Forest Service
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Transportation Security Administration
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A11 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a design review of aircraft structural and stress reports that resulted in a revision of operational loads for some aircraft flight phases. This AD requires a review and disposition of all existing repairs and damage assessments for affected structure, corrective actions if necessary, and the prohibition of certain repair engineering orders (REOs), as specified in a Transport Canada AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective May 27, 2025.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 27, 2025.
• For Transport Canada material identified in this AD, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
• For Airbus Canada material identified in this AD, contact Airbus Canada Limited Partnership, 13100 Henri-Fabre Boulevard, Mirabel, Québec J7N 3C6, Canada; telephone 450-476-7676; 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. It is also available at
Deep Gaurav, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 817-228-3731; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (ACLP) Model BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require using a certain version of the ASRP and a review and disposition of repairs based on previous versions, as specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2023-70. However, as stated in Transport Canada AD CF-2023-70, the requirement to use a certain version of the ASRP (
The FAA is issuing this AD to address in-service repairs in some structural areas that require verification and possibly further repair. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in negative margins for the load envelopes.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA received comments from Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Delta requested the FAA revise the exception in paragraph (h)(2) of the
The FAA partially agrees. The FAA agrees the term “Airbus Canada source data” is not used or defined in the MCAI. However, the FAA has removed paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD from this AD instead of revising the exception. Upon review, the FAA has determined an exception is not needed for Part I, paragraph B., of the MCAI because any requirement to contact ACLP for disposition is addressed under the provisions of paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.
Delta requested the FAA revise paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD to require using Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-530012, Issue 002, dated March 6, 2024, instead of Issue 001, dated September 13, 2023, for the defining the “Affected Structure.” Delta stated that using the later service bulletin will ensure that improvements incorporated into the work instructions are carried into the final rule.
The FAA partially agrees. The FAA agrees Issue 002 of the service bulletin is acceptable for defining the “Affected Structure,” but Issue 001 may also be used. Therefore, the FAA has revised this AD to allow use of either of these service bulletins. Note that paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD has been redesignated as paragraph (h)(2) in this AD.
Delta requested the FAA add a new paragraph (h)(5) to the proposed AD to clarify which REOs are acceptable and do not require further review. Delta noted that Airbus Canada Service Bulletin BD500-530012, Issue 002, dated March 6, 2024, specifies that Airbus Canada specific REOs with an issue date later than December 31, 2022, have already been validated and do not require additional approved disposition. Delta requested this statement be amended to also specify that GREOs with an issued date later than September 22, 2022, have already been validated and do not require an additional approved disposition. Delta stated that Airbus Canada confirmed via correspondence that such GREOs have been validated and do not require an additional review and approved disposition.
The FAA partially agrees. The FAA disagrees that all GREOs issued later than September 22, 2022, are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD but agrees certain GREOs may be acceptable for compliance. GREOs apply to a particular operator's fleet, so it would be inappropriate to allow use of all GREOs as of a certain date for all airplanes. However, Transport Canada has provided to the FAA a list of GREOs that are limited to those that address the “Affected Structure” defined in the referenced service information, which may be used to generate a repair disposition for all airplanes. Therefore, the FAA has added a new exception to paragraph (h)(3) of this AD providing the list of acceptable GREOs that may be used to comply with the intent of this AD. The FAA may consider allowing use of other GREOs not listed in the exception as an acceptable method of compliance according to the provisions of paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.
Delta requested the FAA add new paragraph (h)(4) to the proposed AD to clarify the method for contacting Airbus Canada. Delta stated Airbus Canada notified operators that the contact email in Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-530012, Issue 002, dated March 6, 2024, used for obtaining an approved disposition is being decommissioned and replaced with a new email address. Delta further stated permission would be required to allow use of the new email address to contact Airbus Canada regarding repairs.
The FAA disagrees that an exception is needed to specify how to contact Airbus Canada. Under the provisions of paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, where any requirement of this AD requires obtaining instructions from the manufacturer, the instructions must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or Airbus Canada Limited Partnership's Transport Canada Design Approval Organization (DAO). Paragraph (i)(2) of this AD does not require how the manufacturer must be contacted. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.
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 reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
Transport Canada AD CF-2023-70 specifies procedures for accomplishing a review and disposition of all existing repairs and damage assessments for affected structure and applicable corrective actions (
Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-530012, Issue 001, dated September 13, 2023; and Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-530012, Issue 002, dated March 6, 2024; specify procedures for doing a check of the airplane maintenance records to identify pre-existing repairs and/or damage, and a detailed inspection of the affected structures for previous damage and/or repairs done after the airplane received is Certificate of Airworthiness. These documents are distinct because the procedures in Issue 002 have been updated.
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
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 71 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will 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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 27, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to all Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type Certificate previously held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.) Model BD-500-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 51, Standard practices/structures.
This AD was prompted by a design review of aircraft structural and stress reports that resulted in a revision of operational loads for some aircraft flight phases, affecting certain aircraft sections. The FAA is issuing this AD to address in-service repairs in some structural areas that require verification and possibly further repair. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in negative margins for the load envelopes.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, Transport Canada AD CF-2023-70, dated October 5, 2023 (Transport Canada AD CF-2023-70).
(1) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2023-70 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where the definition of “Affected Structure” in Transport Canada AD CF-2023-70 specifies “as identified in Service Bulletin (SB) BD500-530012, Issue 001, dated 13 September 2023 or later revisions approved by the Chief, Continuing Airworthiness, Transport Canada,” this AD requires replacing that text with “as identified in Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-530012, Issue 001, dated September 13, 2023; or Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-530012, Issue 002, dated March 6, 2024.”
(3) Where paragraph 1.2.1 of Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-530012, Issue 001, dated September 13, 2023, specifies “Airbus Canada specific Repair Engineering Order (REO) with an issue date later than December 31, 2022 have already been validated and therefore do not require an additional approved disposition;” and where paragraph 1.2.1 of Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-530012, Issue 002, dated March 6, 2024, specifies “Airbus Canada specific Repair Engineering Orders (REO) with an issue date later than December 31, 2022 have already been validated and therefore do not require an additional approved disposition;” this AD requires replacing that text with “Airbus Canada specific Repair Engineering Orders (REOs) with an issue date later than December 31, 2022, and Generic Repair Engineering Orders (GREOs) identified in table 1 to paragraph (h)(3) of AD 2025-07-04, have already been validated and therefore do not require an additional approved disposition.”
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact Deep Gaurav, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 817-228-3731; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Transport Canada AD CF-2023-70, dated October 5, 2023.
(ii) Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-530012, Issue 001, dated September 13, 2023.
(iii) Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Service Bulletin BD500-530012, Issue 002, dated March 6, 2024.
(3) For Transport Canada material identified in this AD, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
(4) For Airbus Canada material identified in this AD, contact Airbus Canada Limited Partnership, 13100 Henri-Fabre Boulevard, Mirabel, Québec J7N 3C6, Canada; telephone 450-476-7676; email
(5) 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.
(6) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rule; delay of effective and compliance dates.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is delaying the effective date for the amendments to Form N-PORT that were published on September 11, 2024, from November 17, 2025, to November 17, 2027. The Commission is also delaying the effective date of the amendments to the rule under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Investment Company Act”) associated with Form N-PORT reporting requirements. In addition, the Commission is delaying the compliance dates for these amendments related to Form N-PORT reporting requirements. The effective and compliance date for the amendments to Form N-CEN contained in the same release published on September 11, 2024, will remain November 17, 2025.
Susan Ali, Counsel; Angela Mokodean, Senior Special Counsel; or Brian M. Johnson, Assistant Director, at (202) 551-6792, Investment Company Regulation Office, Division of Investment Management, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-8549.
The Commission is delaying the effective and compliance dates for the Commission's 2024 amendments to Form N-PORT [referenced in 17 CFR 274.150] and 17 CFR 270.30b1-9 (“rule 30b1-9”) under the Investment Company Act.
On August 28, 2024, the Commission adopted amendments to reporting requirements on Form N-PORT to require more frequent reporting of monthly portfolio holdings and related information to the Commission and the public, and to amend certain reporting requirements relating to entity identifiers.
On January 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum directing agencies to consider postponing for 60 days from the date of the Presidential Memorandum the effective date for any rules that had been issued but had not yet taken effect for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, and where necessary to continue to review these questions of fact, law, and policy, consider further delaying, or publishing for notice and comment, proposed rules further delaying such rules beyond the 60-day period.
Following adoption of the Form N-PORT amendments, petitioner Registered Funds Association filed a petition in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking review of the final amendments to Form N-PORT.
In light of these developments, we are delaying the effective and compliance dates of the amendments to Form N-PORT to provide time for the Commission to complete its review in accordance with the Presidential Memorandum and take any further
The Commission has completed its review of the amendments to Form N-CEN and the guidance on liquidity risk management program requirements in the 2024 Adopting Release in accordance with the Presidential Memorandum. These provisions were also not specifically challenged in the pending litigation. As a result, those aspects of the 2024 Adopting Release are unaffected, and the effective and compliance date for the amendments to Form N-CEN will remain November 17, 2025.
The Commission is mindful of the economic effects, including the costs and benefits, of the effective and compliance date extensions. Section 2(c) of the Investment Company Act and section 3(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) direct the Commission, when engaging in rulemaking where it is required to consider or determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in, or consistent with, the public interest, to consider, in addition to the protection of investors, whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation. In addition, section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act requires the Commission, when making rules under the Exchange Act, to consider among other matters the impact that the rules would have on competition and prohibits the Commission from adopting any rule that would impose a burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
The baseline against which the costs, benefits, and the effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation of the effective and compliance date extensions are measured consists of the current state of the market, the current regulatory framework which does not include amendments adopted in the 2024 Adopting Release, and Form N-PORT filers' current practices. As discussed above, pursuant to the 2024 Adopting Release, current Form N-PORT—without the amendments adopted in that Release—was to remain in effect until the November 17, 2025, effective date.
The scope of funds subject to the amended Form N-PORT in the 2024 Adopting Release covers all registered funds that are currently required to file reports on Form N-PORT, including registered open-end funds, registered closed-end funds, and exchange-traded funds organized as unit investment trusts, and excluding money market funds and small business investment companies.
This final rule will delay the effective date for the amendments to Form N-PORT to November 17, 2027, and will delay the compliance date for larger entities to November 17, 2027, and for smaller entities to May 18, 2028. This extension will mitigate costs associated with more timely and more frequent reporting of Form N-PORT information to the Commission and more frequent public disclosure. Specifically, delaying the compliance period will reduce the direct cost of compliance because it will (1) give funds more time to adjust their processes and (2) delay the costs of providing more timely and more frequent reporting. In addition, some funds may decide to defray incurring any additional costs to adjust their processes while they wait for the Commission's review to be finalized.
The extension will also impact the economic benefits associated with the amendments to Form N-PORT. Specifically, the Commission sought to achieve two primary goals with the reporting and public disclosure amendments in the 2024 Adopting Release, namely: (1) improve regulatory oversight of registered investment companies' activities; and (2) benefit market participants by increasing transparency of funds' portfolio data.
Lastly, the Commission considered alternatives to the new effective and compliance dates. A shorter delay of the effective and compliance dates would be less likely to give the Commission sufficient time to complete its review of the final amendments to Form N-PORT and take any subsequent action based on the review. A longer delay of these dates would further delay compliance costs associated with providing more timely and more frequent reporting, but the incremental cost reductions associated with adjusting processes that a further delay could achieve would be minimal, and a longer delay would further delay the accrual of the benefits associated with the amendments to Form N-PORT if, following the Commission's review, it determines no further changes are needed. In addition, as discussed above, the Commission may adjust the effective and compliance dates provided in this release as needed, depending on the length of the review.
The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) generally requires an agency to publish notice of a rulemaking in the
The Commission, for good cause, finds that notice and solicitation of public comment to delay the effective and compliance dates for the Form N-PORT amendments are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
For similar reasons, although the APA generally requires publication of a rule at least 30 days before its effective date, the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 808(2) are satisfied (notwithstanding the requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801)
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated these amendments as not a “major rule,” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
By the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Connecticut for the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). These revisions certify the adequacy of the SIP to satisfy the nonattainment new source review permitting requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the reclassification of the Greater Connecticut area to moderate nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and certify the emission statement program satisfies CAA requirements for the initial nonattainment designations and the reclassification to moderate nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. This action is being taken in accordance with the CAA.
This rule is effective on May 22, 2025.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2024-0193. All documents in the docket are listed on the
John Creilson, Air Quality Branch, U.S.
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On September 27, 2024 (89 FR 79186), the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Connecticut proposing to approve two SIP revisions submitted by the State. Information about the proposed SIP revisions are as follows.
On May 22, 2023, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) submitted several revisions to its SIP. The first SIP revision certified the adequacy of the SIP to satisfy the nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permitting requirements of the CAA for the reclassification of the Greater Connecticut area to moderate nonattainment for the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Effective November 7, 2022, the EPA reclassified the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area to moderate nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (see 87 FR 60897). Although CT DEEP had previously submitted, and EPA had approved, an NNSR certification for the 2015 ozone NAAQS initial classifications of marginal nonattainment for the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area (see 87 FR 38284, July 28, 2022), EPA's reclassification requires recertifying the adequacy of its NNSR program under the moderate nonattainment area requirements. The State certified that the versions of Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) sections 22a-174-1 and 22a-174-3a in the current SIP meet the Federal NNSR requirements for the Greater Connecticut ozone nonattainment area. In Connecticut's certification, the State provided a side-by-side comparison demonstrating the State's Rules are at least as stringent as EPA's NNSR permitting program requirements.
The second SIP revision certified that the emission statement program satisfies the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for the initial nonattainment designations and the reclassification to moderate nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) applies to stationary sources that emit nitrogen oxides (NO
The rationale for EPA's proposed actions for these revisions is explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.
EPA received three comments during the comment period. The first comment generally supports the EPA's proposed action, although the commenter also discusses topics outside the scope of the action. The second comment focuses solely on irrelevant subjects. The third comment is disjointed and unclear. To the extent the commenter means to rely on any points made in the various references appearing in the comment, “EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission.” 89 FR 79186. In any event, none of the comments assert, or explain how, EPA approval of this action would be erroneous or otherwise be inconsistent with the CAA, applicable regulations, or other authorities. As such, the comments do not require further response to finalize the action as proposed.
EPA is approving Connecticut's SIP revisions pertaining to NNSR Certification and Emission Statement Certification.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act 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 Clean Air Act. 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 Orders 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 Clean Air Act.
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).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 23, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(136) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection on May 22, 2023.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii)
(B) [Reserved]
(x)
(1) Certify the adequacy of the SIP to satisfy the nonattainment new source review permitting requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the reclassification of the Greater Connecticut area to moderate nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS; and
(2) certify the emission statement program satisfies the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for the initial nonattainment designations and the reclassification to moderate nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule; administrative change.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revising the format for materials that are made part of the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan (SIP) through the process of incorporation by reference (IBR). The regulations and materials affected by this format change have all been previously submitted by Wisconsin and approved by EPA as part of the SIP.
This action is effective on April 22, 2025.
The SIP materials for which incorporation by reference into 40 CFR part 52 is finalized through this action are available for inspection at the following locations: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604 and
Christos Panos, Air and Radiation Division (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8328,
Throughout this document, wherever “we,” “us” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to EPA.
Each state has a SIP containing, among other things, the control measures and strategies used to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The SIP is extensive, containing such elements as air pollution control regulations, emission inventories, monitoring networks, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms.
Each state must formally adopt the control measures and strategies to attain and maintain the NAAQS after the public has had an opportunity to comment on them and then the state must submit the proposed SIP revisions to EPA. Once these control measures and strategies are approved by EPA through notice and comment rulemaking, EPA uses the IBR process to make them part of the federally approved SIP. IBR is a method of incorporating material into EPA regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) by referencing the original document(s) without publishing the full text of the material. In this case, the SIP rules are identified in part 52 (Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans), title 40 of the CFR (40 CFR part 52). These rules are approved by EPA with a specific
The SIP is periodically revised as necessary to address the unique air pollution problems in the state. Therefore, EPA must periodically take action on state SIP submissions containing new and/or revised regulations and other materials; if approved, they become part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA revised the formatting procedures of 40 CFR part 52 for incorporating by reference federally approved SIP revisions. These procedures include: (1) A revised SIP document for each state that would use the IBR process under the provisions of 1 CFR part 51; (2) a revised mechanism for announcing EPA approval of revisions to an applicable SIP and updating both the document that has gone through the IBR process and the CFR; and (3) a revised format of the “Identification of plan” sections for each applicable subpart in 40 CFR part 52 to reflect these revised IBR procedures. The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures, and “Identification of plan” format are discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997,
The federally-approved regulations, source-specific requirements, and nonregulatory provisions (entirely or portions of) submitted by each state agency have been compiled by EPA into a “SIP compilation.” The SIP compilation contains the updated regulations, source-specific requirements, and nonregulatory provisions approved by EPA through previous rulemaking actions in the
Each SIP compilation contains three parts. Part one contains the regulations, part two contains the source-specific requirements, and part three contains nonregulatory provisions. Each state's SIP compilation contains a table for each of the three parts that identifies each SIP-approved regulation, source-specific requirement, and nonregulatory provision. In this action, EPA is publishing the SIP compilation tables that summarize the applicable SIP requirements for Wisconsin and that will be codified at 40 CFR 52.2570. The effective dates in the table indicate the date of the most recent revision to an approved regulation. EPA Regional Offices have the primary responsibility for updating the state SIP compilations and ensuring their accuracy.
