)(3) will permit a Complex Order to trade with two Legging Orders at the same time. Accordingly, the rule text in current Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(D)(ix) will no longer be applicable. The proposed Phlx rules text at Options 3, Section 7(k)(2) and (3) is identical to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 7(k)(2) and (3).
Third, the Exchange proposes to exclude from Options 3, Section 7(k)(2) the rule text in current Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(D)(x) that states that a Legging Order will be removed from the regular order book, “. . .if a Complex Order consisting of an unequal quantity of components is marketable against the cPBBO where a Legging Order is present but cannot be executed due to insufficient size in at least one of the
To illustrate the reason for removal, the Exchange utilized the below example.
If the Complex Order in 2A-B is entered as Sell 1 @ 4.85, the Complex Order could not trade due to insufficient size on Leg A that would be needed to satisfy the 2:1 ratio. This Legging Order could however rest on the Complex Order Book and the Legging Orders from the A-B Buy order would not be removed. This example illustrates that there is no need to remove the automatically generated Legging Orders if a Complex Order consisting of an unequal quantity of components is marketable against the cPBBO where a Legging Order is present but cannot be executed due to insufficient size in at least one of the components in the cPBBO.
Fourth, the Exchange proposes to exclude from Options 3, Section 7(k)(2) the rule text in current Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(D)(xi) that states that a Legging Order will be removed from the regular order book, “. . . when the Legging Order is on the book at a price which is not at the minimum price increment and which is more aggressive than the same side PBBO, and an away market moves to lock the PBBO (which is also the NBBO).” Today, Phlx generates Legging Orders at non-minimum price increments and displays at the closest inferior price increment as provided for in Options 3, Section 4.
As part of its technology migration, the Exchange proposes to replace Phlx's Complex Order functionality in Options 3, Section 14, in its entirety, with Complex Order functionality identical to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 14. Today, ISE and MRX Complex Order functionality is harmonized. Phlx is the only other Nasdaq affiliated options market to offer Complex Order functionality among the six Nasdaq affiliated options markets. A goal of the technology migration is to harmonize rules to permit market participants who are members of multiple Nasdaq affiliated options markets to realize the benefits of common functionality across its options markets. The proposal will harmonize the way Nasdaq affiliated markets handle Complex Orders as the Phlx Complex Order functionality would be identical to the ISE and MRX Complex Order functionality.
Phlx Options 3, Section 14(a) defines a variety of terms including: Complex Order,
PBBO,
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide that,
A Complex Options Strategy is the simultaneous purchase and/or sale of two or more different options series in the same underlying security, for the same account, in a ratio that is equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00) and for the purpose of executing a particular investment strategy. Only those Complex Options Strategies with no more than the applicable number of legs, as determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis, are eligible for processing.
Further, the Exchange proposes to provide that,
A Stock-Option Strategy is the purchase or sale of a stated number of units of an underlying stock or a security convertible into the underlying stock (“convertible security”) coupled with the purchase or sale of options contract(s) on the opposite side of the market representing either (A) the same number of units of the underlying stock or convertible security, or (B) the number of units of the underlying stock necessary to create a delta neutral position, but in no case in a ratio greater than eight-to-one (8.00), where the ratio represents the total number of units of the underlying stock or convertible security in the option leg to the total number of units of the underlying stock or convertible security in the stock leg.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to provide that,
A Stock-Complex Strategy is the purchase or sale of a stated number of units of an underlying stock or a security convertible into the underlying stock (“convertible security”) coupled with the purchase or sale of a Complex Options Strategy on the opposite side of the market representing either (A) the same number of units of the underlying stock or convertible security, or (B) the number of units of the underlying stock necessary to create a delta neutral position, but in no case in a ratio greater than eight-to-one (8.00), where the ratio represents the total number of units of the underlying stock or convertible security in the option legs to the total number of units of the underlying stock or convertible security in the stock leg. Only those Stock-Complex Strategies with no more than the applicable number of legs, as determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis, are eligible for processing.
The applicable number of legs would be determined by Phlx on a class-by-class basis independently for Complex Options Strategies and Stock-Complex Strategies. At proposed Options 3, Section 14(a)(4), the Exchange proposes to note that the term “complex strategy” includes Complex Options Strategies, Stock-Option Strategies, and Stock-Complex Strategies. Finally, the Exchange proposes to state at Options 3, Section 14(a)(5) that the terms “Complex Options Order,” “Stock-Option Order,” and “Stock-Complex Order” refer to orders for a Complex Options Strategy, Stock-Option Strategy, and Stock-Complex Strategy, respectively. Also, the term “Complex Order” includes Complex Options Orders, Stock-Option Orders, and Stock-Complex Orders. The proposed new definitions are identical with the terms at ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 14(a) and will be utilized throughout proposed new Phlx Options 3, Section 14. The proposed terms are intended to provide greater clarity to the Options 3, Section 14 handling of Complex Order functionality.
Current Phlx Options 3, Section 14(b) notes that Complex Orders may be entered in increments of $0.01 with certain “time in force” designations and as certain order types with certain contingencies. Proposed new Phlx Options 3, Section 14(c)(1) will address minimum increments which would continue to be expressed in one cent ($0.01) increments and would provide,
Phlx proposes to also address minimum increments in new Supplementary .02 to Options 3, Section 3, similar to ISE Supplementary Material .0 to Options 3, Section 3. Phlx proposes to state, “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Rule, complex strategies may be traded in the increments described in Options 3, Section 14(c)(1).” This proposed rule text would be identical to rule text at proposed Options 3, Section 14(c)(1)
Current Options 3, Section 14(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) contain certain restrictions on what order types certain Phlx participants may enter. With this proposal, all market participants will continue to be able to enter Complex Orders as is the case on ISE and MRX. Today, Options 3, Section 14(b)(i)
Additionally, current Options 3, Section 14(b)(ii) provides,
SQTs, RSQTs, Floor Market Makers, Lead Market Makers and non-Phlx market makers on another exchange may enter the Complex Orders listed in paragraph (a) above as IOC only. In addition, for Complex Orders consisting of more than two options components or where the underlying security is a component, SQTs, RSQTs, non-SQT Market Makers, Lead Market Makers and non-Phlx market makers on another exchange may enter the Complex Orders listed in paragraph (a) above as Day orders; once the Exchange has fully rolled out its enhanced Complex Order System, which will be announced in an Options Trader Alert, Day orders will also become available for Complex Orders consisting of two options components.
Phlx defines a Market Maker at Options 1, Section 1(b)(28) as an SQT or a RSQT who enters quotations for his own account electronically into the System. A Lead Market Maker is a Market Maker on Phlx.
Floor Market Makers
The Exchange will no longer restrict certain market participants to enter the Complex Orders as IOC only as noted in Options 3, Section 14(b)(ii). Proposed Options 3, Section 14 will permit all Members to enter any complex order listed in Options 3, Section 14(a) without restriction.
The rule text currently in Options 3, Section 14(b)(iii),
As noted above, with the proposed new Complex Order rules, all Phlx members and member organizations will be able to enter all Complex Order types.
As noted in Options 3, Section 14(b)(iv), member organizations will continue to mark the stock/ETF component of a Complex Order “long,” “short,” or “short exempt” in compliance with Regulation SHO under the Exchange Act, however Regulation SHO would be described in proposed new Options 3, Section 16(e), which will be discussed below.
Today, Phlx may determine to make certain order types and/or times-in-force available on a class or System basis as described in current Options 3, Section 7(b). Pursuant to proposed Options 3, Section 14(b)(v), Complex Orders may be submitted as: All-or-None Orders, Cancel-Replacement Orders, Directed Orders, Limit Orders or Market Orders as those terms are defined in Options 3, Section 7(b).
Phlx proposes to replace the aforementioned order types with order types that are identical those offered on ISE and MRX at Options 3, Section 14(b). Phlx proposes to state at proposed Options 3, Section 14(b) that unless otherwise specified, the definitions in the proposal have the same meaning
Current Phlx Options 3, Section 14(c)(i) provides that a Complex Order is eligible to trade on the System only when each options component of the Complex Order is open for trading on the Exchange, and where the underlying security is a component of the Complex Order, such underlying security is open for trading on its primary market. Complex Orders may be executed against the Complex Order Book or placed on the Complex Order Book. This will continue to be true of Phlx's new Complex Order functionality. The Exchange's proposal notes at proposed Options 3, Section 14(c), Applicability of Exchange Rules, that except as otherwise provided in Options 3, Section 14, complex strategies shall be subject to all other Exchange Rules that pertain to orders and quotes generally. Complex Orders may execute against orders and quotes in both the single-leg order book and Complex Order Book.
Current Phlx Options 3, Section 14(c)(i) also provides that certain Complex Orders will be entered into a Complex Order Live Auction (as defined below) either following a Complex Order Opening Process (as defined below) or when a Complex Order improves the cPBBO. Phlx will no longer offer the Complex Order Live Auction. This will be discussed in greater detail below.
Current Phlx Options 3, Section 14(c)(ii) states that Complex Orders will not trade on the System under the following conditions: (A) the Complex Order is received prior to the opening on the Exchange of any options component of the Complex Order; (B) during an opening rotation for any options component of the Complex Order; (C) during a trading halt for any options component of the Complex Order; (E) when an automatic removal of quotes occurs in any options component of the Complex Order that represents all or a portion of the PBBO; or (F) when the Exchange's market for any options component of the Complex Order is disseminated pursuant to Options 3, Section 6(a)(ii)(B).
With this proposal, Phlx will continue to not trade Complex Orders prior to the opening. Proposed Supplementary Material .04 to Options 3, Section 14 notes that with respect to the Complex Opening Process, after each of the individual component legs have opened, or reopened following a trading halt, Complex Options Strategies, Stock-Option Strategies and Stock-Complex Strategies will be opened pursuant to the Complex Opening Price Determination described in Supplementary Material .05 to Options 3, Section 14. The Complex Opening Process will be discussed in greater detail below. The Exchange notes that it will continue to not trade during a
Current Phlx Options 3, Section 14(c)(iii)(A) discusses spread priority. The current rule provides:
Spread Priority. (A) Complex Orders consisting of a conforming ratio may be executed at a total credit or debit price without giving priority to individual bids or offers established in the marketplace that are not better than the bids or offers comprising such total credit or debit, provided that if any of the bids or offers established in the marketplace consist of a Public Customer order, at least one option leg is executed at a better price than the established bid or offer for that option contract by the minimum trading increment and no option leg is executed at a price outside of the established bid or offer for that option contract.
(B) Where a Complex Order in a conforming ratio consists of the underlying security (stock or ETF) and one options leg, such options leg has priority over bids or offers established in the marketplace, except over bids or offers established by Public Customer orders. However, where a Complex Order in a conforming ratio consists of the underlying stock or ETF and more than one options leg, the options legs have priority over bids and offers established in the marketplace, including Public Customer orders, if at least one options leg improves the existing market for that option.
(C) Options 5, Section 2 shall apply to all Complex Order executions. Accordingly, Complex Orders with conforming ratios are eligible for the exception contained in Options 5, Section 2(b)(viii) and therefore may trade through the NBBO for that option.
(D) This paragraph (c) shall apply to all Complex Order executions, whether executed in a Complex Order Live Auction or otherwise.
Phlx proposes to delete Options 3, Section 14(c)(iii)(A) and replace it with proposed Options 3, Section 14(c)(2) which would provide,
(i) a Complex Options Strategies may be executed at a total credit or debit price with one other member organization without giving priority to bids or offers established on the Exchange that are no better than the bids or offers in the individual options series comprising such total credit or debit; provided, however, that if any of the bids or offers established on the Exchange consist of a Public Customer Order, the price of at least one leg of the complex strategy must trade at a price that is better than the corresponding bid or offer on the Exchange by at least one minimum trading increment for the series as defined in Options 3, Section 3.
(ii) The option leg of a Stock-Option Strategy has priority over bids and offers for the individual options series established on the Exchange by Professional Orders and market maker quotes that are no better than the price of the options leg, but not over such bids and offers established by Public Customer Orders.
(iii) The options legs of a Stock-Complex Strategy are executed in accordance with subparagraph (c)(2)(i) above.
The Exchange notes that with this proposal the spread priority will remain the same. The proposed rule text will be identical to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 14(c)(2). The Exchange notes that with respect to the trading floor, the Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 24(j) to clarify that the spread type priority would consist of Spread-Type Orders consisting of a conforming ratio.
Phlx proposes to include the following text concerning internalization in proposed Options 3, Section 14(c)(3).
Complex Orders represented as agent may be executed (i) as principal as provided in Options 3, Section 22(b), or (ii) against orders solicited from member organizations and non-member organization broker-dealers as provided in Options 3, Section 22(c). The exposure requirements of Options 3, Section 22(b) or (c) must be met on the Complex Order Book unless the order is executed in one of the mechanisms described in Options 3, Sections 12 and 13.
While Complex Orders on Phlx are subject to these rules today in Options 3, Section 22, current Phlx Options 3, Section 14 does not specifically refer to these rules. Accordingly, proposed Options 3, Section 14(c)(3) will make clear that the internalization rules will apply to Complex Orders in the same manner that they apply to all other orders executed on Phlx.
Phlx's current complex opening process will be replaced with a complex opening process identical to ISE and MRX at Supplementary .05 to Options 3, Section 14. The Exchange notes that Complex Options Strategies will open faster with the proposed new process and the boundary prices for determining the opening price will differ as a result.
First, with respect to the process for opening a Complex Orders, today, on Phlx, after trading has opened in each component of a pending Complex Order, or re-opened following a trading halt, the System initiates a Complex Order Opening Process or “COOP.” The System accepts interest for the COOP during a COOP Timer, and at the conclusion of the COOP Timer the System determines the price at which the maximum number of contracts can trade, if any, from the market and marketable limit Complex Orders. Complex Orders received during the COOP Timer will be placed on the CBOOK. Once an options symbol opens pursuant to Options 3, Section 8, Opening Process, for the single-leg book, a COOP can commence. Complex Orders will open at a single price.
Second, with respect to the opening price, today, Phlx opens Complex Orders that are in price range consistent with the ACE Parameter pursuant to Options 3, Section 14(b)(i).
Third, ISE and MRX have an Uncrossing Process described in Supplementary Material .06 to Options 3, Section 14 that occurs, if necessary, immediately after the Opening Process. With this process, the Complex Order Book will be uncrossed using the Complex Uncrossing Process described Supplementary Material .06(b) to Options 3, Section 14 if a resting Complex Order that is locked or crossed with other interest becomes executable during regular trading or as part of the Complex Opening Process.
As noted above, the Exchange is replacing the current Phlx Complex Opening Process with a new opening process that is identical to the Complex Opening Process on ISE and MRX. Today, current Options 3, Section 14(d) describes Phlx's COOP. Today, Phlx's COOP identifies a price at which the maximum number of contracts can trade on the opening based on interest received in the Complex Order Strategy. Thus, the COOP operates like a traditional opening process for non-Complex Orders (meaning, single leg orders), considering buys and sells, taking all interest into account (without bias toward any participant) to determine which interest is executable and identifying any imbalance.
Pursuant to current Options 3, Section 14(d)(ii), once trading in each option component of a Complex Order Strategy has opened or reopened following a trading halt for a certain configurable time not to exceed 60 seconds (and none of the conditions described in paragraph (c)(ii) of current Options 3, Section 14 exist), the System will initiate the COOP for that Complex Order Strategy, provided that a COOP will only be conducted for any Complex Order Strategy that has a Complex Order received before the opening of that Complex Order Strategy, unless that Complex Order Strategy is already open as a result of another electronic auction process or another electronic auction involving the same Complex Order Strategy is in progress. Following a trading halt, a COOP will be conducted for any Complex Order Strategy that has a Complex Order present or had previously opened prior to the trading halt. The COOP will be conducted in two phases, the “COOP Timer” and the “COOP Evaluation.”
With respect to the COOP Timer, current Options 3, Section 14(d)(ii)(A) provides that the Exchange will send a broadcast message indicating that a COOP has been initiated for that Complex Order Strategy. The broadcast message identifies the Complex Order Strategy, the opening price (based on the maximum number of contracts that can be executed at one particular price, except if there is no price at which any orders can be executed), and the imbalance side and volume, if any (“Complex Order Opening Auction Notification”).
Currently, in response to a Complex Order Opening Auction Notification, participants may bid and/or offer on either or both side(s) of the market during the COOP Timer by submitting one or more Complex Orders in increments of $0.01 (“Complex Order Response”). Phlx electronic market makers may also bid and/or offer on either or both side(s) of the market during the COOP Timer by submitting one or more bids and/or offers known as COOP Sweeps.
Today, upon expiration of the COOP Timer, the System conducts a COOP Evaluation to determine, for a Complex Order Strategy, the price at which the maximum number of contracts can trade, considering Complex Orders. The Exchange opens the Complex Order Strategy at that price, executing marketable trading interest, in the following order: first, to Public Customers in time priority; next to Phlx electronic market makers on a pro rata basis; and then to all other participants on a pro rata basis. The imbalance of Complex Orders that are unexecutable at that price are placed on the CBOOK.
At the end of the COOP Timer, no trade may be possible. Current Options 3, Section 4(d)(ii)(C)(1) provides, if at the end of the COOP Timer the System determines that no market or marketable limit Complex Orders or COOP Sweeps, Complex Orders or COOP Sweeps that are equal to or improve the cPBBO, and/or Complex Orders or COOP Sweeps that cross within the cPBBO exist in the System, all Complex Orders received
At the end of the COOP Timer, a trade may be possible. Current Options 3, Section 4(d)(ii)(C)(2) provides, if at the end of the COOP Timer the System determines that there are market or marketable limit Complex Orders or COOP Sweeps, Complex Orders or COOP Sweeps that are equal to or improve the cPBBO, and/or Complex Orders or COOP Sweeps that cross within the cPBBO in the System, the System will do the following: if such interest crosses and does not match in size, the execution price is based on the highest (lowest) executable offer (bid) price when the larger sized interest is offering (bidding), provided, however, that if there is more than one price at which the interest may execute, the execution price when the larger sized interest is offering (bidding) is the midpoint of the highest (lowest) executable offer (bid) price and the next available executable offer (bid) price rounded, if necessary, down (up) to the closest minimum trading increment. If the crossing interest is equal in size, the execution price is the midpoint of lowest executable bid price and the highest executable offer price, rounded, if necessary, up to the closest minimum trading increment. Executable bids/offers include any interest which could be executed at the net price without trading through residual interest or the cPBBO or without trading at the cPBBO where there is Public Customer interest at the best bid or offer for any leg, consistent with paragraph (c)(iii).
To illustrate “
COOP Opening execution will be for 20 strategies at a price of $3.79 because there were more contracts to buy than there were to sell. In this example, while there are multiple price points at which the System can open the same number of contracts, there is only one price point, $3.79, at which there will be no residual contracts available after the opening process at a price which crosses the opening price. After the System executes 20 strategies at $3.79, there will remain 10 unexecuted strategies to buy for $3.79.
If the example were changed slightly such that Complex Order #1 was a market order instead of a limit order, the market order is limited by the cPBBO assuming no customer interest is present, and the COOP execution price for 20 strategies would be $3.90. The remaining 10 strategies of Complex Order #1 will then leg to the simple market at $3.90.
To illustrate “
COOP Opening execution will be for 40 strategies at a price of $3.76. The execution price of $3.76 is derived from the midpoint of the lowest executable bid price of $3.74 and the next available executable bid price of $3.77, rounded up to the closest minimum trading increment. In this example, 40 strategies can be opened at multiple price points ranging from $3.74 up to $3.77. None of these potential opening prices will cause the unexecuted $3.74 buy order to be available at a price which crosses the opening price, therefore, the System opens at the midpoint of such prices, $3.76.
If the example were changed slightly such that Complex Order #1 and Complex Order #2 were market orders instead of a limit orders, the COOP Opening execution price for the 40 strategies would be $3.82, which is the midpoint of the potential opening prices ranging from $3.74 to $3.90.
To illustrate “
COOP Opening execution will be for 40 strategies at a price of $3.69. The execution price of $3.69 is derived from the midpoint of the lowest executable bid price of $3.71 and the highest executable offer price of $3.66, rounded up to the closest minimum trading increment. If the example were changed slightly such that Complex Order #4 and Complex Order #5 were market orders rather than limit orders, the COOP Opening execution price for the 40 strategies would be $3.61, which is derived from the midpoint of the lowest executable bid price of $3.71 and the highest executable offer of $3.50, rounded to the closest minimum trading increment.
If there is any remaining interest after complex interest has traded against other complex interest and there is no component that consists of the underlying security,
The Exchange proposes to amend the opening process by adopting proposed Supplementary Material .05 to Options 3, Section 14 which is identical to ISE and MRX Supplementary Material .05 to Options 3, Section 14. The Complex Opening Price Determination is designed to provide an opportunity for
Proposed Supplementary Material .05(a) of Options 3, Section 14 provides definitions for the Boundary Price,
Pursuant to the proposed Supplementary Material .05(d)(1) to Options 3, Section 14, the System calculates Boundary Prices at or within which Complex Orders may be executed during the Complex Opening Price Determination based on the NBBO for the individual legs; provided that, if the NBBO for any leg includes a Public Customer Order on the Exchange, the System adjusts the Boundary Prices according to proposed Supplementary Material .05(c)(2) to Options 3, Section 14.
Pursuant to proposed Supplementary Material .05(d)(2) to Options 3, Section 14, the System will calculate the Potential Opening Price by identifying the price(s) at which the maximum number of contracts can trade (“maximum quantity criterion”) taking into consideration all eligible interest pursuant to proposed Supplementary Material .05(b) to proposed Options 3, Section 14.
Pursuant to the Opening Price Determination in proposed Supplementary Material .05(d)(3) to Options 3, Section 14, when interest crosses and does not match in size, the System will calculate the Potential Opening Price based on the highest (lowest) executable offer (bid) price when the larger sized interest is offering (bidding), provided, however, that if there is more than one price at which the interest may execute, the Potential Opening Price when the larger sized interest is offering (bidding) shall be the mid-point of the highest (lowest) executable offer (bid) price and the next available executable offer (bid) price rounded, if necessary, down (up) to the closest minimum trading increment; or when interest crosses and is equal in size, the System will calculate the Potential Opening Price based on the mid-point of lowest executable bid price and the highest executable offer price, rounded, if necessary, up to the closest minimum trading increment. Executable bids/offers include any interest which could be executed at the Potential Opening Price without trading through residual interest or the Boundary Price or without trading at the Boundary Price where there is Public Customer interest at the best bid or offer for any leg, consistent with proposed paragraph Options 3, Section 14(c)(2).
This proposed new Complex Opening Process seeks to maximize the interest which is traded during the Complex Opening Price Determination process and deliver a rational price for the available interest at the opening. The Complex Opening Price Determination process maximizes the number of contracts executed during the Complex Opening Process and ensures that residual contracts of partially executed orders or quotes are at a price equal to or inferior to the Opening Price. In other words, the logic ensures there is no remaining unexecuted interest available at a price which crosses the Opening Price. If multiple prices exist that ensure that there is no remaining unexecuted interest available through such price(s), the opening logic selects the mid-point of such price points. Below are examples.
The Opening Price would be for 20 strategies at a price of $3.76. The execution price of $3.76 is derived from the mid-point of the lowest executable bid price of $3.73 and the next available executable bid price of $3.79. In this example, 20 strategies can be opened at multiple price points ranging from $3.73 up to $3.79. None of these Potential Opening Prices would cause the unexecuted $3.73 buy order to be available at a price which crosses the Opening Price, therefore, the System opens at the mid-point of such prices, $3.76. The Opening Price seeks to distribute to the extent possible price improvement to both the bid and offer side of the transaction.