EPA Region 5 has developed and will maintain the SIP compilation for Wisconsin. A copy of the full text of Wisconsin's regulatory and source-specific SIP compilation will also be maintained at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
In order to better serve the public, EPA revised the organization of the section titled “Identification of plan” at 40 CFR 52.2570 and included additional information to clarify the enforceable elements of the SIP. The revised format does not affect Federal enforceability of the SIP and is consistent with the requirements of section 110(h)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) concerning comprehensive SIP publication.
The revised “Identification of plan” section contains five subsections:
1. Purpose and scope
2. Incorporation by reference
3. EPA approved regulations
4. EPA approved source specific requirements
5. EPA approved nonregulatory and quasi-regulatory provisions.
All new requirements and revisions to the applicable SIP become federally enforceable as of the effective date of the revisions to paragraph (c), (d), or (e) of the applicable “Identification of plan” section found in each subpart of 40 CFR part 52.
To facilitate enforcement of previously approved SIP provisions and provide a smooth transition to the new SIP processing system, EPA will retain the original “Identification of plan” section, previously appearing in the CFR as the first or second section of part 52 for each state subpart. The original Identification of plan section will be moved to § 52.2594 of part 52 for Wisconsin.
We are revising the format of 40 CFR part 52 “Identification of plan” section for Wisconsin regarding incorporation by reference, by adding § 52.2570(c), (d), and (e), to be consistent with the format described above and in 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). We are adding § 52.2570(b)(1) to further clarify that all SIP revisions listed in § 52.2570(c) and (d), regardless of inclusion in the most recent “update to the SIP compilation,” are federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking in which EPA approved the SIP revision. We are adding § 52.2570(b)(2) to certify that the materials provided by EPA at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) are an exact duplicate of the official state rules/regulations. We are adding § 52.2570(b)(3) to update address and contact information.
This action constitutes a recordkeeping and organizational exercise to ensure that all revisions to the state programs that have occurred are accurately reflected in 40 CFR part 52. State SIP revisions are controlled by EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 51.
EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in sections 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately, thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA. This action simply reformats and codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved state programs. Under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA, an agency may find good cause where notice and public procedure are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is unnecessary for this action because EPA is merely reformatting and codifying existing law. Immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by removing outdated citations and making the IBR format clearer and more user-friendly.
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of regulations promulgated by Wisconsin, previously approved by EPA and federally effective before December 31, 2024, contained in 40 CFR 52.2570(c) (
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 addresses administrative requirements related to previously approved state law found to meet Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those previously 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 is an administrative action related to state program approval;
• 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).
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Wisconsin SIP compilations afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA believes judicial review of this action under section 307(b)(1) is not available.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon oxides, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a)
(b)
(2) EPA Region 5 certifies that the rules/regulations provided by EPA in the SIP compilation at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated State rules/regulations which have been approved as part of the State implementation plan as of the dates referenced in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference may be inspected at the Region 5 EPA Office at 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604. To obtain the material, please call the EPA Region 5 Office. You may also inspect the material with an EPA approval date prior to December 31, 2024, for Wisconsin at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a) This section identified the original “Air Quality Implementation Plan for the State of Wisconsin” and all revisions submitted by Wisconsin that were federally-approved prior to December 31, 2024.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Board is inviting public comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking (the proposal) that would amend the calculation of the Board's stress capital buffer requirement applicable to certain large bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies, U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banking organizations, and nonbank financial companies supervised by the Board to reduce the volatility of the stress capital buffer requirement. The proposal would use the average of the maximum common equity tier 1 capital declines projected in each of the Board's prior two annual supervisory stress tests to inform a firm's stress capital buffer requirement. The proposal would also extend the annual effective date of the stress capital buffer requirement by one quarter, to January 1, to provide additional time for firms to comply with the requirement. In addition, the proposal would make changes to the FR Y-14A/Q/M reports to collect additional net income data that would improve the accuracy of the stress capital buffer requirement calculation, as well as remove data items that are no longer needed to conduct the supervisory stress test. The changes in the proposal are not designed to materially affect overall capital requirements and would decrease regulatory reporting burden.
Comments must be received on or before June 23, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket R-1866 and RIN 7100 AG92, by any of the following methods:
Juan Climent, Deputy Associate Director (202) 872-7526, Hillel Kipnis, Assistant Director, (202) 452-2924, Andrew Willis, Manager, (202) 430-1667, Missaka Warusawitharana, Manager, (202) 452-3461, Christopher Appel, Lead Financial Institution Policy Analyst, (202) 973-6862, John Simone, Lead Financial Institution Policy Analyst, (202) 245-4256, and Mehdi Beyhaghi, Principal Economist, (202) 973-6909, Division of Supervision and Regulation; Asad Kudiya, Deputy Associate General Counsel, (202) 360-6887, Julie Anthony, Senior Special Counsel, (202) 658-9400, Jonah Kind, Senior Counsel, (202) 452-2045, Legal Division. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551. For users of TDD-TYY, please call 711 from any telephone, anywhere in the United States. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551.
In December 2024, the Board announced that it would seek public comment on a proposal to make significant changes to its supervisory stress test practices and framework to improve their transparency and reduce volatility.
This notice of proposed rulemaking (proposal) would help to reduce volatility of the stress capital buffer requirements. The Board also plans to issue proposals to seek public comment on the models it uses to determine the hypothetical losses and revenue of firms for the supervisory stress test and on a process to update the models at a frequency that ensures they remain dynamic while still subjecting those future changes to notice and comment. The Board also plans to seek public comment on the supervisory scenarios used in the supervisory stress test. In doing so, the Board seeks to improve the transparency of its supervisory stress test, while retaining appropriate risk sensitivity and risk capture in capital requirements, as well as effective tools for understanding and assessing risk. Maintaining the capacity to regularly update the supervisory stress test models and supervisory scenarios is integral to ensuring the stress test's ability to capture changes in the risks in the financial industry over time.
The Board is also considering broad modifications to its regulatory capital and capital planning requirements for large firms to ensure they remain cohesive and effective, maintain the resilience of the banking sector, and minimize any unnecessary burden. The Board will make any changes to its rules through the public notice and comment process.
Stress testing is a core element of the Board's regulatory framework and supervisory program for large firms. The stress test enables the Board to assess whether large bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies, U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banking organizations, and nonbank financial companies supervised by the Board (collectively, firms) have sufficient capital to absorb potential losses and continue lending under a set of hypothetical severely adverse conditions, although it is not designed or intended to be predictive of future economic conditions. Since its inception in 2009, supervisory stress testing
Each June, the Board publishes the results of its annual supervisory stress test, including each firm's projected capital ratios, pre-tax net income, losses, revenues, and expenses, under severely adverse economic and financial conditions. The Board projects these results using a set of supervisory models that take as inputs firm-provided data on firms' financial conditions and risk characteristics, as well as the Board's supervisory scenarios.
Based on the supervisory stress test results, the Board calculates each firm's preliminary stress capital buffer requirement as the difference between the firm's starting and minimum projected common equity tier 1 capital ratio under the severely adverse scenario in the supervisory stress test (stress capital decline component), plus four quarters of planned common stock dividends as a percentage of risk-weighted assets (dividend add-on component). The stress capital buffer requirement has a minimum value of 2.5 percent of risk-weighted assets. A firm can adjust the amount of its planned dividends after receiving its preliminary stress capital buffer requirement. A firm can also request reconsideration of the calculation of its preliminary stress capital buffer requirement. The final stress capital buffer requirement, which includes any updates to a firm's dividend add-on or stress capital decline component since the preliminary requirement, becomes part of the firm's ongoing capital requirements, generally effective October 1 of a given year.
The stress capital buffer requirement is generally recalculated annually based on the latest supervisory stress test results, making the requirement sensitive to changes in a firm's risk profile and economic conditions.
The stress capital buffer requirement contributes to a firm's overall standardized approach capital conservation buffer requirement, along with any applicable countercyclical capital buffer requirement and GSIB
The stress capital buffer requirement helps ensure that capital requirements include a forward-looking estimate of capital needs under hypothetical adverse economic conditions. In this sense, the supervisory stress tests can help augment minimum capital requirements, such as those based on the risk weights assigned to exposures under the standardized approach. Incorporating stress capital buffer requirements into firms' capital planning processes affects firms' decisions about capital planning, firm investments, portfolio composition, and financial intermediation. Thus, changes to the stress capital buffer framework could have important macroeconomic implications, given that the firms subject to the supervisory stress test are typically large financial institutions whose provision of credit impacts the state of the U.S. economy.
The International Lending Supervision Act of 1983 provides the Board with broad discretionary authority to set minimum capital levels for state member banks and certain affiliates of insured depository institutions, including holding companies, supervised by the Board.
Section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act),
Section 401 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act also added section 165(a)(2)(C) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which authorizes the Board to apply any prudential standard established under section 165 to any bank holding company or bank holding companies with $100 billion or more in total consolidated assets to which the prudential standard does not otherwise apply, provided that the Board (1) determines that application of the prudential standard is appropriate to prevent or mitigate risks to the financial stability of the United States, or to promote the safety and soundness of such firm(s); and (2) takes into consideration the capital structure, riskiness, complexity, financial activities (including financial activities of subsidiaries), size, and any other risk-related factors of such firm(s) that the Board deems appropriate.
A firm's supervisory stress test results can vary, in some cases materially, from year to year based on several factors, including changes in (1) firms' balance sheet size and risk or projected income and expenses, (2) economic conditions since the previous stress test, (3) the severely adverse scenario used in the supervisory stress test, and (4) the supervisory models used in the supervisory stress test. Changes in the composition or health of a firm's balance sheet can lead to changes in the supervisory stress test results, as the stress test is sensitive to the outlook for distinct asset classes and revenue sources under adverse economic conditions.
Stress test results may vary from year to year due to changes in economic conditions since the previous stress test (the jumping off point of each year's scenario) and changes in scenario variables over the projection period, which is the forward-looking part of the scenario.
Improvements to the supervisory models used to project a firm's capital ratio can also lead to changes in results. The Board has a policy of phasing in material model changes over a two-year period to promote stability of the requirements. This policy reduces, but does not eliminate, variability in stress test results driven by model changes.
Significant year-over-year variation in capital requirements may impact the provision of banking services.
Standard economic theory holds that abrupt changes in capital requirements can be costly.
When a firm's new stress capital buffer requirement is substantially higher than expected and its management buffer is insufficient to meet the requirement, the firm might choose to raise equity quickly, which can be complex and potentially more costly than simply retaining earnings.
Some firms have favored larger management buffers as an efficient approach to addressing uncertainty in capital requirements.
While the advantages of reducing stress capital buffer requirement volatility are discussed above, there are certain trade-offs to changing the current approach to stress capital buffer requirements. For example, the current approach ensures that capital requirements promptly adjust to reflect the most recent stress test results, capturing the latest changes in a firms' risk exposures and overall financial conditions.
As discussed, volatility in stress capital buffer requirements can potentially impact the provision of banking services. To address this issue, the Board is issuing the proposal to (1) average the maximum common equity tier 1 capital declines projected in each of the Board's prior two annual supervisory stress tests to inform a firm's stress capital buffer requirement, and (2) extend the annual effective date of the stress capital buffer requirement by one quarter, from October 1 to January 1. With the proposed revisions, the capital buffer requirements would continue to be forward-looking and risk-sensitive, while reducing the volatility of capital requirements and thereby allowing for improved ability for firms to plan their capital positions and financial intermediation activity.
The proposal also would modify elements of the FR Y-14A/Q/M (Capital Assessments and Stress Testing) reporting forms to collect data that would provide greater insight into the net income composition of reporting firms and to eliminate data that are no longer needed to conduct the supervisory stress test.
Currently, a firm's stress capital buffer requirement is informed by the stress capital decline component of a single year's supervisory stress test results. The proposal would modify the calculation of the stress capital decline component of the stress capital buffer requirement by averaging the maximum common equity tier 1 capital decline from the current and prior year's supervisory stress test results (results averaging).
Results averaging under the proposal would reduce volatility in the stress capital buffer requirement by using an average of two results as opposed to using a single year's results.
A firm's stress capital buffer requirement should be aligned with the firm's risk profile. The stress capital buffer requirement is currently informed by the results of a single supervisory stress test, which, through supervisory models, considers the business profile of each firm under the severely adverse scenario. While results averaging would reduce the extent to which the stress capital buffer requirement reflects the current business profile of a firm and may lengthen the lag in recognition of changes in a firm's risk profile, results averaging would continue to measure how a firm's salient risks would behave under stressful conditions. Further, results averaging would smooth changes in requirements caused by short-term, temporary changes in risk profile.
Under the proposal, the stress capital buffer requirement would continue to include a firm's stress capital decline component and the dividend add-on component. While the stress capital decline component would be averaged over the prior two annual supervisory stress tests, the averaging calculation would not include the dividend add-on component. Unlike the stress capital decline component, the size of a firm's dividend add-on component is at the firm's discretion. While a firm must provide the amount of its dividend add-on component prior to knowing its stress capital decline component, the firm can revise its dividend add-on component after receiving its preliminary stress capital decline component informed by a given supervisory stress test. Due to these features, the Board is not proposing to include the dividend add-on component in its results averaging calculation.
A firm may also request reconsideration of its preliminary stress capital buffer requirement within fifteen calendar days of receipt of notice of a preliminary stress capital buffer requirement. The proposal would preserve a firm's ability to request reconsideration of its preliminary stress capital buffer requirement, with modifications to account for the incorporation of averaging into the stress capital buffer requirement calculation. In particular, the proposal would allow a firm to request reconsideration of the stress capital decline of the current capital plan cycle, which would be averaged with the stress capital decline of the previous capital plan cycle to form the stress capital decline component of the firm's stress capital buffer requirement, as applicable. As is the case under the current framework, the proposal would not allow firms to request reconsideration of a stress capital decline based on a previous year's supervisory stress test.
As previously mentioned, the Board currently phases in the effects of highly material supervisory model changes over a two-year period to mitigate sudden and unexpected changes to the supervisory stress test results.
The proposal would average the stress capital decline component over two annual supervisory stress tests (current and previous year) to inform the stress capital buffer requirement, effective in the following year. Averaging over a longer period (for example, three consecutive annual supervisory stress tests) may further reduce volatility in stress capital buffer requirements. Based on supervisory stress test data from 2019 to 2024, averaging over three consecutive annual supervisory stress tests would reduce volatility in stress capital buffer requirements by roughly 40 percent relative to the current framework.
The proposal would apply results averaging symmetrically with respect to increases and decreases in a firm's stress capital buffer requirement to reduce volatility in stress capital buffer requirements, as described in Section II.A.1 of this
Applying results averaging only to increases, but not to decreases, in a firm's stress capital decline component would be expected to result in a smaller reduction in volatility in the long run compared to symmetric averaging, because decreases in stress capital buffer requirements also contribute to volatility.
For firms subject to Category I-III standards, both the stress capital decline component and the dividend add-on component of the stress capital buffer requirement are updated every year. Because a firm subject to Category I-III standards is generally subject to the supervisory stress test every year, the proposed results averaging would generally apply for such firms.
Reflecting their lower risk profile, firms subject to Category IV standards are subject to the supervisory stress test on a biennial basis.
Consistent with current requirements, the stress capital buffer requirement for a firm that does not participate in two consecutive annual supervisory stress tests would continue to be informed solely by the most recent supervisory stress test in which the firm participated.
As discussed, the Board can recalculate a firm's stress capital buffer
The Board is proposing to extend the annual effective date of the stress capital buffer requirement by one quarter for all firms subject to the requirement. As proposed, the effective date of a firm's updated stress capital buffer requirement would be moved to January 1 of the year immediately following the calendar year in which its capital plan was submitted, which represents an extension of one quarter from the current effective date of October 1. This revision would help alleviate the impact of large changes in capital requirements by providing firms with additional time to comply with their updated stress capital buffer requirements. Providing an additional three months to meet a new stress capital buffer requirement would increase the firm's ability to make any adjustments in its capital planning and to further retain earnings to comply with the new requirement.