“
With the proposed amendment, the Opening Price will be for 40 strategies at a price of $3.69. The execution price of $3.69 is derived from the mid-point of the lowest executable bid price of $3.71 and the highest executable offer price of $3.66, rounded up to the closest minimum trading increment.
If the example were changed slightly such that Complex Order #4 and Complex Order #5 were Market Complex Orders rather than Limit Orders, the Opening Price for the 40 strategies would be $3.61, which is derived from the mid-point of the lowest executable bid price of $3.71 and the highest executable offer of $3.50 (which is the Boundary Price of the sell Market Complex Orders), rounded up to the closest minimum trading increment.
The Exchange notes that executable bids/offers include any interest that could be executed at the net price without trading through residual interest or the Boundary Price, or without trading at the Boundary Price where there is Public Customer interest at the best bid or offer for any leg, consistent with proposed Options 3, Section 14(c)(2).
Proposed Supplementary .06(a) to Options 3, Section 14 provides for a Complex Uncrossing Process. The Complex Order Book will be uncrossed using the Complex Uncrossing Process described in paragraph (b) below if a resting Complex Order that is locked or crossed with other interest becomes executable during regular trading or as part of the Complex Opening Process. The proposed rule text is identical to ISE and MRX Supplementary .06(a) to Options 3, Section 14. Complex Strategies are uncrossed using the following procedure: (1) The System identifies the oldest Complex Order among the best priced bids and offers on the Complex Order Book. A Complex Order entered with an instruction that it must be executed at a price that is equal to or better than the national best bid or offer pursuant to paragraph (a) above is considered based on its actual limit or market price and not the price of the national best bid or offer for the component legs. The selected Complex Order is matched pursuant to proposed subparagraph (d)(2)-(3) with resting contra-side interest on the Complex Order Book and, for Complex Option Orders, bids and offers for the individual legs of the complex strategy. The process is repeated until the Complex Order Book is no longer executable.
The System will process any remaining Complex Orders, including Opening Only Complex Orders in accordance with the Complex Uncrossing Process described in proposed Supplementary Material .06(b) to Options 3, Section 14. Bids and offers for the individual legs of the Complex Option Order will also be eligible to trade in the Complex Uncrossing Process. If the Potential Opening Price is at or within the Boundary Prices, the Potential Opening Price becomes the Opening Price and the complex strategy will open pursuant to the Uncrossing described in proposed Supplementary Material .05(d)(5) of Options 3, Section 14. However, as is the case today, if the bid Boundary Price is higher than the offer Boundary Price, or if no valid Potential Opening Price can be found at or within the Boundary Prices, there will be no trade in the Complex Opening Price Determination and the complex strategy will open pursuant to the Complex Uncrossing process described in proposed Supplementary Material .06(b) of Options 3, Section 14. As noted above, this rule text is identical to ISE and MRX Supplementary Material .06 to Options 3, Section 14.
Phlx's current Complex Order execution process will be replaced with a process identical to ISE and MRX at Options 3, Section 14(c) and (d) and Supplementary .01 to Options 3, Section 14 with respect to Complex Order executions. The adoption of the ISE and MRX process will permit Phlx members and member organizations to opt in to a Complex Exposure where today they opt out of a Complex Order Live Auction or “COLA,” which is described in current Options 3, Section 14(e).
Today, on Phlx, after identifying a COLA-eligible order, Phlx's System sends a broadcast notice to participants indicating that the System has initiated a COLA. During the COLA Timer, participants may bid and/or offer on either or both side(s) of the market by submitting one or more bids or offers that improve the cPBBO, known as “COLA Sweeps.” If the System receives no COLA Sweeps or responsive Complex Orders during the COLA Timer, the COLA-eligible order may trade at the Phlx best bid or offer with quotes or orders on the limit order book for the components of the Complex Order, provided that the order can be executed in the correct ratio and at the desired price. If the System receives responses during the COLA Timer, the COLA-eligible order and the responsive COLA Sweeps or Complex Orders will trade. Phlx members and member organizations may elect to opt out of a COLA by marking their orders as Do Not Auction or “DNA”. The term “Do Not Auction” means that this Complex Order is not “COLA-eligible.”
In lieu of a COLA, proposed Supplementary Material .01 to Options 3, Section 14 proposes a Complex Exposure which would provide that members and member organizations
If designated by a member organization for exposure, eligible Complex Orders are exposed upon entry for a period of up to one (1) second pursuant to subparagraph (d)(1) as described hereafter. A Complex Order that improves upon the best price for the same complex strategy on the Complex Order Book (
Upon entry of an eligible Complex Order, a broadcast message that includes net price or at market, size, and side will be sent and member organizations will be given an opportunity to enter Responses with the prices and sizes at which they are willing to participate in the execution of the Complex Order.
At the end of the exposure period, if the Complex Order still improves upon the best price for the complex strategy on the same side of the market, it is automatically executed to the greatest extent possible pursuant to proposed subparagraph (d)(2)-(3), taking into consideration: (i) bids and offers on the Complex Order Book (including interest received during the exposure period), (ii) bids and offers on the Exchange for the individual options series (including interest received during the exposure period), and (iii) Responses received during the exposure period, provided that when allocating pursuant to proposed subparagraph (d)(2)(ii). Responses are allocated pro-rata based on size. Thereafter, any unexecuted balance will be placed on the Complex Order Book (or cancelled in the case of an Exposure Only Complex Order). Notwithstanding the foregoing, proposed Supplementary Material .01(b)(ii) to Options 3, Section 14 shall not be applicable with respect to Stock Option Orders and Stock Complex Orders.
Example: Suppose the following market in complex strategy ABC:
ISE Complex BBO: 10 @ 1.00 x 10 @ 1.05
An Exposure Only Order is entered to buy 20 @ 1.03:
A broadcast message is sent announcing the start of an exposure auction. During the exposure period, the following responses are received:
Response 1: Sell 10 @ 1.03
Response 2: Sell 5 @ 1.02
At the end of the exposure period, the Exposure Only Order trades against:
Response 2: 5 @ 1.02
Response 1: 10 @ 1.03
The remaining quantity of 5 contracts is then cancelled.
Current Options 3, Section 14(f) describes Phlx's Complex Limit Order Book or “CBOOK.” Phlx's proposal adopts ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 14(d) which rule describes the execution of Complex Strategies on the Complex Order Book. Pursuant to current Phlx Options 3, Section 14(f)(i), Complex Orders must be entered onto the CBOOK in increments of $0.01. The individual components of a Complex Order may be executed in minimum increments of $0.01, regardless of the minimum increments applicable to such components. Proposed Options 3, Section 14(c)(1) requires that bids and offers for Complex Options Strategies be expressed in one cent ($0.01) increments, and the options leg of Complex Options Strategies may be executed in one cent ($0.01) increments, regardless of the minimum increments otherwise applicable to the individual options legs of the order. The minimum increment is not changing. Phlx's allocation model for Complex Order will remain specific to Phlx as noted in Options 3, Section 14(d)(2) and will allocate in time priority according to its Options 3, Section 10 rules while ISE and MRX allocate according to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 10 rules.
Today, Phlx permits non-broker-dealer customer and non-market maker broker-dealer Complex Orders to be entered on the CBOOK. An order resting on the CBOOK may execute against quotes or orders on the limit order book for the individual components of the order or against incoming Complex Order(s) that do not trigger a COLA Timer, whichever arrives first. An incoming Complex Order that does not trigger a COLA Timer may execute against interest on the limit order book for the individual components of the order or against Complex Orders resting on the CBOOK. Complex Orders on the CBOOK may be executed in one-cent increments, regardless of the minimum increments applicable to the individual components of the Complex Order. Complex orders in the CBOOK will be executed without consideration of any prices that might be available on other exchanges trading the same contracts. A Complex Order resting on the CBOOK will execute automatically against: (1) quotes, orders on the Limit Order book for the individual options components of the order, or sweeps, except if any of the components is the underlying security, and provided that the Complex
Phlx's proposed rules at Options 3, Section 14(d) will provide that Complex strategies would be executed without consideration of any prices that might be available on other exchanges trading the same options contracts. Complex strategies would not be executable unless all of the terms of the strategy can be satisfied and the options legs can be executed at prices that comply with the provisions of proposed paragraph (c)(2) of Options 3, Section 14.
Pursuant to proposed Options 3, Section 14(d)(3), if there is no executable contra-side complex interest on the Complex Order Book at a particular price, executable Complex Options Orders up to a maximum number of legs (determined by the Exchange on a class basis as either two legs, three legs or four legs) may be automatically executed against bids and offers on the Exchange for the individual options series provided the Complex Order can be executed in full or in a permissible ratio by such bids and offers. Legging Orders may be automatically generated on behalf of Complex Options Orders so that they are represented at the best bid and/or offer on the Exchange for the individual legs of the Complex Options Order as provided in proposed Options 3, Section 7(k). Notwithstanding the foregoing: Complex Orders with two option legs where both legs are buying or both legs are selling and both legs are calls or both legs are puts may only trade against other Complex Orders in the Complex Order Book pursuant to proposed Options 3, Section 14(d)(3)(A). The System will not generate Legging Orders for these Complex Orders pursuant to proposed Options 3, Section 14(d)(3)(A). Complex Orders with three or four option legs where all legs are buying or all legs are selling may only trade against other Complex Orders in the Complex Order Book pursuant to proposed Options 3, Section 14(d)(3)(B). Pursuant to proposed Options 3, Section 14(d)(4), complex strategies that are not executable may rest on the Complex Order Book until they become executable.
Stock Option and Stock-Complex Orders are described in proposed Supplementary Material .02 to Options 3, Section 14 which describes an automated process for the communication of stock-option orders by electronically transmitting the orders related to the stock leg(s) for execution on behalf of the parties to the trade. The Exchange notes that the manner in which Phlx handles Complex Orders with a stock component is not being amended with this proposal. Today, Phlx similarly handles Complex Orders with a stock component as noted in proposed Supplementary Material .02 to Options 3, Section 14.
Specifically, the Exchange states at proposed Supplementary Material .02 to Options 3, Section 14, “The Exchange will electronically communicate the stock leg of an executable Stock-Option Order and Stock-Complex Order to NES for execution. To execute Stock-Option Orders and Stock-Complex Orders on the Exchange, member organizations must enter into a brokerage agreement with Nasdaq Execution Services or “NES.”
Additionally, similar to language described in current Options 3, Section 14(a) regarding compliance with the Qualified Contingent Trade Exemption from Rule 611(a) of Regulation NMS, the Exchange proposes similar language in proposed Supplementary Material .07 to Options 3, Section 14. Specifically, this rule text would provide,
In light of the proposed changes to the Options 3, Section 14 rules, the Exchange proposes to amend Options 8, Section 32, Types of Floor-Based (Non-System) Orders to provide the types of Complex Orders that would be available on the Exchange's trading floor.
The Exchange proposes to specifically note in Options 8, Section 32(b)(1) that a Complex Order may be designated as an Immediate-or-Cancel Order that is to be executed in whole or in part upon receipt. Any portion not so executed is cancelled. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to note in Options 8, Section 32(b)(2) that a Complex Order may be designated as a Day Order that if not executed, expires at the end of the day on which it was entered. The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 32(f)(7) that relates to a Complex Order to note that a Complex Order is a type of multi-leg order
As noted above in this proposal, the Exchange also proposes to cite to the amended definitions at Options 8, Section 32(a)(3)-(5) which reference Options 3, Section 14(a)(1)-(3) by amending the Spread Type Priority description at Options 8, Section 24(j). The Exchange proposes to define a conforming ratio at Options 1, Section 1(b)(13) as discussed later in this proposal.