The Board considered alternative approaches to allow firms to comply with changes in their capital requirements, such as phasing in changes to the stress capital buffer requirement over two quarters or extending the effective date of the stress capital buffer requirement further past January 1. The Board did not propose these options as they would add complexity to the buffer framework and reduce the risk-sensitivity benefits of the stress capital buffer requirement, respectively.
The dividend add-on component of the stress capital buffer requirement comprises planned dividends in the fourth through seventh quarters of the planning horizon of the supervisory stress test.
In addition to the changes discussed above, which do not directly impact any information collections, the Board proposes to revise the FR Y-14A/Q/M reports by refining the collection of information used to assess a firm's net income under stress, as described in the Paperwork Reduction Act section below. The proposed revisions would strengthen the Board's ability to evaluate components of a firm's net income in the supervisory stress test, which would allow for a more accurate calculation of a firm's stress capital buffer requirement. The proposed revisions would also remove several items that are no longer needed to conduct the supervisory stress test.
The proposed changes to the Board's supervisory stress testing framework aim to reduce the volatility of capital requirements and provide more time for firms to adjust their capital plans in response to updated stress capital buffer requirements. These measures would allow firms to streamline their capital planning while maintaining adequate capital to withstand economic shocks. The Board evaluated the potential impacts of these changes on the affected firms and the broader economy.
The economic analysis is structured into four parts. The first part, an
The current framework (discussed in detail in Section I of this
Under the current framework, a firm's stress capital buffer requirement is determined based on the most recent supervisory stress test results and the dividend add-on component, and is floored at 2.5 percent of risk-weighted assets. Firms subject to Category I-III standards are subject to the supervisory stress test annually. Firms subject to Category IV standards are subject to the supervisory stress test on a two-year cycle, unless they choose, or are otherwise required, to be subject to the annual stress test. A firm's preliminary stress capital buffer requirement is set in June and its final stress capital buffer requirement generally becomes part of the firm's ongoing capital requirement on October 1. As a result, firms have approximately one quarter to comply with the updated requirement.
As discussed in Section I.C of this
As discussed in detail in Section II of this
A firm's stress capital buffer requirement would be set using the average of the maximum common equity tier 1 capital decline in the current year's stress test and the maximum common equity tier 1 capital decline in the prior year's stress test. Under the proposal, the stress capital buffer requirement would continue to be based on the most recent stress test results for most firms subject to Category IV standards, which are required to participate in the supervisory stress tests every other year. Moreover, regardless of a firm's category, a firm would have two quarters to comply with changes in the stress capital buffer requirement, compared to one quarter under the current framework.
The Board has identified several alternatives to the proposal that could help firms better manage stress capital buffer requirement volatility while maintaining the benefits of the stress capital buffer requirement. These alternatives differ in (1) their approach to smoothing stress capital buffer requirement levels and (2) in their timelines for compliance. The following section discusses alternatives and explains how they differ from the baseline and the proposal.
This alternative deviates from the baseline in that firms would have until January 1, instead of October 1, to comply with their stress capital buffer requirements. It does not include results averaging. The calculation of stress capital buffer requirements and the rest of the supervisory stress testing process otherwise remain the same as in the current approach.
Under this alternative, all the elements of the current framework are maintained except the alternative applies results averaging over the previous two years. For firms that participate in the supervisory stress tests every other year, the stress capital buffer requirement is based on the most recent stress test results. This alternative differs from the proposal in that the time to comply with a new stress capital buffer requirement is not extended by one quarter.
Under this alternative, all elements of the current framework are maintained except the alternative applies results averaging over the previous three years. For firms subject to annual supervisory stress tests, this means that the stress capital buffer requirement in the current year is based on the average of aggregate common equity tier 1 declines from their three most recent stress tests. For firms subject to Category IV standards that undergo supervisory stress tests every other year, this means that in the year that the firm is subject to the stress test, stress capital buffer requirements are based on the average of aggregate common equity tier 1 capital declines in the most recent stress test and the stress test that took place two years prior. In the year that the firm is not subject to the supervisory stress test, stress capital buffer requirements are, in effect, solely based on the results from the last year's test since the calculation considers the average of only one number. Under this alternative, if a firm does not participate in the stress test, the common equity tier 1 capital decline for that year is treated as a missing observation for the purposes of computing the firm's stress capital buffer. This alternative deviates from results averaging under the proposal, which applies over a two-year period.
Under this alternative, all the elements of the current framework remain the same with two exceptions: (1) a firm would have until January 1, instead of October 1, to comply with their stress capital buffer requirements, and (2) a firm's final stress capital buffer requirement is informed by the current year's as well as last year's supervisory stress test results. If a firm's maximum common equity tier 1 capital decline projected in the current year's stress test is larger than the projected decline in the prior year's stress test, then its stress capital buffer requirement would be based on the average of these two results. However, if the maximum common equity tier 1 capital decline projected in the current year's stress test is smaller than the decline in the prior year's stress test, the firm's stress capital buffer requirement would be based on only the current year's supervisory stress test results. This alternative
Under this alternative, all elements of the current framework are maintained except that (1) a firm would have until January 1, instead of October 1, to comply with its stress capital buffer requirement, and (2) results averaging would be applied (a) over the previous two years for firms that go through annual supervisory stress tests; and (b) up to three years for firms that go through supervisory stress tests once every two years. For firms subject to annual supervisory stress tests, this means that the stress capital buffer requirement in the current year is based on the average of aggregate common equity tier 1 capital declines from their two most recent stress tests. For firms subject to Category IV standards that undergo supervisory stress tests every other year, this means that in the year that a firm is subject to the stress test, its stress capital buffer requirement is based on the average of aggregate common equity tier 1 capital declines in the most recent stress test and the stress test that took place two years prior. In the year that the firm is not subject to the supervisory stress test, its stress capital buffer requirements is solely based on the results from the last year's test.
This section provides an assessment of the benefits and costs of the proposal and alternatives relative to the current framework. The proposal and alternatives presented in the previous sections have different costs and benefits that arise from their heterogenous implications for the volatility of the stress capital buffer requirement, its average level, its sensitivity to current risks, and the timeliness of stress capital buffer requirement revisions.
The Board recalculated stress capital buffer requirements using historical data to quantitatively describe what the stress capital buffer requirement results would have been under the proposal and each alternative. This analysis provides an understanding of how the proposed changes would have affected capital requirements in recent years. The results are presented in Table 1.
The analysis in Table 1 uses supervisory stress test results from 2018 to 2024.
Under the current framework and under alternatives that do not require averaging, a firm's stress capital buffer requirement in a given year is calculated as the common equity tier 1 ratio decline in the supervisory stress test plus the dividend-add on for that particular year,
Under an averaging approach, a firm's stress capital buffer requirement for a given year is calculated as the average of the common equity tier 1 capital ratio declines observed in the supervisory stress tests of the current and previous years plus the dividend add-on for that particular year, with the result floored at 2.5 percent. Volatility is measured as the absolute value of the year-on-year change in the stress capital buffer requirement.
The average data-to-implementation gap is defined as the average time elapsed between the financial statements used for stress capital buffer requirement calculations and the effective date of those requirements. The stress test results published in June primarily use financial data from the previous December, with the resulting capital buffer becoming effective in October of the same year. This process results in a time lag of 9 months. In contrast, a two-year averaging regime would incorporate financial statements from both the previous December and the December prior. This approach yields an average time lag of 15 months, calculated as the mean of 9 months (for the most recent data) and 21 months (for the older data). Further, extending the effective date by one quarter would add 3 months to the data-to-implementation gap calculation. In other words, the proposal, which involves two-year averaging and a one-quarter delay, would yield an average data-to-implementation gap of 18 months, calculated as the mean of 12 months for most recent data and 24 months for the older data.
As expected, options with averaging tend to feature less stress capital buffer requirement volatility, while options with delayed effective dates provide firms more time to comply. Another observation from this analysis is that the interaction of results averaging with the 2.5 percent floor can lead to a small reduction in the overall level of stress capital buffer requirements. Such a reduction can occur when the requirement for a specific firm is at the 2.5 percent floor one year and above the floor in another. This nonlinear effect affects firms whose stress capital buffer requirements fluctuate around the 2.5 percent floor rather than those that are consistently above or equal to the floor.
As shown in Table 1, the proposal reduces year-over-year changes in a firm's stress capital buffer requirement from an average of 65 basis points under the current framework to 54 basis points (or about 17 percent). The proposal would generally maintain the current average level of the stress capital buffer requirement. Under the proposal, the average stress capital buffer requirement would be 3.82 percentage points versus 3.88 percentage points under the current framework. Moreover, firms' estimated time to comply is one quarter more than under the current framework and the average data-to-implementation gap increases by seven months.
The primary concern with this approach is the slower responsiveness of stress capital buffer requirements to changes in firm risk profiles and economic conditions. Averaging results over two years and incorporating a longer gap between the estimation of stress capital buffer requirement and their effective dates can result in a less timely requirement.
The proposed results averaging has an uneven impact across firm categories. While results averaging meaningfully reduces the volatility of the stress capital buffer requirements for firms subject to annual supervisory stress tests (as shown in Table 1), it offers minimal reduction in volatility to firms subject to biennial supervisory stress tests. These firms face less volatility than others in the current framework as they are only subject to stress tests every other year. However, this does not mean firms subject to Category IV standards do not benefit from the proposed rule, as these firms could choose to be subject to results averaging by participating in consecutive annual supervisory stress tests. In addition, the one quarter delay feature of the proposed rule applies to firms of all categories.
The proposed rule provides more stable capital requirements for firms. By smoothing the impact of annual fluctuations in supervisory stress test results, firms may be able to develop
Reduced volatility in capital requirements would mitigate the likelihood of firms needing to raise external capital, reduce dividends, and/or shrink balance sheets and the provision of banking services in response to an unexpected and material increase in the stress capital buffer requirement.
In addition, the extended timeline would further enable better planning and decision-making by firms. With an additional three months, firms can more thoroughly assess options for meeting their new stress capital buffer requirements, lessening the risk of a curtailment in credit provisioning or other services. Moreover, firms would have additional time to retain earnings and better prepare to manage large increases in stress capital buffer requirements before turning to raising external financing or changing their business activities. In the long run, this extended compliance period could potentially lead to lower management buffers as well. As firms have more time to adjust and plan, they may feel less pressure to maintain large discretionary buffers to deal with stress capital buffer requirement uncertainty. The increased predictability and reduced time pressure could allow firms to operate with capital levels that more closely align with activities and risk exposures, improving capital efficiency without meaningfully affecting safety and soundness.
Alternative 1 maintains the benefits and costs associated with the additional three months to meet changes in the stress capital buffer requirement, as discussed above. Reducing year-over-year fluctuations in capital requirements enhances predictability and stability for firms. However, merely postponing the implementation date does not alter the volatility of the stress capital buffer requirement. An advantage of this alternative relative to the proposed rule is, however, its simplicity. While maintaining the current risk sensitivity of the stress capital buffer requirement, this extension would benefit all firms subject to Category I-IV standards without significantly altering the current regulatory framework.
Overall, while this alternative is expected to provide positive net benefits compared to the baseline, it offers smaller net benefits than the proposal.
Alternative 2 maintains the benefits and costs associated with reduced volatility, as discussed above. However, it does not include the benefits and costs related to the added time to come into compliance with changes to the stress capital requirement. Particularly, this alternative offers minimal advantage to firms subject to biennial supervisory stress tests. The proposal, on the other hand, applies the same averaging method while granting an additional quarter to firms of all categories. The benefit of this approach over the proposal is more timeliness in the stress capital buffer requirement. Overall, while this alternative is expected to provide positive net benefits compared to the baseline, it offers smaller net benefits than the proposal.
As shown in Table 1, this alternative reduces year-over-year changes in a firm's stress capital buffer requirement from an average of 65 basis points under the baseline to 39 basis points (or about 40 percent), while yielding a modest decline in the aggregate level of the stress capital buffer requirement, from an average of 3.88 percentage points under the baseline to 3.74 percentage points. The time firms have to comply with the new stress capital buffer requirement does not change under this alternative relative to the baseline.
Similar to the proposal and Alternative 2, the main drawback of Alternative 3 is reduced timeliness and sensitivity to current economic conditions and firm risk profiles. This alternative leads to an even higher time gap due to averaging over a longer time horizon, as shown by an average data-to-implementation gap of 21 months. This difference may lead to a more pronounced disconnect between regulatory requirements and the risks on firms' balance sheets, potentially lowering the effectiveness of the capital adequacy framework for firms.
This approach shares similar benefits as in the proposal and Alternative 2 in that by smoothing out the impact of annual fluctuations in stress test results, firm
Table 1 in this section D shows that the average year-over-year volatility decreases from 65 basis points under the baseline to 54 basis points under this alternative (a reduction of about 17 percent). This alternative modestly lowers the average stress capital buffer requirement levels relative to historical values (a reduction from 3.88 percent under the baseline to 3.73 percent under this alternative). The latter result indicates that, relative to the baseline, averaging only when common equity tier 1 capital declines in the stress tests are larger would lead to a lower overall level of stress capital buffer requirements.
Further, the results in Table 1 demonstrate that this alternative is similar in terms of reducing stress capital buffer volatility. This similarity can be attributed to two offsetting factors. First, asymmetric averaging does not smooth out decreases, which contribute to volatility. Thus, this factor increases volatility relative to the proposal. Second, the 2.5 percent floor becomes binding more frequently under this alternative, which reduces volatility relative to the proposal. The floor becomes binding more frequently because this alternative lowers the average level of the stress capital buffer, as explained above, making the floor more relevant.
Similar to the proposal, a cost of this alternative is slower responsiveness of stress capital buffer requirements to changes in firm risk profiles and economic conditions. Another cost of this alternative is that applying averaging only when stress losses are steeper would lead to modestly lower
An advantage of this method is its alignment with the asymmetric costs firms face when adjusting their capital in response to changing minimum requirements. While responding to increases in capital requirements can be costly and challenging for firms, especially over short periods, firms typically find it easier to adjust capital levels downward. This alternative acknowledges this asymmetry, allowing for more rapid capital reductions when risk decreases, while providing more time for firms to prepare against sudden, potentially disruptive increases in capital requirements when risks increase. As a result, this alternative may offer a less expensive framework for firms to manage their capital levels.
As shown in Table 1, this alternative reduces year-over-year changes in a firm's stress capital buffer requirement from an average of 65 basis points under the baseline to 52 basis points (or about 20 percent), while yielding a modest decline in the aggregate level of the stress capital buffer requirement, from an average of 3.88 percentage points under the baseline to 3.78 percentage points. The time firms have to comply with the new stress capital buffer requirement is extended by one quarter under this alternative relative to the baseline.
Alternative 5 shares the general costs and benefits of alternatives involving averaging. An additional benefit relative to the proposal is that firms subject to Category IV standards, which face less volatility in the current framework as they are only subject to stress tests every other year, would benefit from a further reduction in stress capital buffer requirement volatility. Moreover, an advantage over the three-year averaging for all firms (Alternative 3) is that this method extends averaging results up to three years only to those firms subject to biennial supervisory stress tests. Consequently, it has a significantly smaller overall average gap between data collection and implementation.
The downside of this alternative relative to the proposal and alternatives that are based on two-year averaging is that for most firms subject to Category IV standards, this alternative would reduce the ability for a timely adjustment of stress capital buffer requirements in response to new risks or rapid shifts in the economic landscape.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), the Board 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 Board reviewed the information collections related to the proposed rule under the authority delegated to the Board by OMB.
The proposed rule would not create any information collections subject to the PRA; however, the Board proposes to revise the FR Y-14 reports to improve supervisory stress test modeling and the calculation of stress capital buffer requirements by enhancing the collection of information used to assess a firm's risk profile. Specifically, the revisions would implement various changes that would isolate non-recurring expenses and increase the granularity of data on compensation expenses.
The Board invites public comment on the following information collection:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Board's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the Board's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the information 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.
• The annual FR Y-14A collects quantitative projections of balance sheet, income, losses, and capital across a range of macroeconomic scenarios and qualitative information on methodologies used to develop internal projections of capital across scenarios.
• The quarterly FR Y-14Q collects granular data on various asset classes, including loans, securities, trading assets, and pre-provision net revenue (PPNR) for the reporting period.