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 9(d)(2) which describes how the Exchange will open an affected option after a trading halt. Today, Options 3, Section 9(d)(2) states that,
After the opening, the Exchange shall reject Market Orders, as defined in Options 8, Section 32(a) (including Complex Orders, as defined in Options 3, Section 14), and shall notify Participants of the reason for such rejection. The Exchange shall cancel Complex Orders that are Market Orders residing in the System if they are about to be executed by the System.
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 9(d)(2) to instead provide,
After the opening, the Exchange shall reject Market Orders, as defined in Options 8, Section 32(a) (including Market Complex Orders, as defined in Options 3, Section 14(b), and shall notify members and member organizations of the reason for such rejection. The Exchange shall cancel Market Complex Orders residing in the System if the Market Complex Order becomes marketable while the affected underlying is in a Limit or Straddle State. Market Complex Orders exposed for price improvement pursuant to Supplementary Material .01 to Options 3, Section 14, pending in the System will continue to be processed. If at the end of the exposure period the affected underlying is in a Limit or Straddle State, the Market Complex Order will be cancelled. If the affected underlying is no longer in a Limit or Straddle State after the exposure period, the Market Complex Order will be processed with normal handling.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to utilize the new definition of Market Complex Order proposed in Options 3, Section 14(b)(1).
The Exchange notes that the proposed language in Options 3, Section 9 considers the potential impacts to Market Complex Orders during a trading halt and ensures that the System cancels affected series but permits certain orders to be processed provided a Limit or Straddle State is not in effect. The proposed change to Options 3, Section 9 is identical to ISE Options 3, Section 9.
The Exchange proposes to amend a Market Wide Risk Protection at Options 3, Section 15(a)(3) for single-leg orders.
Today, pursuant to the proposed Market Wide Risk Protection rule, the Exchange's System maintains one or more counting programs for each Member that count orders entered and contracts traded on ISE and MRX. Members can use multiple counting programs to separate risk protections for different groups established within the Member. Phlx Options 3, Section 15(a)(1)(C) currently states, that the counting programs will maintain separate counts, over rolling time periods specified by the Member for each count of: (1) the total number of orders entered. The Exchange proposes to amend this risk protection to consider counts for Complex Orders with options legs in addition to single-leg orders. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add new (2) through (6) to Options 3,
The proposed rule text would include a complex execution count for Complex Option Orders, Stock-Option and Stock-Complex Orders. As proposed, the counting programs will maintain separate counts, over rolling time periods specified by the member or member organization for each count. This risk protection will reduce risk associated with system errors or market events that may cause members and member organizations to send a large number of orders, or receive multiple, automatic executions, before they can adjust their exposure in the market. Without adequate risk management tools, such as those proposed in this filing, members and member organizations could reduce the amount of order flow and liquidity that they provide on Phlx. As a result, the functionality promotes just and equitable principles of trade.
Today, Phlx offers a Strategy Price Protection or “SPP” feature of the System that prevents certain Complex Order Strategies from trading at prices outside of pre-set standard limits. Today, SPP applies to Vertical Spreads, Time Spreads, Box Spreads and Butterfly Spreads.
The Exchange is modifying the Complex Order risk protections at current Options 3, Section 16 so that they are identical to the Complex Order risk protections at ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 16. As an overview, the Exchange proposes to (1) replace the ACE Parameter with a price limit utilized by ISE and MRX at Options 3, Section 16(a); (2) adopt “Do-Not-Trade-Through” or “DNTT” functionality is identical to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 16(a); (3) amend the Strategy Protections in proposed Options 3, Section 16(b) to: (a) adopt a new Vertical Spread Protection in proposed Options 3, Section 16(b)(1); (b) adopt a Calendar Spread Protection in proposed Options 3, Section 16(b)(2) that would replace the Time Spread in current Options 3, Section 16(a)(ii); (c) relocate the current Butterfly Spread Protection in current Options 3, Section 16(c) to proposed Options 3, Section 16(b)(3) and amend the rule text; and (d) relocate the current Box Spread Protection in current Options 3, Section 16(d) to proposed Options 3, Section 16(b)(4) and amend the rule text; and (3) adopt Other Price Protections in proposed Options 3, Section 16(c) which apply to Complex Orders which are identical to price protections at ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 16(c), specifically a Complex Order Price Protection, a Size Limitation Protection, and a Price Level Protection.
Proposed Phlx Options 3, Section 16(b) will similarly provide with respect to Complex Orders,
Where one component of a Complex Order is the underlying security, the Exchange shall electronically communicate the underlying security component of a Complex Order to Nasdaq Execution Services, LLC (“NES”), its designated broker dealer, for immediate execution. Such execution and reporting will occur otherwise than on the Exchange and will be handled by NES pursuant to applicable rules regarding equity trading. The execution price must be within the high-low range for the day in that stock at the time the Complex Order is processed and within a certain price from the current market, which the Exchange will establish in an Options Trader Alert. If the stock price is not within these parameters, the Complex Order is not executable.
When the short sale price test in Rule 201 of Regulation SHO is triggered for a covered security, NES will not execute a short sale order in the underlying covered security component of a Complex Order if the price is equal to or below the current national best bid. However, NES will execute a short sale order in the underlying covered security component of a Complex Order if such order is marked “short exempt,” regardless of whether it is at a price that is equal to or below the current national best bid. If NES cannot execute the underlying covered security component of a Complex Order in accordance with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO, the Exchange will cancel back the Complex Order to the entering member organization. For purposes of this paragraph, the term “covered security” shall have the same meaning as in Rule 201(a)(1) of Regulation SHO.
As proposed, Phlx Options 3, Section 16(d) similarly provides that with respect to Complex Orders in Stock-Option Strategies and Stock-Complex
Further, proposed Options 3, Section 16(e) provides, when the short sale price test in Rule 201 of Regulation SHO is triggered for a covered security, NES will not execute a short sale order in the underlying covered security component of a Complex Order if the price is equal to or below the current national best bid. This is the case today. However, as is the case today, NES will execute a short sale order in the underlying covered security component of a Complex Order if such order is marked “short exempt,” regardless of whether it is at a price that is equal to or below the current national best bid. If NES cannot execute the underlying covered security component of a Complex Order in accordance with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO, the Exchange will hold the Complex Order on the Complex Order Book, if consistent with Member instructions, as is the case today. The order may execute at a price that is not equal to or below the current national best bid, as is the case today. For purposes of Options 3, Section 16(e), the term “covered security” shall have the same meaning as in Rule 201(a)(1) of Regulation SHO.
Today, Phlx utilizes its Acceptable Complex Execution or “ACE” Parameter to define a price range outside of which a Complex Order will not be executed.
Phlx proposes to replace the ACE Parameter with a price limit utilized by ISE and MRX.
The proposed price limit will prevent the legs of a complex strategy from trading through the NBBO for the series or any stock component by a configurable amount calculated as the lesser of (i) an absolute amount not to exceed $0.10, and (ii) a percentage of the NBBO not to exceed 500%, as determined by the Exchange on a class, series, or underlying basis.
Phlx also proposes to adopt Strategy Protections in proposed Options 3, Section 16(b). These protections will apply throughout the trading day, including pre-market, during the Opening Process and during a trading halt. The protections will not apply to Complex Orders being auctioned and auction responses in Price Improvement Mechanism within Options 3, Section 13. The Strategy Protections in Options 3, Section 16(b) as the Vertical Spread Protection, Calendar Spread Protection, Butterfly Spread Protection, and Box Spread Protection, and are aimed at preventing the potential execution of certain complex strategies outside of specified price parameters.
The Exchange proposes to adopt a new Vertical Spread Protection in proposed Options 3, Section 16(b)(1). The Vertical Spread Protection will apply to a vertical spread. A vertical spread is an order to buy a call (put) option and to sell another call (put) option in the same security with the same expiration but at a higher (lower) strike price.
The Exchange proposes to adopt a Calendar Spread Protection in proposed Options 3, Section 16(b)(2) that would replace the Time Spread in current Options 3, Section 16(a)(ii) which is similar.
Phlx proposes to relocate the current Butterfly Spread Protection in current Options 3, Section 16(c) to proposed Options 3, Section 16(b)(3) and amend the rule text in current Options 3, Section 16(c)(i) that states,
A Butterfly Spread including an order being auctioned and auction responses, that is priced higher than the Maximum Value or lower than the Minimum Value will be cancelled. A Butterfly Spread entered as a Market Order will be accepted but will be restricted from trading at a price higher than the Maximum Value or lower than the Minimum Value.
The Exchange proposes to amend this language to state in proposed Options 3, Section 16(b)(3)(A),
A Butterfly Spread Limit Order that is priced higher than the Maximum Value or lower than the Minimum Value will be rejected. A Butterfly Spread Market Order (or Butterfly Spread Limit Order entered with a net price inside the Butterfly Spread Protection Range) to buy (sell) will be restricted from executing by legging into the single leg market with a net price higher (lower) than the Maximum (Minimum) Value. The Butterfly Spread Protection Range is the absolute difference between the Minimum Value and the Maximum Value.
The Exchange's amended language notes that the Butterfly Spread Protection Range is the absolute difference between the Minimum Value and the Maximum Value.
Phlx proposes to relocate the current Box Spread Protection in current Options 3, Section 16(d) to proposed Options 3, Section 16(b)(4) and amend the rule text in current Options 3, Section 16(d)(i) that states,
A Box Spread including an order being auctioned and auction responses, that is priced higher than the Maximum Value or lower than the Minimum Value will be cancelled. A Box Spread entered as a Market Order will be accepted but will be restricted from trading at a price higher than the Maximum Value or lower than the Minimum Value.
The Exchange proposes to amend this language to state in proposed Options 3, Section 16(b)(4)(A),
A Box Spread Limit Order that is priced higher than the Maximum Value or lower than the Minimum Value will be rejected. A Box Spread Market Order (or Box Spread Limit Order entered with a net price inside the Box Spread Protection Range) to buy (sell) will be restricted from executing by legging into the single leg market with a net price higher (lower) than the Maximum (Minimum) Value. The Box Spread Protection Range is the absolute difference between the Minimum Value and the Maximum Value.
The Exchange's amended language notes that the Box Spread Protection Range is the absolute difference between the Minimum Value and the Maximum Value.
Further, the Exchange proposes to provide at proposed Options 3, Section 16(b), identical to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 16(b), that the complex risk protections would not apply to a Complex Order that includes at least one P.M.-settled leg and at least one A.M.-settled leg. A Complex Options Strategy may consist of legs with different expirations based on settlement (a.m. or p.m.-settled). The last day of trading for A.M.-settled index options shall be the business day preceding the business day of expiration, or, in the case of an option contract expiring on a day that is not a business day, the business day preceding the last day of trading in the underlying securities prior to the expiration date.
The Exchange proposes to not apply the strategy protections in Options 3, Section 16(b) to a Complex Order that includes at least one P.M.-settled leg and at least one A.M.-settled leg.
The Exchange proposes to adopt Other Price Protections in proposed Options 3, Section 16(c) which apply to Complex Orders which are identical to price protections at ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 16(c). The Exchange proposes to adopt a new Complex Order
The Exchange proposes to adopt a new Size Limitation protection in proposed Options 3, Section 16(c)(2) which is identical to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 16(c)(2). The Size Limitation protection will place a limit on the number of contracts (and shares in the case of a Stock-Option Strategy or Stock-Complex Strategy) any single leg of an incoming Complex Order may specify. Orders that exceed the maximum number of contracts (or shares) are rejected. The maximum number of contracts (or shares), which shall not be less than 10,000 (or 100,000 shares), is established by the Exchange from time-to-time.
The Exchange proposes to adopt a new Price Level Protection in proposed Options 3, Section 16(c)(3) which is identical to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 16(c)(3). The Price Level Protection will place a limit on the number of price levels at which an incoming Complex Order to sell (buy) will be executed automatically with the bids or offers of each component leg when there are no bids (offers) from other exchanges at any price for the options series. Complex Orders are executed at each successive price level until the maximum number of price levels is reached on any component leg where the protection has been triggered, and any balance is canceled. The number of price levels for the component leg, which may be from one (1) to ten (10), is determined by the Exchange from time-to-time on a class-by-class basis.
As a result of these new Complex Order price protections, the Exchange also proposes an amendment to Options 3, Section 7(d)(2).
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 5, Section 4, Order Routing. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Options 5, Section 4(A) to amend the sentence that provides, “The sole use of the Routing Facility by the System will be to route orders in options listed and open for trading on the System to away markets either directly or through one or more third-party unaffiliated routing broker-dealers pursuant to Exchange rules on behalf of the Exchange and, in addition, where one component of a Complex Order is the underlying security, to execute and report such component otherwise than on the Exchange, pursuant to Rule Options 3, Section 14(h).” The Exchange proposes to amend this
The Exchange proposes to define a conforming ratio in Options 1, Section 1(b)(13) as follows,
The term “conforming ratio” is where the ratio between the sizes of the options components of a Complex Order is equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00). For example, a one-to-two (.5) ratio, a two-to-three (.667) ratio, or a two-to-one (2.00) ratio is a conforming ratio, whereas a one-to-four (.25) ratio or a four-to-one (4.0) ratio is not; where one component of the Complex Order is the underlying security, the ratio between any options component and the underlying security component must be less than or equal to eight contracts to 100 shares of the underlying security.
This definition is the same definition that is currently in Phlx Options 3, Section 14(a)(ix). This definition would apply to all options rules where the term is utilized. The Exchange would also renumber the definitions at Options 1, Section 1(b)(13) to (32). The Exchange proposes to remove the term “Off-Floor Broker-Dealer Order” in current Options 1, Section 1(b)(33) as that term was removed from rules in a prior rule change.
The Exchange will implement this rule change on or before December 20, 2025. Phlx would commence its implementation with a limited symbol migration and continue to migrate symbols over several weeks. The Exchange will issue an Options Trader Alert to Members to provide notification of the symbols that will migrate and the relevant dates.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Legging Order type currently located at Options 3, Section 7(b)(10) so that it is identical to rule text at ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 7(k) is consistent with the Act because it will harmonize the Legging Order functionality.
Providing that Legging Orders are treated as having no Public Customer capacity or Market Maker capacity on the single leg order book, regardless of being generated from Public Customer or Market Maker Complex Options Orders is consistent with the Act because a Legging Order is handled in the same manner as other orders on the single-leg order book except as otherwise provided in Options 3, Section 7(k), and is executed only after all other executable orders and quotes at the same price are executed in full. When a Legging Order is executed, the other component of the Complex Order on the Complex Order Book will be automatically executed against the best bid or offer on the Exchange. This rule text represents current System functionality. The Exchange believes that a Legging Order, created for the execution of a Complex Order, should not be afforded priority over resting orders and quotes on the single-leg order book, and therefore has determined to protect the priority on the single-leg order book of such resting orders and quotes. Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (“MIAX”) similarly executes a derived order only after all other executable orders and quotes at the same price are executed in full.
Amending current Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(A) which will be relocated to Options 3, Section 7(k)(1) to add “or both leg(s)” to the first sentence to provide that a Legging Order may be generated for each leg of a two-legged Complex Order is consistent with the Act because permitting both Legging Orders to execute as part of the execution of a particular Complex Options Order will allow more Complex Orders to execute while the price of the leg(s) will continue to be bounded by the price limits described in Options 3, Section 16(a).
The Exchange's proposal to add rule text at the end of proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)(4)(i) (current Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(D)(i)) that provides, “or is at a price that locks or crosses the best bid or offer of another exchange” is consistent with the Act and will continue to prevent Phlx from locking or crossing an away market. Today, Phlx would re-price the Legging Order to avoid locking and crossing an away market. With the proposed amendment, Phlx will amend its rule text to adopt identical System behavior to ISE and MRX and would no longer re-price an order. Rather, Phlx will remove a Legging Order that is at a price that is no longer at the displayed best bid or offer on the single-leg limit order book or is at a price that locks or crosses the best bid or offer of another exchange. As proposed, Options 3, Section 7(k)(4)(i) would remove the Legging Orders if the price of the Legging Order is no longer at the displayed best bid or offer on the single-leg limit order book or is at a price that locks or crosses the best bid or offer of another exchange. Proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)(4)(i) is identical to ISE and MRX Options 3, 7(k)(4)(i).
Removing the rule text in current Options 3, Section 7(b)(1)(vi), “. . . upon receipt of a Qualified Contingent Cross Order which includes a component in which there is a Legging Order, an order that will trigger an auction under Exchange rules in a component in which there is a Legging Order (whether a buy order or a sell order), or pursuant to Options 3, Section 13(f) a PIXL Order for the account of a public customer paired with an order for the account of a public customer” is consistent with the Act because it is not necessary to remove a Legging Order upon receipt of a QCC or C-to-C order because these orders trade immediately as a two-sided order without an auction timer and do not interact with the order book. Phlx's System behavior is the same as ISE's and MRX's system behavior in that they do not remove a Legging Order upon receipt of a QCC or C-to-C order.
Removing the rule text in current Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(D)(viii) that states, “. . . if a Complex Order is marketable against the cPBBO where a Legging Order is present and has more than one leg in common with the existing Complex Order that generated the Legging Order” is consistent with the Act because as noted above, Phlx will permit a Complex Order to trade with two Legging Orders at the same time pursuant to proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)(3).
Removing the rule text in current Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(D)(x) that states, “. . . if a Complex Order consisting of an unequal quantity of components is marketable against the cPBBO where a Legging Order is present but cannot be executed due to insufficient size in at least one of the components in the cPBBO” is consistent with the Act because the rule text because is unnecessary with this proposal. The Exchange notes that it does not believe it is necessary to remove Legging Orders where a Complex Order consisting of an unequal quantity of components is marketable against the cPBBO and a Legging Order is present, but cannot be executed due to insufficient size in at least one of the components in the cPBBO. In this case, the Legging Order can persist while the Complex Order rests on the Complex Order Book without conflict.
Removing the rule text in current Options 3, Section 7(b)(10)(D)(xi) that states, “. . . when the Legging Order is on the book at a price which is not at the minimum price increment and which is more aggressive than the same side PBBO, and an away market moves to lock the PBBO (which is also the NBBO)” is consistent with the Act because Phlx is amending its current System behavior and will display Legging Orders at actual prices. Today, Phlx generates Legging Orders at non-minimum price increments and displays at an inferior price to avoid locking or crossing another exchange as noted above. With this proposal, Phlx will amend that behavior and instead display at an actual price. If the Legging Order is at a price that is no longer at the displayed best bid or offer on the single-leg limit order book or is at a price that locks or crosses the best bid or offer of another exchange, the Legging Order will be removed pursuant to proposed Options 3, Section 7(k)(4)((i).
The proposed definitions in Options 3, Section 14(a) provide specific definitions, particularly as related to different strategies in order for members and member organizations to understand differences in processing for each of the strategies. The proposed definitions are consistent with the Act and protect investors and the general public because the definitions provide detail with respect to the various order types to inform market participants when determining which types of Complex Orders, they can trade on the Exchange in order to fully realize their trading and hedging potential.
The Exchange also believes that specifying that bids and offers for Complex Options Strategies may be expressed in $0.01 increments, and that the options legs of complex strategies may be executed in $0.01 increments and not in “any decimal price” is consistent with the Act as the proposed language provides market participants the applicable increment for all complex strategies. The proposed rule text at Options 3, Section 14(c)(1) is identical to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 14(c)(1). The Exchange believes that smaller increments are appropriate for complex strategies that have a stock component since the stock leg of such strategies are permitted to trade in finer increments than permitted in the options market. The proposed rule therefore gives the Exchange flexibility to adopt minimum increments that are appropriate for the trading of these strategies. Moreover, specifying the minimum trading increments for complex will remove any potential confusion as to the application of Options 3, Section 3 to Complex Orders.
With respect to Exposure Complex Orders and Exposure Only Complex Orders, the Exchange believes it is
The Exchange proposes to amend the opening process by adopting a new opening process that is identical to ISE and MRX Supplementary Material .05 to Options 3, Section 14. The Complex Opening Price Determination is designed to provide an opportunity for members and member organizations to trade complex strategies in a transparent opening rotation at a price that is within the NBBO prices of the individual legs prior to uncrossing the complex strategy in the Complex Uncrossing Process to allow additional interest to participate. The Exchange believes that the Complex Opening Process, Complex Opening Price Determination, and Complex Uncrossing Process are each designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that this new process will allow for additional contracts to be included in the Potential Opening Price calculation leading to better price discovery and more contracts executing as part of the Complex Opening Price Determination process. With this proposal, when the interest does not match the size and there is more than one Potential Opening Price at which the interest may execute, the Exchange would calculate a Potential Opening Price using the mid-point of the highest (lowest) executable offer (bid) price and the next available executable offer (bid) price rounded, if necessary, down (up) to the closest minimum trading increment. As a result, more options contracts are likely to be executed at better prices than under the current rule. Finally, the proposed amendment considers the Boundary Price early in the Complex Opening Process. The Exchange will consider the Boundary Price while determining the Potential Opening Price, thereby enabling as many contracts as possible to trade sooner, which reduces risk for market participants awaiting executions. This proposal should continue to maximize the number of contracts executed, to the benefit of those members and member organizations participating in that complex strategy.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that it is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest to update its rules to clarify in Supplementary Material .07(a) to Options 3, Section 14 how the stock leg is considered when determining the best net price achievable from the bids and offers for the individual legs. The stock leg of Stock-Option Orders and Stock-Complex Orders are permitted to trade through the national best bid or offer pursuant to the QCT exemption under Regulation NMS. To reinforce that these complex strategies benefit from the QCT Exemption, the Exchange proposes in Supplementary Material .13 to Options 3, Section 14 to provide that members and member organizations may only submit Complex Orders and quotes in Stock-Option Strategies and Stock-Complex Strategies if such Complex Orders and quotes comply with the QCT exemption. Members and member organizations submitting Complex Orders and quotes in Stock-Option Strategies and Stock-Complex Strategies represent that they comply with the QCT exemption. The Exchange believes that explaining this in its rules will increase transparency around the operation of the Exchange to the benefit of members and member organizations and other market participants that trade on the Exchange. Finally, as described more fully above, Phlx's proposed Complex Order Functionality is identical to the Complex Order Functionality offered today on ISE on MRX. The proposal would continue to require members and member organizations to only submit Complex Orders and quotes in Stock-Option Strategies and Stock-Complex Strategies if such Complex Orders and quotes comply with the QCT exemption, as is the case today. ISE and MRX have identical rule text at Supplementary Material .07(a) to Options 3, Section 14 and Supplementary Material .13 to Options 3, Section 14.
Phlx's proposal to amend the order types in Options 8, Section 32 to describe the types of Complex Orders that would be available to be utilized on Phlx's trading floor in open outcry in light of the changes to Options 3, Section 14 is consistent with the Act because the proposed changes will permit Phlx floor participants to utilize the same Complex Order types that are permitted electronically on Phlx, as well as other types that are available for trading only on Phlx's trading floor. The Exchange's proposal will also harmonize the floor and electronic rules with respect to Complex Orders. Phlx market participants located on Phlx's
Amending Options 3, Section 9 to modify the manner in which the System handles Market Complex Orders during a trading halt is consistent with the Act as the proposed language considers the potential impacts to Market Complex Orders during a trading halt and ensures that the System cancels affected series but permits certain orders to be processed provided a Limit or Straddle State is not in effect. The proposed rule text is identical to rule text at ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 9(d)(2).
The Exchange's proposal to amend its Market Wide Risk Protection within Options 3, Section 15(a)(3) to consider counts for Complex Orders with options legs in addition to single-leg orders within (2) through (6) of Options 3, Section 15(a)(3) is consistent with the Act. Today, pursuant to the Market Wide Risk Protection rule, the Exchange's System maintains one or more counting programs for each member organization that count orders entered and contracts traded on Phlx. With this proposal, the Market Wide Risk Protection will continue to maintain separate counts, over rolling time periods specified by the member or member organization for each count that it maintains today as well as complex execution counts for Complex Option Orders, Stock-Option and Stock-Complex Orders.