• The monthly FR Y-14M is comprised of three retail portfolio- and loan-level schedules, and one detailed address-matching schedule to supplement two of the portfolio- and loan-level schedules.
The data collected through the FR Y-14A/Q/M reports (FR Y-14 reports) provide the Board with the information needed to help ensure that large firms have strong, firm-wide risk measurement and management processes supporting their internal assessments of capital adequacy and that their capital resources are sufficient, given their business focus, activities, and resulting risk exposures. The data within the reports are used in connection with setting firms' stress capital buffer requirements. The data are also used to support other Board supervisory efforts aimed at enhancing the continued viability of large firms, including continuous monitoring of firms' planning and management of liquidity and funding resources, as well as regular assessments of credit risk, market risk, and operational risk, and associated risk management practices. Information gathered in this collection is also used in the supervision and regulation of respondent financial institutions. Respondent firms are currently required to complete and submit up to 17 filings each year: one annual FR Y-14A filing, four quarterly FR Y-14Q filings, and 12 monthly FR Y-14M filings.
Total compensation expense is composed of salaries, variable pay, and employee benefits. The compensation structure for certain business lines, including financial advisors in a firm's wealth management business, is generally determined as a ratio of compensable revenue, which is a portion of total revenue attributable to the financial advisor. As a result, the key driver of compensation change is the amount of compensable revenue generated. During a period of economic stress, this form of variable pay may decline quickly. This differs from fixed compensation expenses, such as salaries, which tend to be more stable during periods of stress because a firm may take time to assess the severity of the downturn before determining if reductions are appropriate.
FR Y-14Q, Schedule G (PPNR) does not currently segment the portion of total compensation that is variable in a firm's business. Therefore, the supervisory stress test may not adequately consider the role of variable compensation or the correlation between compensation and compensable revenue. To ensure that the supervisory stress test results reflect this compensation structure, the Board proposes to add two new items to Schedule G (items 28.F (Compensable Revenues) and 28.G (Commissions from WM or FA activities)) to capture data on compensable revenues and commissions on the compensable revenues. For consistency between the FR Y-14Q and the FR Y-14A, the Board also proposes corresponding revisions to FR Y-14A, Schedule A.7.a (PPNR Projections).
Non-recurring expenses are extraordinary or one-time expenses that are not expected to occur in the future. These expenses are distinct from recurring expenses which occur on a regular basis. The FR Y-14 reports do not currently adequately isolate expenses that are known to be due to one-time events.
As non-recurring expenses are not expected to repeat in the future, it may be appropriate to mitigate the influence of these expenses when calculating a firm's stress capital buffer requirement. To systematically identify non-recurring expenses related to business divestitures and the write-down of consolidated investment entities, the Board proposes to revise the instructions for FR Y-14Q, Schedule G.3 (PPNR Metrics), item 47 (Non-recurring PPNR items) to better capture these expenses. Capturing data on these non-recurring expenses would strengthen the risk sensitivity of the supervisory stress test since the Board would have a more comprehensive picture of a firm's expenses and net income.
The Board is also proposing to remove several items that capture information related to non-interest income from servicing activities. These items are no longer needed to conduct the supervisory stress test. Specifically, the Board proposes to remove the following items from FR Y-14A, Schedule A.7.a (PPNR Projections Sub-schedule) and FR Y-14Q, Schedule G.1 (PPNR Submission Worksheet):
• Item 14.J (Servicing & Ancillary Fees);
• Item 14.K (MSR Amortization);
• Item 14.L (MSR Value Changes due to Changes in Assumptions/Model Inputs/Other Net of Hedge Performance); and
• Item 14.M (Other).
In conjunction with these revisions, the Board proposes to revise the instructions for item 14.I (Servicing), on Schedule A.7.a and Schedule G, so that the instructions clearly indicate that all non-interest income related to servicing activities should be reported in item 14.I.
The Board is providing an initial regulatory flexibility analysis with respect to this proposed rule. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The Board has considered the potential impact of the proposed rule on small entities in accordance with the RFA. Based on its analysis and for the reasons stated below, the Board believes that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Nevertheless, the Board is publishing and inviting comment on this initial regulatory flexibility analysis. In connection with this proposal, the Board also proposes to make changes to the Board's reporting forms.
As discussed in detail above, the proposed rule would amend the Board's capital plan rule. Specifically, the proposal would amend the calculation of the Board's stress capital buffer requirement applicable to certain bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies, U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banking organizations, and nonbank financial companies supervised by the Board to reduce the volatility of the stress capital buffer requirement. The proposal would use the average of the maximum common equity tier 1 capital declines projected in each of the Board's prior two annual supervisory stress tests to inform a firm's stress capital buffer requirement. The proposal would also extend the effective date of the stress capital buffer requirement by one quarter, to January 1, to provide additional time for firms to comply with the requirement. In addition, the proposal would make changes to the FR Y-14A/Q/M (Capital Assessments and Stress Testing) reports to collect additional net income data that would improve the accuracy of the stress capital buffer requirement calculation. The changes in the proposal are not expected to materially affect overall capital requirements and would reduce regulatory reporting burden.
As discussed in detail above, several statutory authorities, including the International Lending Supervision Act of 1983,
The International Lending Supervision Act of 1983 provides the Board with broad discretionary authority to set minimum capital levels for state member banks and certain affiliates of insured depository institutions, including holding companies, supervised by the Board.
The proposed rule would apply to bank holding companies, U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banking organizations, and savings and loan holding companies, each with at least $100 billion in total consolidated assets, as well as certain nonbank financial companies supervised by the Board and any other bank holding company or covered savings and loan holding company domiciled in the United States that is made subject to the capital plan rule by order of the Board.
The Board welcomes comment on all aspects of its analysis.
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Pub. L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471, 12 U.S.C. 4809) requires the federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The Board has sought to present the notice of proposed rulemaking in a simple and straightforward manner and invites comment on the use of plain language. For example:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023 (12 U.S.C. 553(b)(4)) requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking include the internet address of a summary of not
The proposal and such a summary can be found at
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, banking, Federal Reserve System, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, banking, Federal Reserve System, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Capital planning, Federal Reserve System, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities, Stress testing.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System proposes to amend 12 CFR chapter II as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(13), 1818, 1828(o), 1831i, 1831p-1, 1843(c)(8), 1844(b), 1972(1), 3106, 3108, 3310, 3331-3351, 3906, 3907, and 3909; 15 U.S.C. 1681s, 1681w, 6801, and 6805.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(d) * * *
(20)
(f) * * *
(1)
(ii) Unless otherwise determined by the Board, a stress capital buffer requirement that is recalculated pursuant to paragraph (f)(3) of this section will be calculated pursuant to the methodology in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section, except that a stress capital buffer requirement that is recalculated following the resubmission of a capital plan pursuant to paragraph (e)(4)(i)(B)(1) of this section will be calculated pursuant to the methodology in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section.
(2)
(A) The following calculation:
(
(
(
(
(B) 2.5 percent.
(ii) For a bank holding company that was not subject to the annual supervisory stress test in the previous calendar year, a bank holding company's stress capital buffer requirement is equal to the greater of:
(A) The following calculation:
(
(
(
(
(B) 2.5 percent.
(4)
(h) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Be effective on January 1 of the year immediately following the calendar year in which a capital plan was submitted pursuant to paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section; and
(i) * * *
(1)
(3) * * *
(i) A request for reconsideration must include a detailed explanation of why reconsideration should be granted (that is, why the stress capital decline of the current capital plan cycle should be reconsidered). With respect to any information that was not previously provided to the Federal Reserve in the bank holding company's capital plan, the request should include an explanation of why the information should be considered.
5 U.S.C. 552, 559; 12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467, 1467a, 1468, 5365; 1813, 1817, 1829e, 1831i, and 1972; 15 U.S.C. 78
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(d) * * *
(18)
(f) * * *
(1)
(ii) Unless otherwise determined by the Board, a stress capital buffer requirement that is recalculated pursuant to paragraph (f)(3) of this section will be calculated pursuant to the methodology in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section, except that a stress capital buffer requirement that is recalculated following the resubmission of a capital plan pursuant to paragraph (e)(4)(i)(B)(1) of this section will be calculated pursuant to the methodology in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section.
(2)
(A) The following calculation:
(
(
(
(
(B) 2.5 percent.
(ii) For a covered savings and loan holding company that was not subject to the annual supervisory stress tests in the previous calendar year, a covered savings and loan holding company's stress capital buffer requirement is equal to the greater of:
(A) The following calculation:
(
(
(
(
(B) 2.5 percent.
(4)
(h) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Be effective on January 1 of the year immediately following the calendar year in which a capital plan was submitted pursuant to paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section; and
(i) * * *
(1)
(3) * * *
(i) A request for reconsideration must include a detailed explanation of why reconsideration should be granted (that is, why the stress capital decline of the current capital plan cycle should be reconsidered). With respect to any information that was not previously provided to the Federal Reserve in the covered savings and loan holding company's capital plan, the request should include an explanation of why the information should be considered.
12 U.S.C. 321-338a, 481-486, 1467a, 1818, 1828, 1831n, 1831o, 1831p-1, 1831w, 1835, 1844(b), 1844(c), 3101
6. Amend appendix B to part 252 by removing and reserving section 2.3.
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
This action withdraws the NPRM published in the
Effective as of 0901 UTC, April 22, 2025, the proposed rule published March 20, 2025 (90 FR 13111), is withdrawn.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
An NPRM was published in the
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the NPRM published in the
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a regulated navigation area to control vessel movement for certain waters of Lake Michigan, the Ludington Harbor Channel, and Pere Marquette Lake in Ludington, MI. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life, environment, and property on these navigable waters due to hazardous conditions resulting from increased vessel traffic congestion. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2024-1102 using the Federal Decision-Making Portal at
For information about this document, call or email Lieutenant Commander Jessica Anderson, Sector Lake Michigan Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 414-216-8428, email
Beginning in August 2022, the Coast Guard was notified that sporadic high concentrations of vessels operating in the vicinity of the narrow waters of the Ludington Harbor Channel and Pere Marquette Lake in Ludington, MI, were creating safety and navigation concerns for larger vessels transiting these same waters. Of particular concern, large commercial vessels were forced to take emergent action on several occasions to avoid imminent collision with these highly concentrated vessels. These hazardous conditions were not always present, but arose sporadically, primarily in connection with popular local fishing seasons. Similar concerns were brought to the Coast Guard in the summer and fall of 2023 and 2024.
The purpose of this Regulated Navigation Area is to address safety concerns due to the above hazardous levels of vessel traffic congestion in the Ludington Harbor Channel and Pere Marquette Lake in Ludington, MI. The goal is to prevent loss of life, vessel collisions and groundings, environmental damage, and loss of property resulting from conflicts between varied users of these navigable waterways. These proposed regulations are intended to encompass fishing vessels, pleasure craft, ferries, tow boats, deep draft vessels, and other commercial vessel traffic. This proposed regulation is necessary due to a significant increase in risks to safety and hazardous conditions due to high volumes of traffic, combined with a unique layout of the navigable waters and relatively narrow channel, requiring additional means to protect waterways users as normal navigation rules are not sufficient. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034.
The Ninth District Commander is proposing to establish a regulated navigation area which would be enforced only when hazardous levels of vessel traffic congestion (“Congestion”) exist. Operations potentially creating Congestion include, but are not limited to, vessels engaged in fishing, recreational fishing derbies, regattas, or permitted marine events. The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan (“COTP”) will determine when Congestion exists and will notify the public via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and other comparable public notice and will coordinate and inform the harbormaster of Ludington before enforcement of the Regulated Navigation Area. When Congestion exists, vessels and all waterways users, with the exception of Federal or State entities operating in official capacity, would be required to maintain a distance of 440 yards from the bow, 100 yards from the stern, and 35 yards from the port and starboard side of any commercial or recreational vessels greater than 100 feet in length transiting into or out of the Ludington Harbor Channel, starting at 1,000 yards outside the Ludington Harbor entrance and encompassing all navigable waterways within the Ludington Harbor Channel and Pere Marquette Lake.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. A summary of our analyses based on these statutes or Executive orders follows.
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 NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the characteristics of the regulated navigation area. The proposed rule is expected to place minimal restrictions on vessel movement and is designed to minimize impact on navigable waters. Vessels may still transit through the regulated navigation area and the impact will be short in duration.
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 certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated navigation area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed 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
This proposed rule would call for no 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it 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. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian Tribes, please call or email the person listed in the
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 million (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Although this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishment of a regulated navigation area which would be enforced only when Congestion exists. During this period of enforcement, vessels would be permitted to operate, albeit it with limited navigation restrictions when large commercial vessels are transiting the regulated waters. Accordingly, it is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of appendix A, table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) Vessels and all waterways users must maintain a distance of 440 yards from the bow, 100 yards from the stern, and 35 yards from the port and starboard side of any vessel greater than 100 feet in length transiting through the regulated navigation area as described in paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) Federal, State, or local entities operating in official capacity are excepted from this paragraph (d).
(3) In an emergency, the master, pilot, or person directing the movement of the vessel may deviate from this section to the extent necessary to avoid endangering persons, property, or the environment, and shall report the deviation to the United States Coast Guard via VHF channel 16 as soon as possible.
(4) Violations of this section should be reported to the Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan at (414) 747-7182 or on VHF-Channel 16. Vessels or persons in violation of this section may be subject to the civil and/or criminal penalties set forth in 46 U.S.C. 70036.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Sabine Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold a public meeting according to the details shown below. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act, as well as make recommendations on recreation fee proposals for sites on the Sabine National Forest within Sabine and Shelby County, consistent with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.
An in-person meeting will be held on May 6, 2025, 4 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Central Daylight Time.
All committee meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
This meeting will be held in-person at the Sabine National Forest District Office, located at 5050 State Highway 21 East, Hemphill, Texas 75948. Committee information and meeting details can be found by contacting the persons listed under
Jimmy Tyree, Designated Federal Officer, by phone at (935) 707-2286 or email at
The purpose of the meeting is to cover the following:
1. Project status update;
2. Hear from Title II project proponents and discuss Title II project proposals;
3. Make funding recommendations on Title II projects;
4. Approve meeting minutes; and
5. Schedule the next meeting.
The agenda will include time for individuals to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should make a request in writing at least three days prior to the meeting date to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments may be submitted to the Forest Service up to 14 days after the meeting date listed under
Please contact the person listed under
Equal opportunity practices, in accordance with USDA policies, will be followed in all membership appointments to the committee.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that
Applicable April 22, 2025.
Brittany Bauer or Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3860 or (202) 482-2243, respectively.
On July 9, 2024, Commerce published the
The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
The product
In the
We addressed the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is included in Appendix I to this notice.
Based on our review of the record, including comments received from interested parties, we have made changes to the
The Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely {on the basis of facts available}.”
For these final results, we have calculated a weighted-average dumping margin for Allied and Indocan that is not zero,
Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period November 23, 2021, through May 31, 2023:
Commerce
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
Because the weighted-average dumping margins for Allied and Indocan are not zero or
Consistent with Commerce's assessment practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Allied or Indocan for which they did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
For the companies listed in Appendix II, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on any suspended entries that entered under the CBP case numbers of those companies (
For the companies that were not selected for individual examination (
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for Allied and Indocan will be the weighted-average dumping margins established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the producer has been covered in a prior completed segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 5.87 percent, as established in the original LTFV investigation.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on stainless steel flanges from India covering the period of review (POR) January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023, because, as explained below, there are no reviewable suspended entries for the three companies subject to this review.
Applicable April 22, 2025.
Sun Cho, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6458.
On October 1, 2024, Commerce published in the
On November 14, 2024, Commerce published in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if all parties who requested a review withdraw their requests within 90 days of the date that the notice of initiation of the requested review was published in the
Moreover, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of a CVD order where Commerce concludes that there were no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
As Commerce has proceeded to a final rescission of this administrative review, no cash deposit rates will change. Accordingly, the current cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries. Countervailing duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required to the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 18 CFR 351.21.(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this rescission notice in the
This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of the APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with regulations and terms of an APO is a violation, which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT or Committee) will hold an open in-person meeting on Tuesday, June 10, 2025, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time, and Wednesday, June 11, 2020, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Eastern Time with a virtual option for VCAT members only to ensure the ability to meet quorum.
The VCAT will meet on Tuesday, June 10, 2025, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time, and Wednesday, June 11, 2020, from 9a.m. to 1 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held at the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence, 9700 Great Seneca Highway, Rockville, Maryland, 20850 with an option to participate via Zoom for VCAT members only. Please note admittance instructions under the
Stephanie Shaw, VCAT, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1060, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-1060, telephone number 240-446-6000. Ms. Shaw's email address is
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1001
Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Committee's business are invited to request a place on the agenda by no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Tuesday, May 27, 2025, by contacting Stephanie Shaw at
All meeting attendees, including NIST staff, are required to pre-register to be admitted. Limited space is available on a first-come, first-served basis for anyone who wishes to attend in person. Please submit your name, time of arrival, email address, and phone number to Stephanie Shaw,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is
This hybrid meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 6, 2025, at 9 a.m.