The Exchange's proposal to adopt Complex Order Protections at Options 3, Section 16, in lieu of the proposed protections in Phlx Options 3, Section 16, is consistent with the Act. Proposed Options 3, Section 16 is identical to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 16.
The Exchange's proposal to replace the ACE Parameter with a Price Limits protection will protect investors and the general public as this protection will prevent the legs of a complex strategy from trading significantly outside the market for the individual legs. The proposed risk protection limits the amount that the legs of a complex strategy may be executed at prices inferior to the prices available on other exchanges trading the same options series. In particular, the legs of a complex strategy cannot trade through the national best bid or offer for the series or any stock component by a configurable amount calculated as the lesser of (i) an absolute amount not to exceed $0.10, and (ii) a percentage of the NBBO not to exceed 500%, as determined by the Exchange on a class, series, or underlying basis.
The Exchange's proposal to replace Phlx's Vertical Spread Protection with a new Vertical Spread Protection at proposed Options 3, Section 16(b)(1), that is identical to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 16(b)(1) will protect investors and the general public as the new risk protection will reject Vertical Spread orders when entered with a net price of less than zero (minus a pre-set value) and will prevent the execution of a Vertical Spread order at a price that is less than zero (minus a pre-set value) when entered as a market order to sell. The System will also reject a Vertical Spread order or quote when entered with a net price greater than the value of the higher strike price minus the lower strike price (plus a pre-set value), and will prevent the execution of a Vertical Spread order at a price that is greater than the value of the higher strike price minus the lower strike price (plus a pre-set value) when entered as a Market Order to buy. The proposed Vertical Spread Protection would protect investors and the general public by preventing the potential execution of certain complex strategies outside of specified price parameters.
The Exchange's proposal to adopt a Calendar Spread Protection at proposed Options 3, Section 16(b)(2) that would replace the Time Spread in current Options 3, Section 16(a)(ii), which is similar, will protect investors and the general public as the new risk protection will reject a Calendar Spread order when entered with a net price of less than zero (minus a pre-set value), and will prevent the execution of a Calendar Spread order at a price that is less than zero (minus a pre-set value) when entered as a market order to sell. The proposed Calendar Spread Protection would protect investors and the general public by preventing the potential execution of certain complex strategies outside of specified price parameters. The amended Calendar Spread Protection will be identical to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 16(b)(2).
The Exchange's proposal to adopt a revised Butterfly Spread Protection and a revised Box Spread Protection at proposed Options 3, Section 16(b)(3) and (4) will protect investors and the general public as these new protections will reject these strategies outside of certain parameters to avoid potential executions at prices that exceed the minimum and maximum possible intrinsic value of the spread by a specified amount. The addition of these risk protections will provide Phlx members and member organizations the same protections afforded to ISE and MRX Members.
The Exchange's proposal to adopt a Complex Order Price Protection at proposed Options 3, Section 16(c)(1) will protect investors and the general public by limiting the amount by which the net price of an incoming Limit Complex Order to buy may exceed the net price available from the individual options series on the Exchange and the national best bid or offer for any stock leg, and by which the net price of an incoming Limit Complex Order to sell may be below the net price available from the individual options series on the Exchange and the national best bid or offer for any stock leg. Limit Complex Orders that exceed the pricing limit will be rejected. Adopting a Complex Order
The Exchange's proposal to adopt a Size Limitation protection at proposed Options 3, Section 16(c)(2) will protect investors and the general public as this protection will limit the number of contracts (and shares in the case of a Stock-Option Strategy or Stock-Complex Strategy) any single leg of an incoming Complex Order may specify. Orders or quotes that exceed the maximum number of contracts (or shares) will be rejected. Limiting the number of contracts an incoming order may specify will protect investors and the general public. The proposed Size Limitation at Options 3, Section 16(c)(2) is identical to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 16(c)(2).
The Exchange's proposal to adopt a Price Level Protection at proposed Options 3, Section 16(c)(3) will protect investors and the general public as the Price Level Protection will limit the number of price levels at which an incoming Complex Order to sell (buy) will be executed automatically with the bids or offers of each component leg when there are no bids (offers) from other exchanges at any price for the options series. Complex Orders will be executed at each successive price level until the maximum number of price levels is reached. On any component leg where the maximum number of price levels has been reached, the protection will be triggered and any balance will be canceled. The Exchange believes that limiting the number of price levels at which an incoming order will execute appropriately balances the interests of investors seeking execution of their orders and the Exchange's obligations to provide a fair and orderly market. The proposed Price Level Protection at Options 3, Section 16(c)(3) is identical to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 16(c)(3).
Providing transparent information at Options 3, Section 16(d) and (3) concerning the execution, reporting and handling of Complex Orders in Stock-Option Strategies and Stock-Complex Strategies as well as the short sale price text in Rule 201 of Regulation SHO is consistent with the Act because the Exchange is providing notice to its members and member organizations that it will only continue to consider prices that comply with the short sale price test in Rule 201 of Regulation SHO. This rule text adds transparency to the Exchange's Rules. Further, the proposed rule text at Options 3, Section 16(d) and (3) is identical to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 16(d) and (3).
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 7(d)(2), related to Immediate-or-Cancel orders, to note, similar to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 7(d)(2), that an IOC order entered by a Market Maker through the SQF protocol will not be subject to the Complex Order Price Protection as defined in Options 3, Section 16(c)(1) for Complex Orders is consistent with the Act. The Exchange has elected not to apply the Complex Order Price Protection on IOC orders entered through SQF as it does for IOC orders entered through FIX because only Market Makers utilize SQF to enter IOC orders. Market Makers are professional traders with their own risk settings. FIX, on the other hand, is utilized by all market participants who may not have their own risk settings, unlike Market Makers. Market Makers utilize IOC orders to trade out of accumulated positions and manage their risk when providing liquidity on the Exchange. The Exchange understands that proper risk management, including using these IOC orders to offload risk, is vital for Market Makers. Market Makers handle a large amount of risk when quoting and in addition to the risk protections required by the Exchange. Market Makers utilize their own risk management parameters when entering orders, minimizing the likelihood of a Market Maker's erroneous order from being entered. The Exchange believes that Market Makers, unlike other market participants, have the ability to manage their risk when submitting IOC orders through SQF and should be permitted to elect this method of order entry to obtain efficiency and speed of order entry, particularly in light of the quoting obligations that the Exchange imposes on these participants, unlike other market participants. The Exchange believes that allowing Market Makers to submit IOC orders through their preferred protocol increases their efficiency in submitting such orders and thereby allows them to maintain quality markets to the benefit of all market participants that trade on the Exchange. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange has opted to not offer the Complex Order Price Protection for IOC orders entered through SQF because Market Makers have more sophisticated infrastructures than other market participants and are able to manage their risk.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 5, Section 4(a) is consistent with the Act as the Exchange does not route the stock portion of an options order, rather NES routes the stock leg. Options 5, Section 4 applies only to options orders. The Exchange proposes to remove this sentence to conform the rule text to ISE Options 5, Section 4(a) rule text.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Phlx's proposal to amend its Legging Orders to harmonize the order type to ISE and MRX Options 3, Section 7(k) does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the amended rules will apply uniformly to all market participants.
Additionally, this proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition as other options exchanges may adopt Legging Orders and similar rules for the generation of such orders.
The Exchange does not believe that the adoption of Complex Order functionality that is identical to ISE and MRX Complex Order functionality will impose any burden on competition, rather the Exchange believes that it will enhance competition among the various markets for Complex Order execution, potentially resulting in more active Complex Order trading on all exchanges. With respect to intra-market competition, all members and member organizations will be permitted to submit Complex Orders into Phlx. Further, the Exchange will uniformly apply the proposed rules to any member or member organization that submits a Complex Order into Phlx.
The Exchange does not believe its proposal to offer Complex Order Functionality will impose an undue burden on inter-market competition as various other options markets offer Complex Order functionality.
The proposed amendment to Options 3, Section 9 to modify the manner in which the System handles Market
The proposed amendment to Options 3, Section 9 to modify the manner in which the System handles Market Complex Orders during a trading halt does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition as other options markets may similarly handle their Complex Orders as proposed by Phlx.
The Exchange's proposal to amend its Market Wide Risk Protection within Options 3, Section 15(a)(3) to consider counts for Complex Orders with options legs in addition to single-leg orders within (2) through (6) of Options 3, Section 15(a)(3) does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition as all members and member organizations would be uniformly subject to the proposed rule.
The Exchange's proposal to amend its Market Wide Risk Protection within Options 3, Section 15(a)(3) to consider counts for Complex Orders with options legs in addition to single-leg orders within (2) through (6) of Options 3, Section 15(a)(3) does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition as other options markets have similar complex order risk protections.
The Exchange's proposal to adopt Complex Order Protections at Options 3, Section 16 does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition as all members and member organizations would be uniformly subject to the proposed rule.
The Exchange's proposal to adopt Complex Order Protections at Options 3, Section 16 does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition as other options markets have similar complex order risk protections.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 5, Section 4(a) related to routing does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition as all members and member organizations would be uniformly subject to the Routing Rule.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 5, Section 4(a) is consistent with the Act as the Exchange does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition as ISE has an identical routing rule.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with their foreign owners or
Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
The Department of State will conduct a public meeting at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, May 7, 2025, both in-person at Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, DC, and via teleconference. The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the twelfth session of the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Sub-Committee on Navigation, Communication and Search and Rescue (NCSR 12) to be held in London, United Kingdom from Tuesday, May 13, 2025, to Thursday, May 22, 2025.
Members of the public may participate up to the capacity of the teleconference line, which will handle 500 participants through Microsoft Teams, or up to the seating capacity of the room if attending in-person.
The agenda items to be considered include:
Those who plan to participate should contact the meeting coordinator, Mr. John Stone at
Additional information regarding this and other IMO public meetings may be found at:
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of Passenger Rail Advisory Committee meeting.
Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Passenger Rail Advisory Committee (PRAC), pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
The meeting will be held on May 6, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. E.T.
The meeting will be held at the Surface Transportation Board headquarters at 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423.
Brian O'Boyle at (202) 245-0364 or
The PRAC was formed in 2023 to provide advice and guidance to the Board on passenger rail issues on a continuing basis to help the Board better fulfill its statutory responsibilities in overseeing certain aspects of passenger rail service.
The meeting, which is open to the public, will be conducted in accordance with FACA, 5 U.S.C. 10; Federal Advisory Committee Management regulations, 41 CFR part 102-3; PRAC's charter; and Board procedures. Further communications about this meeting may be announced through the Board's website at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Notice of intent.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) intends to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to address the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed modification of the Chatuge Dam Spillway, low-level outlet (LLO), and the dam embankment. Based on evaluations conducted between 2016 and 2022, TVA determined that the risk of uncontrolled releases due to spillway failure exceeds TVA's risk tolerance for dam safety.
The public scoping period begins with the publication of this Notice of Intent in the
Written comments should be sent to Erica McLamb, NEPA Compliance Specialist, 1101 Market Street LPE5S, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402. Comments may also be submitted online at
Erica McLamb by email to
The EIS identification number is EISX-455-00-000-1735297828. This notice is provided in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] 4321
TVA's Chatuge Reservoir is located on the Hiwassee River. The reservoir is approximately 13 miles long and extends southeast from Chatuge Dam, located in Clay County, North Carolina, into Towns County, Georgia. TVA operates the reservoir for many purposes, including flood control, power generation, water supply, recreation, and augmentation of downstream water flows. Chatuge Reservoir has a flood-storage capacity of 62,600 acre-feet between an elevation (El.) of 1918 and 1928 feet.
TVA operates Chatuge Dam according to seasonal curves that guide operations. The guide curve represents idealized target operations, with a low point of El. 1915 in the middle of February when flood risk is highest, and a high point of El. 1926 around Memorial Day. The flood guide varies from El. 1918 in the winter to El. 1926 in the summer; all volume above the flood guide is reserved for flood control storage. Thus, in a year with normal rainfall, the water level in Chatuge Reservoir varies about 10 feet from summer to winter to provide seasonal flood storage. These operating levels were implemented pursuant to TVA's Reservoir Operations Study.
During its program of dam safety risk assessments and integration of dam safety industry findings, TVA concluded the chute slab of the primary spillway at Chatuge Dam is in poor condition. TVA determined that the potential for removal of one or more sections of the chute slab during a rare flood event poses a dam safety risk outside of TVA tolerances. TVA also investigated secondary sources of dam safety risk associated with internal erosion through the dam. TVA judged that the internal erosion risks were of lesser magnitude and within widely accepted tolerable risk guidelines.
Beginning in December 2023, TVA implemented additional monitoring and inspections of the spillway, repaired joints and sealed cracks in the spillway slab and walls, and supplemented the existing Chatuge Dam Emergency Action Plan for spillway failures to reduce risks. However, the risk of spillway damage and failure remains higher than TVA's risk tolerance. TVA proposes potential modifications to the Chatuge spillway and low-level outlet works (LLOW) to reduce the risk associated with Chatuge Dam. TVA is also considering modifications to the dam embankment.
The purpose of the proposed action is to reduce risks to human health and safety and improve flood control. The proposed action is needed to ensure the continued safe operation of the Chatuge Dam for hydrogeneration, flood control, water supply, and recreation. Additionally, the proposed action is needed to ensure TVA can reliably meet river flow obligations necessary to maintain aquatic habitat and public water supply through improved reliability in the event of an outage at the hydropower plant. The project would also ensure that TVA can operate the Chatuge Dam and Reservoir in furtherance of TVA's statutory mission to manage the Tennessee River system, its tributaries, and its associated resources.
TVA anticipates the EIS will evaluate a No Action Alternative and four Action Alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), TVA would not perform any modification of the
To reduce the potential for spillway activation during the construction for all Action Alternatives, TVA would draw down the Chatuge Reservoir during the construction period. The maximum drawdown of the reservoir would be to an elevation of 1,908 feet, which is 10 feet below normal winter pool. The estimated drawdown duration for each alternative is described below; however, the drawdown could be extended due to the need to maintain dam safety requirements, weather delays, and unforeseen circumstances encountered during construction.
Alternatives B and C would include rehabilitation of the existing spillway and replacement of the Howell Bunger Valve. The spillway would be rehabilitated by reconstruction of the existing contraction joints (Alternative B) or by installing a concrete overlay (Alternative C). The construction and drawdown duration for Alternative B could be up to eight years. The construction and drawdown duration for Alternative C could be up to six years.
Alternative D would include construction of a new spillway and abandonment of the existing spillway, replacement of the Howell Bunger Valve, and dam embankment stabilization. The new spillway, located west of the existing spillway, would be designed convey all the water from the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) which is 108,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). Construction of Alternative D could last up to six years and require the reservoir to be drawn down for up to four years.
Alternative E would include construction of a new gated spillway, rehabilitation of the existing spillway, replacement of the Howell Bunger Valve, and dam embankment stabilization. The new service spillway, located west of the existing spillway would be designed to pass a maximum discharge of 68,000 cfs through a gated crest. The auxiliary spillway will maintain its current design discharge capacity of 39,000 cfs. Construction of Alternative E could last up to seven years and would require a reservoir drawdown up to five years.
The EIS will include a detailed evaluation of the environmental, social, and economic impacts associated with implementation of the proposed action. Resource areas to be addressed in the EIS include but are not limited to air quality; aquatics; botany; climate change; cultural resources; floodplains; geology and groundwater; land use; noise and vibration; health and safety; soils; surface water; water supply, socioeconomics; threatened and endangered species; transportation; visual resources; waste; wetlands; and wildlife. Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse effects will be identified and evaluated in the EIS.
TVA's proposed action would require an Individual Permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; Section 401 Water Quality Certification; a North Carolina Construction Stormwater Permit; compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; and compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and other applicable Executive Orders, local, Federal, and state regulations.
Scoping is integral to the process for implementing NEPA and provides a mechanism to ensure that issues are identified early and properly studied; issues of little significance do not consume substantial time and effort; the draft EIS is thorough and balanced; and delays caused by an inadequate EIS are avoided. TVA seeks comment and participation from all interested parties for identification of potential alternatives, information, and analyses relevant to this proposal.
Information about this project is available at
Following the scoping period, TVA may develop a scoping report that will be published online. The scoping report will summarize public and agency comments that were received and identify the projected schedule for completing the environmental review process. Following analysis of the affected resources, TVA will prepare a draft EIS for public review and comment. One or more preliminary preferred alternatives may be identified in the Draft EIS; however, the final decision on the proposed modifications of the Chatuge Dam components (spillway, Howell Bunger valve, and embankment) will be based on several factors including the conclusions of the EIS, relevant federal and state law requirements, engineering and risk evaluations, and financial considerations.
TVA anticipates holding public open house meetings after releasing the draft EIS. TVA expects to release the draft EIS in late 2025/early 2026 and a final EIS in late 2026/early 2027. TVA anticipates the Record of Decision will be posted at least 30 days after the release of the final EIS.
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice of request to release airport land.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering a proposal to partially release a perpetual easement restriction at the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport (IWA), Mesa, Maricopa County, Arizona. In exchange for fee simple interest in 19 acres, the FAA would release a 32-acres perpetual easement with conditions, located outside of the airfield, adjacent to the northeast corner of Ellsworth Rd. and the Pecos Rd. The FAA invites public comment on this proposal.
Comments must be received on or before May 21, 2025.
Comments on the request may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Mr. Mike N Williams, Manager, Phoenix Airports District Office, Federal Aviation Administration, 3800 N Central Ave., Suite 1025, 10th Floor, Phoenix, Arizona 85012. In addition, one copy of the comment submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. J. Brian O'Neill, Executive Director/CEO, Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, 5835 S Sossaman Rd. Mesa, Arizona 85212.
Mr. Mike N. Williams, Manager, Phoenix Airports District Office, 602-792-1061.
Mr. J. Brian O'Neill, Executive Director/CEO, Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, 480-988-7608.
The perpetual easement was transferred to the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Authority in 1998 from the United States Air Force after the Base Realignment and Closure process. The easement will be released to the current property owner for compatible non-aeronautical development. Such use of the land represents a compatible land use that will not interfere with the airport or its operation, thereby protecting the interests of civil aviation. The airport will be compensated for the fair market value of the use of the land.
In accordance with the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), Public Law 10-181 (Apr. 5, 2000; 114 Stat. 61), this notice must be published in the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation.
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review.
The FHWA, on behalf of the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by UDOT and other Federal agencies that are final agency actions. These actions relate to the State Road (SR) 177; SR-193 to 1800 N Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Re-Evaluation that proposes to upgrade a two-lane freeway to a four-lane freeway between SR-193 and 1800 North in Davis County, UT.
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of UDOT, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal Agency actions on the listed highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before September 18, 2025. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
The EIS Re-Evaluation and additional project documents can be viewed and downloaded from the project website at:
Brandon Weston, Director of Environmental Services; 801-965-4603;
Effective January 17, 2017, and as subsequently renewed on May 26, 2022, the FHWA assigned, and the UDOT assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that UDOT and other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing licenses, permits, or approvals for the proposed improvement highway project. The actions by UDOT and other Federal agencies on the project, and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the EIS Re-Evaluation approved on March 7, 2025, and in other project records for the listed project. The EIS Re-Evaluation and other documents for the listed project are available by contacting UDOT at the address provided above.
The project subject to this notice is:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of final disposition; renewal of exemption.
FMCSA announces its final decision to renew the exemption granted to International Motors, LLC (International), formerly known as Navistar, Inc.,
This renewed exemption is effective from November 21, 2024, and expires on November 21, 2029.
Pearlie Robinson, Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; FMCSA; (202) 366-4225;
To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to
If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish the decision in the
Under 49 CFR 383.23, no person shall operate a CMV without having taken and passed knowledge and driving skills tests for a commercial learner's permit or CDL that meet the Federal standards contained in subparts F, G, and H of part 383, as applicable, for the CMV that person operates or expects to operate. Such drivers are also subject to the controlled substances and alcohol testing requirements of 49 CFR part 382.
The renewal application from International was described in detail in a
The Agency did not receive comments in response to International's request to renew its exemption from the CDL requirements.
Mr. Nickels holds a German commercial license, and FMCSA has previously determined that the process for obtaining a German commercial license is comparable to, or as effective as, the requirements of part 383 and adequately assesses the driver's ability to operate CMVs in the United States. In 2019, the Agency granted similar exemptions to International, under its former name Navistar, Inc., for other drivers on two occasions [April 15, 2019 (84 FR 15283); December 27, 2019 (84 FR 71525)]. The Agency has also granted similar exemptions to Daimler Trucks North America for holders of German commercial licenses.
FMCSA therefore concludes that renewing the exemption granted on November 21, 2019, for another five years, under the terms and conditions listed below, will likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved absent the exemption.
FMCSA reaffirms its provisional decision to renew the exemption for a period of five years subject to the terms
This exemption applies only to International's driver Thomas Nickels. This driver is granted an exemption from the CDL requirements in 49 CFR 383.23 to allow him to drive CMVs in the United States without a State-issued CDL. Consequently, this driver is not subject to the requirements of 49 CFR part 382, including the Clearinghouse requirements in subpart G.
When operating under this exemption, International and Mr. Nickels are subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. The driver and carrier must comply with all other applicable provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 350-399);
2. The driver must be in possession of the exemption document and a valid German commercial license;
3. The driver must be employed by, and operate the CMV within the scope of his duties for, International;
4. At all times while operating a CMV under this exemption, the driver must be accompanied by a holder of a State-issued CDL who is familiar with the routes traveled;
5. International must notify FMCSA in writing within 5 business days of any accident, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, involving this driver;
6. International must notify FMCSA in writing if the driver is convicted of a disqualifying offense under § 383.51 or § 391.15 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; and
7. International must implement a drug and alcohol testing program that satisfies the requirements in 49 CFR part 382, subparts A-F, including, but not limited to, all testing requirements and participation in a consortium for random testing. International must require that Mr. Nickels be subject to those requirements. International must provide documentation of its drug and alcohol testing program upon request to FMCSA.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a firm or person operating under the exemption. States may, but are not required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in intrastate commerce.
International must notify FMCSA within 5 business days of any positive drug or alcohol tests, or accident (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5) involving Thomas Nickels while operating a CMV under the terms of this exemption. The notification must include the following information:
a. Identifier of the Exemption: “International—Thomas Nickels”;
b. Name of operating carrier and USDOT number;
c. Date of the accident;
d. City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or closest to the accident scene;
e. Driver's name and license number;
f. Co-driver's name (if any) and license number;
g. Vehicle number and State license number;
h. Number of individuals suffering physical injury;
i. Number of fatalities;
j. The police-reported cause of the crash, if provided by the enforcement agency;
k. Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws, motor carrier safety regulations; and
l. The total on-duty time accumulated during the 7 consecutive days prior to the date of the crash, and the total on-duty time and driving time in the work shift prior to the crash.
Reports filed under this provision shall be emailed to
FMCSA does not believe the driver or the motor carrier covered by this exemption will experience any deterioration of their safety records. However, the exemption will be rescinded if: (1) International or the driver operating under the exemption fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objects of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of final disposition; grant of exemption.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announces its decision to renew K & L Trucking, Inc.'s (K & L, USDOT #193158) application for a limited 5-year exemption to allow the company to secure large metal coils to its trailers using a cargo securement system that differs from that required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). The Agency has determined that granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety provided by the regulation.