Cate O'Keefe, Ph.D., Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Climate and Ecosystem Steering Committee will meet to begin work on any Council tasking related to the New England State of the Ecosystem Report. They will receive updates from the Risk Policy Working Group. The committee will also develop a work plan for its two sub-committees (communication and process mapping). They will also continue to coordinate with NOAA's Climate, Ecosystem, and Fisheries Initiative. Other business will be discussed, if necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Cate O'Keefe, Ph.D., Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
In notice document 2025-06588, appearing on pages 16111-16112, in the issue of Thursday, April 17, 2025, make the following correction:
On page 16111, in the third column, in the
Take notice that on April 10, 2025, Northwest Pipeline LLC (Northwest), Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, filed an application under section 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization for its Kemmerer Horsepower Replacement Project (Project) in Lincoln County, Wyoming. Specifically, the Project would include the abandonment in place of four existing reciprocating compressor units and one legacy gas turbine compressor unit (total of 13,200 ISO-rated horsepower (HP) (9,637 site-rated)) to be replaced with one new Solar Mars 90 turbine-driven unit (13,220 ISO-rated HP (8,936 site-rated HP)) and additional ancillary facilities and piping at the Kemmerer Compressor Station. The Project is part of Northwest's Modernization and Emissions Reduction (MER) Program
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to Jasmine Turner, Regulatory Analyst, Northwest Pipeline LLC, Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, by phone at (281) 455-7922 or by email at
Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file comments on the project, you can protest the filing, and you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 7, 2025. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments may include statements of support or objections, to the project as a whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Pursuant to sections 157.10(a)(4)
To ensure that your comments or protests are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before May 7, 2025.
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments or protests to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number CP25-204-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website at
(2) You may file your comments or protests electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments or protests by mailing them to the following address below. Your written comments must reference the Project docket number CP25-204-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1 and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. However, the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding. For instructions on how to intervene, see below.
Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses, municipalities, and other entities,
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
For more information about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at
(1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below. Your motion to
The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail or email at: Jasmine Turner, Regulatory Analyst, Northwest Pipeline LLC, Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, or by email at
All timely, unopposed
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
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 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
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
l.
To preserve water storage in Lake Pillsbury and conserve cold water for downstream aquatic resources, the licensee proposes to release flows below Scott Dam (as measured at gage E-2) to be consistent with a critical water year type minimum flow of 20 cubic feet per second (cfs). However, actual releases would be closer to the minimum facility limitation of 35 cfs from the low-level outlet. In addition, the licensee would reduce minimum flows in the East Branch Russian River (as measured at gage E-16) to match the dry water year minimum flow requirement of 25 cfs with the flexibility to further reduce flows to the critical water year requirement of 5 cfs, depending on water availability, safety concerns, and water temperature conditions in the Eel River. After September 30, 2025, the licensee would resume the dry water year flow release of 25 cfs. In addition, the licensee requests that compliance with the minimum flow requirement in the Eel River below Cape Horn Dam (as measured at gage E-11) be modified to a 24-hour average instead of an instantaneous requirement to allow for a tighter compliance buffer.
The licensee's request also includes provisions for water temperature and biological monitoring, environmental mitigation, and monthly consultation throughout implementation of the proposed variance. The licensee requests that the variance begin immediately upon Commission approval and conclude when Lake Pillsbury storage exceeds 36,000 acre-feet following October 1, 2025, or is superseded by another variance or license amendment.
m.
n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
o.
p.
q. The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, Tribal members, and others access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
On April 14, 2025, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (Wyoming DEQ) submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) notice that it received a request for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification as defined in 40 CFR 121.5, from Black Canyon Hydro, LLC, in conjunction with the above captioned project on March 7, 2025.
If Wyoming DEQ fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before the above date, then the certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
On April 9, 2025, Missisquoi, LLC submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) documentation from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (Vermont DEC) that it received a request for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification as defined in 40 CFR 121.5, from Missisquoi, LLC, in conjunction with the above captioned project on April 2, 2025. Pursuant to the Commission's regulations,
If Vermont DEC fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before the above date, then the certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
On April 10, 2025, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (New York DEC) submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) notice that it received a request for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification as defined in 40 CFR 121.5, from Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P., in conjunction with the above captioned project on April 9, 2025. Pursuant to the Commission's regulations,
If New York DEC fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before the above date, then the certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of data availability.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice of the availability of data on emission allowance allocations to certain units under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) trading programs. EPA has completed final calculations for the allocations of allowances from the new unit set-asides (NUSAs) for the 2024 control periods and has posted
April 22, 2025.
Questions concerning this action should be addressed to Morgan Riedel at (202) 564-1144 or
Under each CSAPR trading program where EPA is responsible for determining emission allowance allocations, a portion of each state's emissions budget for the program for each control period is reserved in a NUSA (and, under most of the trading programs, in an additional Indian country NUSA in the case of states with Indian country within their borders) for allocation to certain units that would not otherwise receive allowance allocations. The procedures for identifying the eligible units for each control period and for allocating allowances from the NUSAs and Indian country NUSAs to these units are set forth in the CSAPR trading program regulations at 40 CFR 97.411(b) and 97.412 (NO
In a notice of data availability (NODA) published in the
The detailed unit-by-unit data and final allowance allocation calculations are set forth in Excel spreadsheets titled “CSAPR_NUSA_2024_NOx_Annual_Final_Data_New_Units,” “CSAPR_NUSA_2024_NOx_OS_Final_Data_New_Units,” “CSAPR_NUSA_2024_SO
EPA notes that an allocation or lack of allocation of allowances to a given unit under a given CSAPR trading program does not constitute a determination that the trading program does or does not apply to the unit. EPA also notes that, under 40 CFR 97.411(c), 97.511(c), 97.611(c), 97.711(c), and 97.811(c), allocations are subject to potential correction if a unit to which allowances have been allocated for a given control period is not actually an affected unit as of the start of that control period.
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. 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 of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before June 23, 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.
This voluntary collection was implemented in a letter that was sent, following the FCC's Second E911 Coordination Initiative, to pertinent state officials who had been appointed
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
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.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the 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 7, 2025.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
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 7, 2025.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
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
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 22, 2025.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Federal Acquisition Service, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice; request for comments.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding the Transfer Order-Surplus Personal Property and Continuation Sheet, Standard Form (SF) 123.
Submit comments on or before: May 22, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Mr. Christopher Willett, Property Disposal Specialist, GSA Office of Personal Property Management, at telephone 703-605-2873 or via email to
The Transfer Order-Surplus Personal Property and Continuation Sheet, Standard form (SF) 123, is used by a State Agency for Surplus Property (SASP) to donate Federal surplus personal property to public agencies, nonprofit educational or public health activities, programs for the elderly, service educational activities, and public airports. The SF 123 serves as the transfer instrument and includes item descriptions, transportation instructions, nondiscrimination assurances, and approval signatures.
A 60-day notice published in the
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, 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 the following meetings.
The meetings 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.
National Institutes of Health, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The National Cancer Institute, an institute of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an Exclusive Patent License to practice the inventions embodied in the patents applications listed in the
Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the National Cancer Institute's Technology Transfer Center on or before April 22, 2025 will be considered.
Requests for copies of the patent application, inquiries, and comments relating to the contemplated an Exclusive Patent License should be directed to: Whitney Hastings, Ph.D., Senior Technology Transfer Manager, NCI Technology Transfer Center, Telephone: (301)-624-1286; Email:
1. US Provisional Patent Application No. 63/037,058 filed June 10, 2020, and entitled “Size-Dependent Brain and Lymphatic Distribution of Macromolecular Drug Delivery Platform” [HHS Reference No. E-078-2020-0-US-01];
2. US Patent Cooperation Treaty Application No. PCT/US2021/036548 filed June 9, 2021, and entitled “Size-Dependent Brain and Lymphatic Distribution of Macromolecular Drug Delivery Platform” [HHS Reference No. E-078-2020-0-PCT-02];
3. U.S. National Stage Application No. 18/009,710 filed December 9, 2022, and entitled “Size-Dependent Brain and Lymphatic Distribution of Macromolecular Drug Delivery Platform” [HHS Reference No. E-078-2020-0-US-06];
4. Australia National Stage Application No. 2021289443 filed January 3, 2023, and entitled “Size-Dependent Brain and Lymphatic Distribution of Macromolecular Drug Delivery Platform” [HHS Reference No. E-078-2020-0-AU-03];
5. Canada National Stage Application No. 3186654 filed June 9, 2021, and entitled “Size-Dependent Brain and Lymphatic Distribution of Macromolecular Drug Delivery Platform” [HHS Reference No. E-078-2020-0-CA-04]; and
6. European Patent National Stage Application No. 21822452.5 filed January 5, 2023, and entitled “Size-Dependent Brain and Lymphatic Distribution of Macromolecular Drug Delivery Platform” [HHS Reference No. E-078-2020-0-EP-05].
The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the Government of the United States of America.
The prospective exclusive license territory may be worldwide and the field of use may be limited to the following:
“Use of the Patent Rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize a poly (L-lysine succinylated) (PLS) alpha-galactosylceramide prodrug for human and veterinary uses in the treatment of cancer.”
This technology describes a drug delivery platform comprising a negatively charged, synthetic polymer, PLS, which specifically targets scavenger receptor A1 (SR-A1). The
The scope of exclusivity for this license will be limited to the PLS-alpha-galactosylceramide prodrug for the treatment of cancers. Other fields of use will still be available if this license is granted, including use of the PLS-alpha-galactosylceramide prodrug for non-oncology indications and the PLS platform conjugated to other therapeutic agents.
This Notice is made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing, and the prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the National Cancer Institute receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.
Complete applications for a license that are timely filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive patent license. In response to this Notice, the public may file comments or objections. Comments and objections, other than those in the form of a license application, will not be treated confidentially, and may be made publicly available.
License applications submitted in response to this Notice will be presumed to contain business confidential information and any release of information in these license applications will be made only as required and upon a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
30-day notice of reinstatement and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. FEMA invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved information collection. In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the National Household Survey on Disaster Preparedness, which identifies progress and gaps in individual and community preparedness, and to better understand the motivational factors and barriers to preparedness that people face.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 22, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, email address
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) (Pub. L. 93-288, as amended) (42 U.S.C. 5195-5195(a)) identifies the purpose of emergency preparedness “for the protection of life and property in the United States from hazards.” It directs that the Federal Government “provide necessary direction, coordination, and guidance” as authorized for a comprehensive emergency preparedness system for all hazards. Emergency preparedness is defined as all “activities and measures designed or undertaken to prepare or minimize the effects of a hazard upon the civilian population . . .” The “conduct of research” is among the measures to be undertaken in preparation for hazards.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Strategic Plan 2020-2024 includes Goal 5 to “strengthen preparedness and resiliency.” The first objective (5.1) of this goal is to “build a national culture of preparedness” with a sub-objective to “improve awareness initiatives to encourage public action to increase preparedness.” Similarly, in FEMA's 2022-2026 Strategic Plan, Goal 3 is to “promote and sustain a ready FEMA and prepared nation.”
Presidential Policy Directive-8 (PPD-8) directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to “coordinate a comprehensive campaign to build and sustain national preparedness, including public outreach and community-based and private sector programs to enhance national resilience, the provision of Federal financial assistance, preparedness efforts by the Federal Government, and national research and development efforts.”
The Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA) (Pub. L. 109-295) (6 U.S.C. 749(a)) requires the FEMA Administrator, in coordination with the National Council on Disability and the National Advisory Council, to establish a comprehensive system to assess, on an ongoing basis, the Nation's prevention capabilities and overall preparedness, including operational readiness.
In response to the charge to FEMA, and to the DHS and FEMA strategic priorities, FEMA manages programs to improve the public's knowledge and actions for preparedness and resilience. Information from this collection will be used to changes in knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to preparedness in the general public. This information collection will be in the form of a public opinion survey administered to a sample of American adults across the nation. The nature of the information collected will focus on people's attitudes, behaviors, and motivations
This proposed information collection previously published in the
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
30-Day notice.
This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0068, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval of a revision of the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The collection involves gathering information from individuals who plan to visit all TSA facilities in the National Capital Region (NCR).
Send your comments by May 22, 2025. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Information Technology, TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 6595 Springfield Center Drive, Springfield, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email
TSA published a
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.
TSA is submitting TSA Forms 2802 and 2816B as Common Forms to permit Federal agency users beyond the agency that created the form (
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
30-Day notice.
This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0064, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval of an extension of the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection involves an application completed by airport operators interested in using a qualified private screening company to perform security screening functions under a contract entered into with TSA instead of Federal employees.
Send your comments by May 22, 2025. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Information Technology, TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 6595 Springfield Center Drive, Springfield, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email
TSA published a
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.
On December 28, 2023, the then-Administrator issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration (OSC/ISO) to Svetlana Burtman, N.P., of Tucson, Arizona (Respondent). OSC/ISO, at 1. The OSC/ISO informs Respondent of the immediate suspension of her Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) Certificate of Registration, No. MB2645767, pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
More specifically, the OSC/ISO alleges that Respondent (1) dispensed controlled substances from an unregistered location, in violation of 21 CFR 1301.12(a) (a separate registration is required for each principal place of business or professional practice where controlled substances are dispensed), (2) failed to maintain, readily retrievable from her ordinary business records, a complete and accurate record of each controlled substance received, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 827(a)(3) and 827(b) and 21 CFR 1304.04(a) and 1304.21(a), and (3) failed to maintain the requisite dispensing logs, in violation of 21 CFR 1304.22(c).
Respondent requested a hearing.
Respondent's first factual Exception concerns “Conclusions Regarding the 2021 Investigation” and states, in essence, that the Chief ALJ wrongly denied Respondent the opportunity to present one of the several attorneys who represented her during the “2021 Investigation” as a rebuttal witness. Exceptions, at 4. That rebuttal witness, according to the first factual Exception, would testify that the United States Attorney's Office “never informed [him] of any purported regulatory violations arising from the 2021 visit.”
The Agency rejects Respondent's first factual Exception. The violations alleged in the OSC/ISO do not date back to 2021, and matters dating back to 2021 are not factually relevant to the Agency's adjudication of the allegations. Further, the Agency rejects Respondent's theory that, if a registrant's “storage and record-keeping practices” are compliant in one year, the registrant may maintain a “reasonable belief” that she will remain compliant going forward regardless of changes in the registrant's practices or without the registrant continuously monitoring for required changes.
The content of Respondent's first factual Exception, however, indicates a pattern of Respondent's failure to follow up with DEA staff about their encounters.
Respondent's fourth factual Exception states that the Government's case wrongly claims that Respondent had “6 mg Testosterone pellets at the GVC,” because “no such formulation exists in the record.”
Respondent's second, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eleventh factual Exceptions concern the credibility of record evidence. The second factual Exception challenges the credibility of a DEA Investigator's testimony about whether Respondent said that she “did not plan on conducting regulated activities” at GVC.
The Agency carefully evaluated each of these five factual Exceptions. As discussed in this Decision and Order, the Agency's found facts are based on Respondent's own testimony, on Respondent's own evidence, and/or on evidence that Respondent does not contest. Accordingly, Respondent's second, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eleventh factual Exceptions play no role in the Agency's adjudication of the OSC/ISO's allegations and, therefore, the Agency rejects them.
Having carefully reviewed the entire record, the Agency agrees with the RD's recommended sanction of (1) revocation of Respondent's registration and (2) denial of Respondent's GVC registration application.
As already discussed, the OSC/ISO alleges that Respondent violated multiple provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and its implementing regulations.
The OSC/ISO also mentions 21 U.S.C. 1301.72(b)(8)(ii) (“Non-controlled drugs, substances and other materials may be stored with Schedule III through V controlled substances in any of the secure storage areas required by 21 CFR 1301.72(b), provided that permission for such storage of non-controlled items is obtained in advance, in writing, from the Special Agent in Charge of DEA for the area in which such storage area is situated.”). OSC/ISO at 3. The Government's Closing Brief addresses this provision. It does so, however, in only one sentence, followed by a cite to four lines of the transcript about Respondent's registered Tucson location. The Agency finds that the Government did not submit substantial evidence that Respondent violated 21 U.S.C. 1301.72(b)(8)(ii) and, therefore, the Agency does not sustain the 21 U.S.C. 1301.72(b)(8)(ii) allegation.
The OSC/ISO's allegations concern the CSA's “strict requirements regarding registration . . . and recordkeeping” and, therefore, go to the heart of the CSA's “closed regulatory system” specifically designed “to conquer drug abuse and to control the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances,” and “to prevent the diversion of drugs from legitimate to illicit channels.” 545 U.S. at 12-14.
First, the OSC/ISO alleges that Respondent dispensed controlled substances from GVC, an unregistered location. OSC/ISO, at 2-4. According to the applicable CSA regulation, “[a] separate registration is required for each principal place of business or professional practice at one general physical location where controlled substances are . . . dispensed by a
The Agency finds no merit to Respondent's argument that the separate registration requirement is confusing, and that its application to her practice is “unclear.” Her argument relies on guidance documents and other materials applicable to registrants who travel to patients' locations to provide medical treatment (such as patients' homes and, for animals, stables). Those materials do not apply to registrants, such as herself, who transport controlled substances from a practice location that is registered to another practice location that is not registered. For a practitioner such as Respondent, whose business model is to practice at brick and mortar locations to which patients come for medical treatment, the meaning and application of these provisions are clear.
Respondent's first legal Exception, to support her argument that the separate registration requirement is unclear, also cites a proposed rulemaking titled “Principal Place of Business or Professional Practice,” RIN: 1117-AB52, DEA Docket number 474, Fall 2023.” Exceptions, at 18-19. To date, this proposed rulemaking remains in the most incipient stages and explicitly states, similar to the purpose of the so-called “Black Bag” exception, that it concerns “allow[ing] a broader range of practice for practitioners traveling to administer controlled substances.”
Second, the OSC/ISO alleges that Respondent failed to maintain, readily retrievable from her ordinary business records, a complete and accurate record of each controlled substance she received. OSC/ISO, at 3;
Third, the OSC/ISO alleges that Respondent failed to maintain the required controlled substance dispensing logs for her Tucson location. OSC/ISO, at 3. According to the CSA's implementing regulations, a dispenser is to maintain records of, among other things, the “number of units or volume of such finished form dispensed, including the name and address of the person to whom it was dispensed, the date of dispensing, the number of units or volume dispensed, and the written or typewritten name or initials of the individual who dispensed or administered the substance on behalf of the dispenser.”
The Agency finds substantial, uncontroverted record evidence that Respondent's GVC is not, and never has been, a registered location. GX 9 (Respondent's Form 224 GVC registration application showing the submission date as July 19, 2023); Tr. 300 (Respondent testifying that she thought DEA would approve her GVC registration application “quickly,” but “[i]t didn't happen at all”). The Agency finds substantial record evidence that Respondent admitted that she transported controlled substances to GVC, an unregistered location, and that she dispensed controlled substances there by administering them directly to individuals.
The Agency carefully considered Respondent's ninth factual Exception. The Agency rejects it because the precise timing of Respondent's July 19, 2023 GVC dispensing of controlled substances plays no role in this adjudication.
The Agency also finds substantial record evidence that Respondent admitted that she told DEA Investigators that she did not “dispense” controlled substances from GVC.
Q: So when I asked you specifically why you had controlled substances at a non-registered location you stated to me that you were prepping the office. Does that sound accurate to you?
A: I have patients that travel from Tucson to Green Valley location and from Green Valley location to Tucson based on where I'm working, which kind of defeats the purpose of having my two clinics. So, say a patient that comes to Green Valley is from Tucson that was allowed to be dispensed, so this was my train of thought that I was carrying the controlled substances with me.”);
Stipulation Order, at 4 (Stipulation No. 24: “On November 6, 2023, under oath, the Respondent was asked the following question and provided the following answer (Tr. 53:9-15):
Q: Okay. So upon reviewing your controlled substance dispensing logs for the Green Valley location when we did the administrative inspection warrant on September 20, 2023, you had, you were administering controlled substances at an unregistered location since prior to DEA's visit on July 19th; is that true?
A: Yes.”); and
Stipulation Order, at 4 (Stipulation No. 25: “On November 6, 2023, under oath, the Respondent was asked the following question and provided the following answer (Tr. 54:14-19):
Q: Okay. So my question to you: Were you just administering controlled substances at the Green Valley location that was not a DEA registered location?
A: I was, but they were also patients in Tucson. They would come to Tucson just like they come to Green Valley.”).
The Agency carefully considered Respondent's eighth factual Exception and notes the reference to Respondent's “state of mind” on July 19, 2023. This Decision and Order does not conclude that Respondent's “distinction between administering and dispensing” was, or was not, a lie. Instead, Respondent's clear failure to understand and adopt the statutory definitions of “dispense” and “administer” is relevant to whether the Agency can re-entrust Respondent with her Tucson registration and issue her a registration for GVC. 21 U.S.C. 802(2) and 802(10);
Further, the Agency finds substantial, uncontroverted record evidence that DEA Investigators told Respondent and Respondent knew that she needs a registration to dispense or administer controlled substances at GVC. Stipulation Order, at 2 (Stipulation No. 11: “On or about July 19, 2023, DEA investigators informed the Respondent that in order to handle, dispense, and/or administer controlled substances at the Green Valley Clinic location she would have to apply for a separate DEA C[ertificate] O[f] R[egistration] for that address.”); Tr. 294-95 (Respondent testifying that, on July 19, 2023, the DEA Investigators told her that she needed a registration to administer controlled substances at GVC); Stipulation Order, at 2 (Stipulation No. 14); GX 9 (Respondent's GVC registration application showing the submission date of July 31, 2023).
Despite her admission that, on July 19, 2023, she knew that she needed a registration to dispense or administer controlled substances from GVC, Respondent took about 12 days, or almost two weeks, to submit an electronic application for a GVC registration.
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that Respondent dispensed controlled substances from GVC, an unregistered location, for over two years. Tr. 306 (Respondent testifying and admitting that GVC never had, and still does not have, a registration).
Thus, having read and analyzed all of the record evidence, the Agency finds substantial record evidence, in the forms of stipulations and Respondent's hearing testimony and documentary admissions, of each element of the allegation that Respondent dispensed controlled substances from her GVC unregistered location.
The Agency finds substantial record evidence that, on July 19, 2023, Respondent signed a Notice of
The Agency finds substantial record evidence that the DEA Investigators asked CO for, but did not receive, a complete and accurate record of each controlled substance that Respondent received at her Tucson clinic. Tr. 47, 61-62 (DEA Investigator testifying).
Further, and of relevance to this adjudication, Respondent's testimony does not evidence an interest in, or concern about, the inspection of her Tucson clinic. For example, immediately after testifying that CO was present for the Tucson inspection, Respondent declined to provide a substantive answer to the question her counsel asked: “And what did you learn of what happened at the inspection at the Tucson clinic on July 19?” Tr. 297. Instead of answering, Respondent stated: “Ask me another question. So much happened.”
Having read and analyzed all of the record evidence, the Agency finds substantial record evidence, uncontested by Respondent, of each element of the allegation that Respondent failed to maintain, readily retrievable from her ordinary business records at her Tucson clinic, a complete and accurate record of each controlled substance received.
The Agency finds substantial record evidence that Respondent maintained insufficient records of controlled substances that she dispensed at her Tucson clinic.
The Agency further finds substantial record evidence that parts of Respondent's hearing testimony admit that both liquid testosterone and testosterone pellets come in various strengths. Thus, Respondent knows that there are different strengths of those controlled substances, but did not include that information in her records of Tucson controlled substance dispensings.
The Agency acknowledges that Respondent added at least the patient addresses to her dispensing logs starting on November 10, 2023, “after . . . [her] deposition in November.”
According to Respondent's tenth factual Exception, the RD incorrectly characterizes Respondent's testimony as a concession that her dispensing logs continue not to comply with the regulations. Exceptions, at 15. She further argues that “[t]o conclude that . . . [Respondent's] updated logs are inadequate places form well over substance,” and that any failure on her
Having read and analyzed all of the record evidence, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that Respondent's Tucson clinic's controlled substance dispensing logs, for the period germane to the OSC/ISO, do not include the requisite data points.
Pursuant to the CSA, “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . to dispense . . . controlled substances . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). The section further provides that an application for a practitioner's registration may be denied upon a determination that “the issuance of such registration . . . would be inconsistent with the public interest.”
(A) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or professional disciplinary authority.
(B) The [registrant's] experience in dispensing, or conducting research with respect to controlled substances.
(C) The [registrant's] conviction record under Federal or State laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances.
(D) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws relating to controlled substances.
(E) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety.
The five factors are considered in the disjunctive.
The Agency “may rely on any one or a combination of factors and may give each factor the weight [it] deems appropriate.
While the Agency considered all of the 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1) factors in this matter, the Agency finds that the Government's evidence in support of its
According to DEA regulations, the Government has the burden of proof in this proceeding. 21 CFR 1301.44(d) (granting or denying an application), 21 CFR 1301.44(e) (revoking or suspending a registration). Both parties submitted documentary evidence. The Agency agrees with the Chief ALJ's rulings on the admissibility of the offered evidence.
The OSC/ISO alleges that Respondent violated multiple provisions of the CSA and its implementing regulations concerning controlled substance registration and recordkeeping requirements. These registration and recordkeeping requirements go to the heart of federal controlled substance law and this Agency's law enforcement mission.
Having thoroughly analyzed the record evidence and applicable law, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that Respondent administered controlled substances from an unregistered location, in violation of 21 CFR 1301.12(a).
Accordingly, the Agency finds that Factors B and D weigh in favor of revocation of Respondent's Tucson registration and denial of her GVC application because her continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4) and 823(g)(1).
Where, as here, the Government has met its
Regarding these matters, while Respondent stated, during her hearing testimony, that she does not want to give the “implication that . . . [she is] not accepting responsibilities [sic],” the Agency finds substantial record evidence that she minimizes her unlawfulness. For example, Respondent testified that she “know[s] that . . . [she] should have known . . . [the] regulations and had . . . [her] paperwork in order.” Tr. 354. She immediately affirms that she “know[s] that and it will happen.”
In addition, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that Respondent blames DEA staff for her unlawfulness. Even after having the opportunity to improve by, for example, making her dispensing logs legally compliant, she never fully complies with the requirements incumbent on her as a registrant. Tr. 354. Instead, she shifts the blame for her failure to comply with legal requirements. For example, regarding her dispensing logs, she blames the DEA Investigators for not giving her an exemplar. She testified that “anytime . . . [she] had interactions with diversion investigators, . . . [she] was never really given a [dispensing] log. . . [I]t would be really easy and simple to say, Svetlana, this is what needs to happen, and it would have happened like in a matter of hours.”
Further, Respondent is unwilling, or unable, to understand the responsibilities of a registrant, a matter with troubling ramifications. For example, she does not know the meanings of “administer” and “dispense,” two terms defined in the CSA. 21 U.S.C. 802(2), 802(10).
Respondent's record testimony indicates that she did not understand the reasons why the CSA and its implementing regulations require that controlled substances only be dispensed from registered locations. For example, Respondent “didn't think that it would be a big deal at all” to have controlled substances at GVC as she “was under the impression . . . [that her] license [was] coming any day, really.” Tr. 305. The Agency cannot entrust a registration to an individual who does not think that it is a “big deal” to violate one of the foundational principles of the CSA.
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that Respondent did not unequivocally accept responsibility for her unlawfulness.
As the Agency does not consider remedial measures in the absence of unequivocal acceptance of responsibility, the Agency does not accept Respondent's third legal Exception. Exceptions, at 24.
The interests of specific and general deterrence weigh in favor of the revocation of Respondent's Tucson registration and the denial of her Green Valley registration application. The Agency finds substantial record evidence that Respondent's testimony and controlled substance records establish that she failed to comply, over an extended time period, with registration and recordkeeping requirements that go to the heart of federal controlled substance law.
For all of the above reasons, it is not reasonable to rely on Respondent's promise of her future compliance with the requirements incumbent on a registrant. Given the foundational nature of Respondent's violations, a sanction less than revocation would send a message to her, and to the existing and prospective registrant community, that compliance with the law is not a condition precedent to maintaining a registration.
Accordingly, the Agency shall order the revocation of Respondent's Tucson registration and the denial of her GVC application as contained in the Order below.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4) and 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. MB2645767 issued to Svetlana Burtman, N.P. 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 the pending application, Control No. W231061194M, of Svetlana Burtman, N.P., for registration in Green Valley, Arizona.
In addition, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending application to renew or modify DEA Certificate of Registration No. MB2645767, as well as any other pending application of Svetlana Burtman, N.P., for registration in Arizona. This Order is effective May 22, 2025.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on April 16, 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
9:00 a.m. to 2:45 p.m. (MST-AZ), Tuesday, May 6, 2025.
Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation, 434 E University Blvd., Suite 300, Tucson, AZ 85705.
Parts of this regular meeting of the Board of Trustees will be open to the public. The rest of the meeting will be closed to the public. Members of the public who would like to observe the public session of this meeting may request remote access by contacting Sara Moeller at
(1) Call to Order and Chair's Remarks; (2) Trustees' Remarks; (3) Executive Director's Remarks; (4) Consent Agenda Approval (Minutes of the October 30, 2024, Board of Trustees Meeting; Board Reports submitted for Data and Information Technology, Education Programs, Finance and Internal Controls, John S. McCain III National Center for Environmental Conflict Resolution, and Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, including the Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy and Special Collections at the University of Arizona Libraries; and Board takes notice of any new and updated personnel policies and internal control methodologies); (5) Vote on Proposed Executive Session (discuss internal personnel rules and practices of the agency, and disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy); (6) Board Operating Procedures Revisions (including a vote on a resolution regarding Amendment of Operating Procedures of the Board of Trustees of the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation; (7) Program Eligibility (including a vote on a resolution regarding Eligibility Criteria for Udall Foundation Program Delivery); (8) Annual Trustee Ethics Training; and (9) Executive Session.
All agenda items except as noted below.
Executive Session.
Sara Moeller, Chief Operating Officer, 434 E University Blvd., Suite 300, Tucson, AZ 85705, (520) 345-3562.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of new information collection.
NASA, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections.
Comments are due by May 22, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to NASA PRA Clearance Officer, Stayce Hoult, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW, JC0000, Washington, DC 20546, phone 256-714-8575, or email
This information collection is for conducting a sound response laboratory test, which is called a psychoacoustic test, to better understand human noise response to passenger and equivalent cargo carrying Advanced Air Mobility
1. Do annoyance responses differ between respondents who reside in low versus high ambient noise environments? Here, “low” and “high” ambient environments are determined from the A-weighted L50 data produced by the National Park Service for different United States Postal ZIP Codes.
2. Do annoyance responses differ as a function of the phase of flight? Here, the phases of flight are the landing, takeoff, and cruise phases.
3. Do annoyance responses differ as a function of distance from take-off and landing operations?
4. Is there a correlation between annoyance ratings and objective parameter analyses of the data? Examples of objective parameters include, but are not limited to, sound quality metrics, spectra, sound exposure level, and amplitude envelope shaping.
5. Is there a correlation between annoyance ratings and noise sensitivity, measured from subject questionnaire data?
Through Public Law 93-579 (Privacy Act of 1974), the authority to collect the information requested from test participants through informed consent associated with the study is derived from one or more of the following: title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, §§ 1212 and 1230; title 51, United States Code, section 20113, as amended.
The VANGARD test was approved by the NASA Institutional Review Board with Study eIRB Number STUDY00000862 and FWA Number 00019876.
Test subjects will electronically indicate their annoyance rating to test AAM/UAM aircraft noise stimuli into an interface displayed on their own computers.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
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
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
Thursday, April 17, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. EST.
Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW.
Closed.
On April 17, 2025, the members of the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service voted unanimously to hold and to close to public observation a special meeting in Washington, DC The Board determined that no earlier public notice was practicable. The Board considered the below matters.
1. Administrative Matters.
2. Executive Session.
3. Personnel Matters.
Lucy C. Trout, Acting Secretary of the Board of Governors, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone: (202) 268-4800.
Thursday, April 17, 2025, at 2:15 p.m. EST.
Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW.
Closed.
On April 17, 2025, the members of the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service voted unanimously to hold and to close to public observation a special meeting in Washington, DC The Board determined that no earlier public notice was practicable. The Board considered the below matters.