This exemption is effective April 21, 2025 and ending April 21, 2030.
Mr. David Sutula, Chief, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 366-9209;
To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish its decision in the
Section 393.120(c) of the FMCSRs requires that metal coils that weigh more than 5,000 pounds (either individually or grouped together) and transported with eyes crosswise must be secured using (1) a means (
K & L, a transporter of metal coils, applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.120(c) in 2020 to allow the carrier to secure large metal coils to its trailers using a cargo securement system that differs from that required by the FMCSRs. FMCSA granted the exemption for a period of 5 years, effective until December 4, 2025 (85 FR 78406). K & L's present application to renew and expand its original exemption was described in detail in a
The Agency received one comment on the application. AWM commented that K & L did not provide information on whether Kevlar straps are equivalent in strength to Nylon straps and various coil grade chains. AWM asked “what testing has been performed to substantiate that Kevlar is suitable for stretching and flexing while a vehicle is in transit that is subject to multiple braking actions, uncontrolled storage and exposure to the elements?” AWM stated that the manufacturer of the straps should “submit evidence of the straps abilities per Par 393.7” and have them incorporated by reference in 49 CFR 393.108.
FMCSA has evaluated K & L's application and the public comment and grants the request to renew and modify the exemption for a 5-year period. FMCSA is not aware of any evidence showing that K & L's operations under the terms and conditions of the original exemption have resulted in any degradation in safety. Due to the limited scope, terms, conditions, and restrictions of the exemption and the existing regulatory requirements that remain in place, FMCSA has determined that the exemption will likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to the level of safety that would be obtained absent the exemption.
In response to AWM's comment, FMCSA notes that elongation in a material, also known as elasticity or stretch, occurs when tie-downs such as welded steel chains, nylon, or nylon-Kevlar materials are used to secure cargo and subjected to tensile forces. Each of the tie down industry associations publishes standards for equipment manufacturers and test methods to evaluate if the equipment, as manufactured, meets the performance standards set by the industry. In the case of welded steel chain links, used to secure cargo of different types, the National Association of Chain Manufacturers (NACM) publishes welded steel chain specifications for manufacturers of welded steel chain.
The Agency further notes that both nylon and synthetic web sling are incorporated in 49 CFR 393.7(b)(20) and 393.7(b)(22). The core material in the 2-ply nylon material with Kevlar protective coating used by K & L is nylon, which is incorporated by reference in 49 CFR 393.7(b)(20).
The Agency hereby grants the exemption for a 5-year period, beginning April 21, 2025 and ending April 21, 2030. This exemption will replace the current exemption granted to K & L. Under this exemption, K & L is allowed to use an alternative securement system consisting of a customized metal carrier affixed to the bed of its trailers and the use of a single large cargo securement strap through the eye of the metal coil. The coil carriers weigh 2,500 pounds each and are attached to the bed with sixteen
1. This exemption applies only to transport of steel coils when secured using K & L's securement system and transported by K & L under the terms herein.
2. K & L shall inspect the securement system for any loose attachments or for any relative movement of the metal coil carrier and the deck before each trip.
3. K & L shall inspect the synthetic cargo securement straps (SKU TT2-908-T2) used for delamination or visible wear due to abrasion or excessive fading due to exposure to the elements. K & L shall not use any securement straps subject to this exemption that exhibit any visible damage due to excessive wear or excessive fading due to ultraviolet exposure.
4. K & L must replace each nylon-Kevlar strap every 6 months when securing steel coils per this exemption. This replacement must be done irrespective of the material damage mentioned in the previous condition.
5. K & L drivers must have a copy of this
6. K & L shall keep records of any incidents involving their trucks when carrying steel coils as secured per this exemption and submit any on-site or on-road incidents, such as damages to the carrier during loading or crashes during transit, and any crashes involving loss of the metal coil from the trailer, to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption. States may, but are not required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in intrastate commerce.
Interested parties possessing information that would demonstrate that the cargo securement system used by K & L to secure metal coils is not achieving the requisite statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA by email at
The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) K & L fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This document provides the public notice that Conrail petitioned FRA for an extension of relief from certain regulations concerning periodic testing requirements on vital microprocessor-based systems.
FRA must receive comments on the petition by May 21, 2025. FRA will consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable.
Scott Johnson, Railroad Safety Specialist, FRA Signal, Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone: 406-657-6642, email:
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letter dated January 13, 2025, Conrail petitioned FRA for an extension of a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 236 (Rules, Standards, and Instructions Governing the Installation, Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair of Signal and Train Control Systems, Devices, and Appliances). The relevant Docket Number is FRA-2019-0016.
Specifically, Conrail seeks an extension of relief from the 2-year periodic testing requirements in §§ 236.109,
As stated in FRA's September 20, 2019 decision letter, Conrail had asserted “the logic does not change once a microprocessor-based system has been tested, and locking tests are documented on installation.”
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
Communications received by May 21, 2025 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of FRA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Notice.
PHMSA is publishing this notice to solicit public comments on a request for a special permit for 16 special permit segments submitted by Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC (NGPL), a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc. NGPL is seeking relief from compliance with certain requirements in the Federal pipeline safety regulations. PHMSA has proposed conditions to ensure the special permit is not inconsistent with pipeline safety. At the conclusion of the 30-day comment period, PHMSA will review the comments received from this notice as part of its evaluation to grant or deny the special permit request.
Submit any comments regarding this special permit request by May 21, 2025.
Comments should reference the docket number for this special permit request and may be submitted in the following ways:
•
There is a privacy statement published on
PHMSA received a special permit request from Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC (NGPL), a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc, on August 29, 2024 seeking to deviate from the Federal pipeline safety regulations in 49 CFR 192.611 and 192.619, for 16 special permit segments (SPSs) which include 54,744 feet (approximately 10.37 miles) of the NGPL natural gas transmission pipeline system named Louisiana Line #2 located in Montgomery, Harris, and Liberty counties, Texas.
Due to class location changes from Class 1 to Class 3 in 2007, NGPL lowered the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) as required by 49 CFR 192.611, from 1,100 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) to 936 psig. However, NGPL now seeks to increase the pressure on the line to restore the previous MAOP using 49 CFR 192.555.
NPGL has taken proactive measures in consultation with PHMSA to assess integrity of the line and maintain pipeline and public safety including:
• In 2023, NGPL completed in-line inspection (ILI) of the entire special permit inspection area with caliper, inertial measurement unit, and magnetic flux leakage—axial (MFL-A). All MFL-A and deformation ILI inspections were performed using high resolution metal loss and slope deformation tools.
• The SPSs and overall SPIA have been pressure tested to at least 90 percent specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) and 1.25 times MAOP as recently as 2024. Some portions were taken to a level of 1.39 times MAOP or 100 percent SMYS.
The draft conditions were preliminarily determined to ensure the special permit is not inconsistent with pipeline safety. The requested SPSs are as follows:
The special permit request, draft proposed special permit with conditions, and Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the above-described NGPL pipeline segments are available for review and public comment in Docket No. PHMSA-2025-0011. PHMSA invites interested persons to review and submit comments in the docket on the special permit request, draft proposed special permit with attachments, and DEA. Please submit comments on any potential safety, environmental, and other relevant considerations implicated by the special permit request. Comments may include relevant data.
Before issuing a decision on the special permit request, PHMSA will evaluate all comments received on or before the comment closing date. Comments received after the closing date will be evaluated if it is possible to do so without incurring additional expense or delay. PHMSA will consider each relevant comment it receives in making its decision to grant or deny this special permit request.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled, “Covered Savings Associations Notice.” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be received by May 21, 2025.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should also be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection following the close of the 30-day comment period for this notice by the method set forth in the next bullet.
•
• For assistance in navigating
Shaquita Merritt, Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
Twelve CFR part 101 allows FSAs to elect national bank powers and operate as CSAs. An FSA seeking to operate as a CSA is required under 12 CFR 101.3(a) to submit a notice making a CSA election to the OCC that: (1) is signed by a duly authorized officer of the FSA and (2) identifies and describes any nonconforming subsidiaries, assets, or activities that the FSA operates, holds, or conducts at the time it submits its notice.
Under 12 CFR 101.5(a), the OCC may require a CSA to submit a plan to divest, conform, or discontinue a nonconforming subsidiary, asset, or activity.
A CSA may submit a notice to terminate its election to operate as a CSA under 12 CFR 101.6 using procedures similar to those for an election. In addition, after a period of five years, an FSA that has terminated its election to operate as a CSA may submit a notice under 12 CFR 101.7 to reelect using the same procedures used for its original election.
Comments continue to be invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons and vessels that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them. The vessels placed on the SDN List have been identified as property in which a blocked person has an interest.
This action was issued on April 16, 2025. See Supplementary Information for relevant dates.
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490 or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On April 16, 2025, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons whose property and interests in property have been unblocked and who have been removed from OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List).
This action was issued on April 15, 2025. See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490; or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On April 15, 2025, OFAC determined that the following person would be removed from the SDN List and that their property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction are unblocked pursuant to Executive Order 13818 of December 20, 2017 (“Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption”). U.S. persons are no longer generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
1. ROGAN, Antal, Hungary; DOB 29 Jan 1972; POB Kormend, Hungary; nationality Hungary; Gender Male; National ID No. 018826IA (Hungary) (individual) [GLOMAG].
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
This action was issued on April 15, 2025. See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490; or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On April 15, 2025, OFAC determined that one or more persons identified below meet one or more of the criteria for the imposition of sanctions set forth in section 1(a)-(c) of Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, “Imposing Sanctions on Foreign Persons Involved in the Global Illicit Drug Trade,” 86 FR 71549 (E.O. 14059). OFAC has selected to impose blocking sanctions pursuant to section 2(a)(i) of E.O. 14059 on the persons identified below.
OFAC further determined that the persons identified below meet one or more of the criteria for designation pursuant to Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism,” 66 FR 49079, as amended by Executive Order 13886 of September 9, 2019, “Modernizing Sanctions To Combat Terrorism,” 84 FR 48041 (E.O. 13224, as amended).
As a result, the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. HURTADO OLASCOAGA, Adita (a.k.a. “La Venadita”), Mexico; DOB 06 Sep 1975; POB Guerrero, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Female; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. HUOA750906MGRRLD02 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: LA NUEVA FAMILIA MICHOACANA).
Designated pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, La Nueva Familia Michoacana, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, La Nueva Familia Michoacana, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
2. HURTADO OLASCOAGA, Ubaldo (a.k.a. “Flaco”; a.k.a. “H1”), Mexico; DOB 09 May 1979; POB Guerrero, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. HUOU790509HGRRLB08 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: LA NUEVA FAMILIA MICHOACANA).
Designated pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, La Nueva Familia Michoacana, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
3. HURTADO OLASCOAGA, Johnny (a.k.a. “EL MOJARRO”; a.k.a. “EL MUHADO”; a.k.a. “EL PESCADO”; a.k.a. “EL PEZ”), Mexico; DOB 01 Mar 1973; POB Guerrero, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. HUOJ730301HGRRLH02 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: LA NUEVA FAMILIA MICHOACANA).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, La Nueva Familia Michoacana, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
4. HURTADO OLASCOAGA, Jose Alfredo (a.k.a. “EL FRESA”), Mexico; DOB 02 Sep 1984; POB Guerrero, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. HUOA840902HGRRLL03 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: LA NUEVA FAMILIA MICHOACANA).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, La Nueva Familia Michoacana, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning request for discharge from personal liability under Internal Revenue Code Section 2204 or 6905.
Written comments should be received on or before June 20, 2025 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of the form should be directed to Kerry Dennis at (202) 317-5751, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all the collections of information covered by this notice.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained if their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
a. The technology to implement the Rule is not available. Such technology does not exist in a commercially viable form sufficient to allow implementation of and compliance with the Rule by its compliance date of July 8, 2027.
b. It is in the national security interests of the United States to issue this Exemption for the reasons stated in paragraph 3 of this proclamation.