1. Administrative Matters.
2. Executive Session.
3. Personnel Matters.
Lucy C. Trout, Acting Secretary of the
On February 13, 2025, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
ICC is registered with the Commission as a clearing agency for the purpose of clearing Credit Default Swap (“CDS”) contracts. ICC is proposing to revise the Rules and adopt the new Procedures to codify and specify in further detail its processes used for selecting Contract Reference Obligations, including selecting a new Contract Reference Obligation to replace an existing one. Under its current Rules, ICC generally selects the Contract Reference Obligation for each cleared single-name CDS Contract and selects a replacement obligation when required. The Contract Reference Obligation is the obligation of a Reference Entity that is the subject of a CDS contract, like debt issued by a private company or bonds issued by a sovereign entity.
ICC is proposing to adopt Rule 20-601, titled “Determination of Substitute Reference Obligations.” Rule 20-601 clarifies ICC's responsibilities when selecting a substitute Contract Reference Obligation. Under the proposed rule, ICC's role as a Calculation Agent pursuant to the Applicable Credit Derivatives Definitions
The new Procedures contain the methodology and process for the identification of Contract Reference Obligations with respect to each Single-Name CDS Contract accepted for clearing by ICC (both as an initial matter and following a Substitution Event). The Procedures codify ICC's current practices for the selection of Contract Reference Obligations, while also establishing a new process for public consultation regarding such selections, including a process for resolving any objections raised during the public consultation process.
Pursuant to the Procedures, ICC will first identify a Contract Reference Obligation for the Reference Entity for a single name CDS Contract when ICC begins clearing the contract. The Procedures refer to this reference obligation as the Original Reference Obligation.
ICC will identify a Substitute Reference Obligation to replace this Original Reference Obligation in accordance with new Rule 20-601 and the Procedures. ICC chooses a Substitute Reference Obligation to replace the Original Reference Obligation when the Original Reference Obligation is no longer an obligation of the entity referenced in the CDS contract. This can occur, for example, when a company redeems the debt that is the subject of the CDS contract.
As provided in the Procedures, ICC will not select an Original Reference Obligation, or a Substitute Reference Obligation, where either “Standard Reference Obligation” or “No Reference Obligation” is indicated on the List of Eligible Reference Entities for the relevant transaction type maintained by ICC, as published on its website.
The Procedures also state ICC's overall objective in selecting Contract Reference Obligations. ICC's objective in doing so is to reflect CDS market participants' consensus as to the most appropriately representative obligation of the relevant seniority of the Reference Entity. The Procedures include factors that market participants may consider relevant for this purpose, including outstanding principal amount, remaining maturity, liquidity, and availability of public information concerning the obligation.
ICC will begin the selection process by using commercially available reference data from a data vendor to identify the most liquid reference obligation used in connection with the trading of CDS on the applicable Reference Entity. This is ICC's starting point when selecting either an Original
The Procedures specify how ICC will consult with Clearing Participants and the public when selecting an Original or Substitute Reference Obligation. After identifying an Original or Substitute Reference Obligation, ICC will take the following steps:
• submit the proposal to the ICC Operations Working Group (“OWG”) for review;
• submit the proposal to the ICC Trading Advisory Group (“TAG”) for review; and
• publish the proposal on its website for review by other market participants and members of the public.
ICC's OWG consists of operations personnel from ICC's Clearing Participants. The role of the OWG is to review and provide feedback regarding various operational matters, including consultation regarding the selection and substitution of Contract Reference Obligations. The OWG typically meets weekly, and OWG meeting materials are distributed by ICC's Client Services Department to all OWG members in advance of the meeting date. There is no limit to the number of Clearing Participant operational personnel that can participate in OWG meetings, no quorum requirements, and no mandatory attendees. OWG Members may object to any proposed Original or Substitute Reference Obligation, either at an OWG meeting or by email to ICC any time before the deadline set by ICC (the “Objection Date”).
ICC's TAG consists of trading personnel from ICC's Clearing Participants. The role of the TAG is to provide market insight into a variety of trading topics, including consultation regarding the selection and substitution of Contract Reference Obligations. The TAG typically meets weekly, and proposed new or substitute Contract Reference Obligations are sent to the members of the TAG in advance of meetings via email. There is no limit to the number of Clearing Participant trading personnel that can participate in TAG meetings, no quorum requirements, and no mandatory attendees. TAG members may object to any proposed Original or Substitute Reference Obligation, either at a TAG meeting or by email to ICC prior to the Objection Date. The Procedures set out the process for OWG or TAG members to make objections.
The process for public consultation, noted above, takes place in conjunction with, and is in addition to, consultations with the OWG and TAG. During the time of consultation with the OWG and TAG, ICC publishes any proposed Original or Substitute Reference Obligation on its website and invites market participants and the public to submit any objections by the Objection Date. A person may object by emailing the reasons for objection to ICC prior to the Objection Date.
The Procedures also explain how ICC will resolve any objections raised through these consultations. First, ICC will postpone adopting the proposed Original or Substitute Reference Obligation until ICC has addressed the objections to its satisfaction. The Procedures describe a series of non-exhaustive steps that ICC may take to resolve the objections as it determines appropriate, recognizing that different steps may be appropriate for different situations or objections. Potential steps include the following:
• obtaining additional information from the objector;
• contacting (or asking the objector to contact) the relevant market data vendor that has identified a reference obligation as Preferred;
• conducting a legal review of the available documentation for the proposed Original or Substitute Reference Obligation;
• consulting OWG or TAG members and other market participants with relevant views or information, such as the person that objected;
• consulting ICC's CDS Risk Committee; and
• submitting (directly or indirectly) a question to the relevant Credit Derivatives Determinations Committee whether a proposed Substitute Reference Obligation is an appropriate choice.
If the consultation noted above leads to the data vendor identifying a different Preferred reference obligation, ICC will consider such obligation as an alternative proposed Contract Reference Obligation. ICC will then take this alternative through the consultation process, including the process for resolving any objections raised to this alternative, pursuant to the same processes described above.
Finally, the Procedures specify that they do not apply to the determination of a Contract Reference Obligation for a new trade resulting from a Restructuring Credit Event (which would be determined in accordance with the Rules). The Procedures also permit ICC to deviate from the public consultation process in certain limited circumstances. Specifically, with respect to a Succession Event that requires the identification of a new Contract Reference Obligation, or when a Contract Reference Obligation is changed in connection with the re-naming of a Reference Entity, the Procedures require ICC to follow the industry-agreed timelines for implementing the Succession Event or re-naming. In such instances, the industry-agreed timeline may not allow sufficient time for ICC to go through the normal consultation process or would require an abbreviated one. ICC would, however, follow as much of the normal consultation process as possible given the applicable timeline.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the organization.
The description of a proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission finding,
After carefully considering the proposed rule change, the Commission
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that the rules of ICC be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) requires that ICC establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for a well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal basis for each aspect of its activities in all relevant jurisdictions.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii) requires that ICC establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for sufficient information to enable participants to identify and evaluate the risks, fees, and other material costs they incur by participating in the covered clearing agency.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (“BDCs”) and closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment entities. The requested order includes
Aether Infrastructure & Natural Resources Fund, Aether Investment Partners, LLC, Aether Real Assets II, L.P., Aether Real Assets III, L.P., Aether Real Assets III Surplus, L.P., Aether Real Assets IV, L.P., Aether Real Assets V, L.P., Aether Real Assets Co-Investment I, L.P., Aether Real Assets Seed Partners I, L.P., and Aether Real Assets SONJ Fund, L.P.
The application was filed on April 9, 2025.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
Adam Large, Senior Special Counsel, Kieran G. Brown, Senior Counsel, or Daniele Marchesani, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' application, dated April 9, 2025, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On February 14, 2025, Cboe Exchange, Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (“BDCs”) and closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment entities. The requested order includes streamlined terms and conditions as compared to past comparable orders.
New Mountain Capital, L.L.C.; New Mountain Credit CLO Advisers, L.L.C.; New Mountain Finance Advisers, L.L.C.; New Mountain Finance Corporation; New Mountain Guardian IV BDC, L.L.C.;
The application was filed on April 1, 2025, and amended on April 7, 2025, and April 15, 2025.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
Adam Large, Senior Special Counsel, Stephan N. Packs, Senior Counsel, or Daniele Marchesani, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' Second Amended and Restated Application, dated April 16, 2025, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system.
The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (“BDCs”) and closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment entities. The requested order includes streamlined terms and conditions as compared to past comparable orders.
MidCap Financial Investment Corporation, Apollo Debt Solutions BDC, Apollo Diversified Credit Fund, Apollo S3 Private Markets Fund, MidCap Apollo Institutional Private Lending, Lord Abbett Flexible Income Fund, Apollo Diversified Real Estate Fund, Apollo Origination II (Levered) Capital Trust, Apollo Origination II (UL) Capital Trust, Merx Aviation Finance, LLC, Apollo Investment Management, L.P., Apollo Credit Management, LLC, Apollo Capital Credit Adviser, LLC, Apollo S3 RIC Management, L.P., Apollo Real Estate Fund Adviser, LLC, and certain of their affiliated entities as described in Appendix A to the application.
The application was filed on March 14, 2025, and amended on April 4, 2025, and April 11, 2025.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
Adam Large, Senior Special Counsel, Kieran Brown, Senior Counsel, or Daniele Marchesani, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' second amended application, dated April 11, 2025, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from Sections 18(a)(2), 18(c), 18(i), and 61(a) of the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end investment companies that have elected to be regulated as business development companies to issue multiple classes of shares with varying sales loads and asset-based distribution and/or service fees.
HPS Advisors, LLC, HPS Corporate Lending Fund, HPS Corporate Capital Solutions Fund, and HPS Corporate Capital Solutions BDC.
April 10, 2025.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on May 12, 2025, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by emailing the Commission's Secretary at
The Commission:
Toyin Momoh, Senior Counsel, or Thomas Ahmadifar, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' Application, dated April 10, 2025, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at,
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to (1) amend Rule 1.1 to adopt new definitions relating to Market Makers and (2) reinstate Article 16, Rules 1 through 4 relating to the registration and obligations of Market Makers and relocate them under Rule 7, Section 2. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
In 2019, the Exchange transitioned to trading on the NYSE Pillar trading platform (“Pillar”).
The Exchange proposes the following new rules to govern the registration and obligations of Market Makers on the Exchange:
• Proposed Rule 1.1(m) (definition of Lead Market Maker);
• Proposed Rule 1.1(o) (definition of Market Maker);
• Proposed Rule 1.1(p) (definition of Market Maker Authorized Trader);
• Proposed Rule 7.20 (Registration of Market Makers);
• Proposed Rule 7.21 (Obligations of Market Maker Authorized Traders (“MMATs”));
• Proposed Rule 7.22 (Registration of Market Makers in a Security);
• Proposed Rule 7.23 (Obligations of Market Makers);
• Proposed Rule 7.24 (Designated Market Maker Performance Standards);
Rule 1.1 sets forth definitions of terms that are used throughout the Exchange rules. The Exchange proposes to add the following definitions to the rule:
• The Exchange proposes to amend current Rule 1.1(m) to set forth the definition of “Lead Market Maker.” A “Lead Market Maker” would be defined as a registered Market Maker that is the exclusive Designated Market Maker in listings for which the Exchange is the primary market. This proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Rule 1.1 (definition of “Lead Market Maker”).
• The Exchange proposes to amend current Rule 1.1(o) to set forth the definition of “Market Maker.” A “Market Maker” would be defined as a Participant that acts as a Market Maker pursuant to Rule 7. This proposed rule is based on NYSE Rule 1.1(t) (which uses the term “Non-DMM Market Maker”), NYSE American Rule 1.1E(v), and NYSE Arca Rule 1.1 (definition of Market Maker).
• The Exchange proposes to amend current Rule 1.1(p) to set forth the definition of “Market Maker Authorized Trader” or “MMAT.” A “Market Maker Authorized Trade” or “MMAT” would be defined as an Authorized Trader (as defined in Rule 1.1(a)) who performs market making activities pursuant to Rule 7 on behalf of a Market Maker. This proposed rule is based on NYSE Rule 1.1(p), NYSE American Rule 1.1E(w), and NYSE Arca Rule 1.1 (definition of Market Maker Authorized Trader).
To accommodate the addition of these definitions, the Exchange also proposes to adjust the lettering in Rule 1.1. Specifically, current Rule 1.1(m) defining the term “Marketable” would become Rule 1.1(n), current Rule 1.1(n) defining “NBBO, Best Protected Bid, Best Protected Offer, Protected Best Bid and Offer (PBBO)” would become Rule 1.1(q), and so forth, with no changes to the substance of the definitions.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7, Section 2, which is currently designated as “Reserved,” and rename it “Market Makers.” As discussed below, the Exchange proposes new Rules 7.20 through 7.24 to reinstate Article 16, Rules 1 through 4 as Rules 7.20 through 7.23, and to add new Rule 7.24 under Section 2 of Rule 7, which would locate the Exchange's proposed rules concerning Market Makers in the same section as the rules of its Affiliated Exchanges. In addition to changes as noted below, the Exchange proposes to use “will” rather than “shall” in reinstating the text of Article 16, Rules 1 through 4.
The Exchange proposes to add Rule 7.20, “Registration of Market Makers,” to set forth the requirements for Participants to apply for registration as Market Makers. Proposed Rule 7.20 is based on Article 16, Rule 1, except as noted below to harmonize the format and language of the rule with NYSE Rule 7.20, NYSE American Rule 7.20E, and NYSE Arca Rule 7.20-E, which set forth substantially similar requirements for the registration of Market Makers. Proposed Rule 7.20 would require Participants interested in acting as Market Makers to submit an application to the Exchange, as well as set forth the criteria the Exchange may consider in determining whether to approve or disapprove a prospective Market Maker's application and specify how a Market Maker's registration may be suspended, terminated, or withdrawn. Proposed Rule 7.20 would also provide that Market Makers are designated as dealers on the Exchange for all purposes under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations thereunder.
In proposed Rule 7.20(a), the Exchange proposes to adopt the language of NYSE Rule 7.20(a), NYSE American Rule 7.20E(a), and NYSE Arca Rule 7.20-E(a) rather than the substantially similar language of Article 16, Rule 1(a) in providing that Participants may not act as Market Makers in securities on the Exchange unless they are registered as a Market Maker in such securities and the Exchange has not suspended or canceled their registration. Proposed Rule 7.20(a) would also provide that registered Market Makers are designated as dealers on the Exchange for all purposes under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations thereunder, reflecting language from Article 16, Rule 1(f). This proposed change would promote consistency with the rules of the same number on the Affiliated Exchanges.
The Exchange next proposes to locate part of the text of Article 16, Rule 1(a) in proposed Rule 7.20(b), with non-substantive changes to conform with NYSE Rule 7.20(b), NYSE American Rule 7.20E(b), and NYSE Arca Rule 7.20-E(b). Specifically, the Exchange proposes that Rule 7.20(b) would provide that an applicant for registration as a Market Maker will file an application in writing on such form as the Exchange may prescribe and that such applications will be reviewed by the Exchange, considering factors including, but not limited to, a Participant's capital, operations, personnel, technical resources, and disciplinary history. Proposed Rule 7.20(b) would also provide that, after reviewing a Participant's application, the Exchange will either approve or disapprove the Participant's registration as a Market Maker, consistent with NYSE Rule 7.20(b), NYSE American Rule 7.20E(b), and NYSE Arca Rule 7.20-E(b).
In proposed Rule 7.20(c), the Exchange proposes to reflect text from Article 16, Rules 1(b)
In proposed Rule 7.20(d), the Exchange proposes to reflect the first sentence of Article 16, Rule 1(d), with non-substantive conforming changes to harmonize the text with NYSE Rule 7.20(d), NYSE American Rule 7.20E(d), and NYSE Arca Rule 7.20-E(d) and update the reference to Rule 4. Proposed Rule 7.20(d) would provide that the registration of a Market Maker may be suspended or terminated by the Exchange upon a determination of any substantial or continued failure by such Market Maker to engage in dealings in accordance with Rule 7.23.
The Exchange proposes to base Rule 7.20(e) on NYSE Rule 7.20(e), NYSE American Rule 7.20E(e), and NYSE Arca Rule 7.20-E(e). Proposed Rule 7.20(e) would provide that a Market Maker may withdraw its registration by written notice to the Exchange, with such withdrawal becoming effective on the tenth business day following the Exchange's receipt of the notice, and that a Market Maker that fails to provide such notice may be subject to formal disciplinary action pursuant to the Rule 10.9200 Series. In addition, subsequent to withdrawal, the Participant will not be permitted to re-register as a Market Maker for a period of six months. Proposed Rule 7.20(e) is similar to Article 16, Rule 1(d),
The Exchange does not propose to reinstate Article 16, Rule 1(e), as it does not believe such emergency procedures are necessary, and to harmonize proposed Rule 7.20 with the Affiliated Exchanges' rules. The Exchange also does not propose to reinstate Article 16, Rule 1(f) (except for the portion noted above in proposed Rule 7.20(a)), in conformity with the rules of the Affiliated Exchanges.
The Exchange proposes to add Rule 7.21 and title it “Obligations of Market Maker Authorized Traders (“MMATs”).” Proposed Rule 7.21 reflects the text of Article 16, Rule 3, with certain changes discussed below to harmonize the format and language of the rule with NYSE Rule 7.21, NYSE American Rule 7.21E, and NYSE Arca Rule 7.21-E, which set forth substantially similar requirements. Proposed Rule 7.21 would provide that Market Maker Authorized Traders (“MMATs”) are permitted to enter orders only for the account of the Market Maker for which they are registered. In addition, the proposed rule would specify the registration requirements for MMATs and the procedures for suspension and withdrawal of registration of MMATs. Specifically, the proposed rule would provide that a Market Maker must submit an application to the Exchange to register an associated person as an MMAT. An MMAT must meet certain requirements, and a Market Maker must ensure that its MMATs are qualified to perform market making activities. Proposed Rule 7.21 also provides that the Exchange may suspend or withdraw an MMAT's registration.
To promote consistency between proposed Rule 7.21 and rules of the same number on the Affiliated Exchanges, the Exchange proposes the following changes.
In proposed Rule 7.21(b)(2), to align the original text of Article 16, Rule 3(b)(2) with NYSE Rule 7.21(b)(2), NYSE American Rule 7.21E(b)(2), and NYSE Arca Rule 7.21-E(b)(2), the Exchange proposes to replace the requirement that an MMAT complete the Securities Trader Examination (“Series 57”), Securities Industry Essentials qualification examination, and any other training and/or certification program as may be required by the Exchange with the requirement that an MMAT complete the Series 57 and a training and certification program sponsored by the Exchange. The Exchange further proposes that the requirement to complete the Series 57 may be waived by the Exchange if the applicant MMAT has served as a dealer-specialist or market maker on a registered national securities exchange or association for at least two consecutive years within three years of the date of application. This proposed change would harmonize proposed Rule 7.21(b)(2) with the Affiliated Exchanges' rules of the same number, while maintaining requirements substantially similar to those outlined in Article 16, Rule 3(b)(2) for individuals to qualify as MMATs on the Exchange.
In proposed Rule 7.21(b)(3), the Exchange proposes stylistic changes to the text of Article 16, Rule 3(b)(3) that would not alter the requirement set forth therein but would harmonize the text of the rule with NYSE Rule 7.21(b)(3), NYSE American Rule 7.21E(b)(3), and NYSE Arca Rule 7.21-E(b)(3). Specifically, the Exchange proposes that the rule would provide that the Exchange may require a Market Maker to provide additional information the Exchange considers necessary to establish whether registration should be granted, rather than that the Exchange may require a Market Maker to provide any and all additional information the Exchange deems necessary to establish whether registration should be granted.
To align the original text of Article 16, Rule 3(c)(1)(D) with NYSE Rule 7.21(c)(1)(D), NYSE American Rule 7.21E(c)(1)(D), and NYSE Arca Rule 7.21-E(c)(1)(D), the Exchange proposes that Rule 7.21(c)(1)(D) provide that the Exchange may suspend or withdraw the registration of an MMAT if the Exchange believes doing so is in the interest of maintaining fair and orderly markets. This proposed change does not reflect any substantive differences from Article 16, Rule 3(c)(1)(D) and would harmonize proposed Rule 7.21(c)(1)(D) with the Affiliated Exchanges' rules of the same number.
Finally, the Exchange proposes the following non-substantive conforming changes. In proposed Rule 7.21(b), to conform with the text of NYSE Rule 7.21(b), NYSE American Rule 7.21E(b), and NYSE Arca Rule 7.21-E(b), the Exchange proposes to omit the phrase “consistent with the following minimum requirements.” To eliminate outdated rule references and conform proposed Rule 7.21 with the rules of the Affiliated Exchanges, the Exchange proposes to omit the reference to Rule 1 in proposed Rule 7.21(b)(1) and the reference to Article 13, Rule 2 in proposed Rule 7.21(c)(1). In proposed Rule 7.21(c) and the paragraphs thereunder, the Exchange proposes to use the term “withdraw” rather than
The Exchange proposes to add Rule 7.22 and title it “Registration of Market Makers in a Security.” Proposed Rule 7.22 reflects the text of Article 16, Rule 2, with certain changes and additions discussed below to harmonize the format and language of the rule with NYSE Rule 7.22, NYSE American Rule 7.22E, and NYSE Arca Rule 7.22-E, which set forth substantially similar requirements. The Exchange proposes to title Rule 7.22 “Registration of Market Makers in a Security,” rather than keeping the title of Article 16, Rule 2 (“Assignment of Securities to Market Makers”), which is a non-substantive change that would promote consistency with the rules of the Affiliated Exchanges. Proposed Rule 7.22 would set forth the process for Market Makers to become registered in a security and the factors the Exchange may consider in approving such registration. Specifically, Market Makers may submit a request to the Exchange to be registered in a security, and the Exchange will evaluate whether to approve such registration, taking into consideration factors including the Market Maker's financial resources, experience in making markets, operational capability, and the character of the market for the security. The proposed rule would also describe both termination of a Market Maker's registration in a security by the Exchange and voluntary termination by a Market Maker.
To promote consistency between proposed Rule 7.22 and rules of the same number on the Affiliated Exchanges, the Exchange proposes the following changes.
First, in proposed Rule 7.22(a), the Exchange proposes to update the description set forth in Article 16, Rule 2(a) of the process by which Market Makers may seek assignment in securities to conform with the description set forth in NYSE Rule 7.22(a), NYSE American Rule 7.22E(a), and NYSE Arca Rule 7.22-E(a). In addition, to promote consistency with the subparagraph numbering under NYSE Rule 7.22, NYSE American Rule 7.22E, and NYSE Arca Rule 7.22-E, the Exchange proposes to include the text of Article 16, Rule 2(b) and the subparagraphs thereunder in proposed Rule 7.22(a), with non-substantive stylistic changes to harmonize the rule text with the rules of the Affiliated Exchanges.
Next, the Exchange proposes new Rules 7.22(b) through (d), which do not have analogues in Article 16, Rule 2, but would serve to conform proposed Rule 7.22 with rules of the same number on the Affiliated Exchanges.
Proposed Rule 7.22(b) provides that a Market Maker's registration in a security may be terminated by the Exchange if the Market Maker fails to enter quotations in the security within five business days after the Market Maker's registration in the security becomes effective. This proposed rule is based on NYSE Rule 7.22(b), NYSE American Rule 7.22E(b), and NYSE Arca Rule 7.22-E(b), without any changes.
Proposed Rule 7.22(c) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.22-E(c), with a non-substantive change to reference “Participants” instead of “ETP Holders.” Proposed Rule 7.22(c) provides that the Exchange may limit the number of Designated Market Makers in a security upon prior written notice to Participants. Proposed Rule 7.22(c) also incorporates rule text from Interpretations and Policies .01 under Article 16, Rule 2, which similarly provides that the Exchange may limit the number of Market Makers assigned to any security at its discretion.
Proposed Rule 7.22(d) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.22-E(d), without any changes. Proposed Rule 7.22(d) would provide that Designated Market Makers and Lead Market Makers shall be selected by the Exchange, with such selection based on factors including experience with making markets in equities; adequacy of capital; willingness to promote the Exchange as a marketplace; issuer preference; operational capacity; support personnel; and history of adherence to Exchange rules and securities laws.
Proposed Rule 7.22(e) reflects the text of Article 16, Rule 2(c), with non-substantive changes to conform with NYSE Rule 7.22(e), NYSE American Rule 7.22E(e), and NYSE Arca Rule 7.22-E(e). Proposed Rule 7.22(e) would be subtitled “Voluntary Termination of Security Registration,” consistent with the rules of the Affiliated Exchanges. In the first paragraph of proposed Rule 7.22(e), the Exchange proposes to specify that a Market Maker may voluntarily terminate its registration in a security by providing the Exchange with a one-day written notice of such termination. This proposed change would reflect the use of “terminate” instead of “withdraw” (similar to changes proposed in Rule 7.21) and provide clarity in proposed Rule 7.22(e) with respect to the timing of a Market Maker's voluntary termination notice, in both cases aligning this rule with the Affiliated Exchanges' rule of the same number. The Exchange further proposes to include a reference to the Rule 10.9200 Series for added clarity with respect to the formal disciplinary action that may apply to a Market Maker that fails to give advanced written notice of termination. Finally, to promote consistency with NYSE Rule 7.22(e), NYSE American Rule 7.22E(e), and NYSE Arca Rule 7.22-E(e), the Exchange does not propose to retain the second, third, or fifth sentences of Article 16, Rule 2(c) in proposed Rule 7.22(e).
In proposed Rule 7.22(f), which corresponds to Article 16, Rule 2(e), the Exchange similarly proposes non-substantive, stylistic changes to conform with NYSE Rule 7.22(f), NYSE American Rule 7.22E(f), and NYSE Arca Rule 7.22-E(f). The Exchange proposes to omit the subtitle of Article 16, Rule 2(e) and subparagraph (1) under Article 16, Rule 2(e), collapse the text of subparagraph (2) under Article 16, Rule 2(e) into proposed Rule 7.22(f), and update the language of Article 16, Rule 2(e) to harmonize it with the language of NYSE Rule 7.22(f), NYSE American Rule 7.22E(f), and NYSE Arca Rule 7.22-E(f). Proposed Rule 7.22(f) would thus provide that the Exchange may suspend or terminate any registration of a Market Maker in a security or securities under this Rule whenever, in the Exchange's judgment, the interests of a fair and orderly market are best served by such action.
Finally, the Exchange proposes that the last sentence of Article 16, Rule 2(e), which provides that a Participant whose assignment to one or more securities has been suspended or terminated may seek review under Article 15, be reflected in proposed Rule 7.22(g), with a non-substantive change to update an outdated rule reference. Proposed Rule 7.22(g) would thus provide that a Participant may seek review of any action taken by the Exchange pursuant to this Rule, including the denial of the application for, or the termination or suspension of, a Market Maker's registration in a security or securities, in
The Exchange does not propose to reinstate the text of Article 16, Rule 2(d), which provides for the temporary withdrawal of a Market Maker in assigned securities, in Rule 7.22 and instead proposes to include rule text relating to the temporary withdrawal of Market Makers in assigned securities in proposed Rule 7.23, as discussed below.
The Exchange proposes to add Rule 7.23 and title it “Obligations of Market Makers.” Proposed Rule 7.23 reflects the text of Article 16, Rule 4, with certain changes as noted below to harmonize the format and language of the rule with NYSE Rule 7.23, NYSE American Rule 7.23E, and NYSE Arca Rule 7.23-E, which provide for substantially similar Market Maker obligations. Proposed Rule 7.23 would set forth the obligation of Market Makers to engage in a course of dealings for their own account to assist in the maintenance, insofar as reasonably practicable, of fair and orderly markets on the Exchange. The proposed rule would delineate the specific responsibilities and duties of Market Makers, including the Two-Sided Obligation applicable to securities in which the Market Maker is registered and the requirement that the interest satisfying the Two-Sided Obligation be not more than the Designated Percentage (as defined in Proposed Rule 7.23) away from the National Best Bid or Offer (“NBBO”). Proposed Rule 7.23 also provides that Market Makers will be subject to certain minimum capital requirements and sets forth the circumstances under which a Market Maker could be subject to disciplinary action or suspension or revocation of registration by the Exchange for failure to comply with the course of dealings obligations set forth in this proposed rule.
In adapting Article 16, Rule 4 into proposed Rule 7.23, the Exchange proposes the following non-substantive changes to the original text of Article 16, Rule 4 to conform with the format and language used in NYSE Rule 7.23, NYSE American Rule 7.23E, and NYSE Arca Rule 7.23-E.
First, in proposed Rule 7.23(a)(1), the Exchange proposes to update the text of Article 16, Rule 4(a)(1) to conform with the language in NYSE Rule 7.23(a)(1), NYSE American Rule 7.23E(a)(1), and NYSE Arca Rule 7.23-E(a)(1) providing that a Market Maker will maintain a Two-Sided Obligation in securities in which the Market Maker is registered to trade and, for consistency with the format of the Affiliated Exchanges' rules, to relocate the rule text under Article 16, Rule 4(d) below proposed Rule 7.23(a)(1). In proposed Rules 7.23(a)(1)(A) and (B) (corresponding to Article 16, Rules 4(d)(1) and (2), respectively), the Exchange proposes to replace references to “Open Trading State” with “Core Trading Hours” to reflect the current terminology used by the Exchange. The Exchange similarly proposes to delete an obsolete reference to “SNAP Cycle” in proposed Rule 7.23(a)(1)(A) (corresponding to Article 16, Rule 4(d)). The Exchange next proposes to collapse the text of Article 16, Rules 4(d)(2)(A) and (B), which set forth requirements relating to Bid Quotations and Offer Quotations, into proposed Rule 7.23(a)(1)(B)(i) relating to Bid (Offer) Quotations, which would streamline the rule text and promote consistency with NYSE Rule 7.23(a)(1)(B)(i), NYSE American Rule 7.23E(a)(1)(B)(i), and NYSE Arca Rule 7.23-E(a)(1)(B)(i).
The Exchange proposes that Rule 7.23(a)(1)(B)(ii) would reflect the text of Article 16, Rule 4(d)(2)(C).
Next, in proposed Rules 7.23(a)(1)(B)(iii) and (iv), which correspond to Article 16, Rules 4(d)(2)(D) and (E), respectively, the Exchange proposes to update the rule text to replace outdated references to Article 20 and otherwise conform the text of the rules with NYSE Rules 7.23(a)(1)(B)(iii) and (iv), NYSE American Rules 7.23E(a)(1)(B)(iii) and (iv), and NYSE Arca Rules 7.23-E(a)(1)(B)(iii) and (iv).
In proposed Rule 7.23(a)(1)(C), which corresponds to Article 16, Rule 4(d)(2)(F), the Exchange proposes a non-substantive conforming change to update the rule text to replace “quoting” with “entering trading interest” to harmonize the text of the rule with NYSE Rule 7.23(a)(1)(C), NYSE American Rule 7.23E(a)(1)(C), and NYSE Arca Rule 7.23-E(a)(1)(C).
The Exchange does not propose to include the text of Article 16, Rule 4(d)(2)(G) in proposed Rule 7.23, as the terms “System Securities” and “System” are no longer applicable to trading on the Exchange.
In proposed Rule 7.23(a)(2), which corresponds to Article 16, Rule 4(e), the Exchange proposes non-substantive conforming changes to harmonize the text of Article 16, Rule 4(e) with NYSE Rule 7.23(a)(2), NYSE American Rule 7.23E(a)(2), and NYSE Arca Rule 7.23-E(a)(2). The Exchange proposes to omit the “Adequate capital” subtitle and further proposes that Rule 7.23(a)(2) would provide that “A Market Maker will maintain adequate minimum net capital” rather than “Each Market Maker must have and maintain minimum net capital.” The Exchange proposes to locate the requirement set forth in Article 16, Rule 4(e) as subparagraph (a)(2) of Rule 7.23 to conform with the formatting of NYSE Rule 7.23, NYSE American Rule 7.23E, and NYSE Arca Rule 7.23-E, thereby promoting consistency among the rules of Affiliated Exchanges.
To account for proposed Rule 7.23(a)(2) as described above, the Exchange proposes that Article 16, Rules 4(a)(2), (3), and (5) correspond to proposed Rules 7.23(a)(3) through (5). In adapting Article 16, Rules 4(a)(2), (3), and (5) to be Rules 7.23(a)(3) through (5), the Exchange proposes a non-substantive change to begin each rule with the phrase “A Market Maker will” to conform with the format of NYSE Rule 7.23(a)(3) through (5), NYSE American Rule 7.23E(a)(3) through (5), and NYSE Arca Rule 7.23-E(a)(3) through (5). The Exchange does not propose to reinstate Article 16, Rules 4(a)(4) or (a)(6) in proposed Rule 7.23 to promote consistency with NYSE Rule 7.23, NYSE American Rule 7.23E, and NYSE Arca Rule 7.23-E.
The Exchange proposes Rule 7.23(b), which is based on NYSE Rule 7.23(b), NYSE American Rule 7.23E(b), and NYSE Arca Rule 7.23-E(b). Proposed Rule 7.23(b) would provide that a Market Maker must satisfy the responsibilities and duties as set forth in paragraph (a) of this Rule during the Core Trading Hours on all days in which the Exchange is open for business.
The Exchange does not propose to reinstate the text of Article 16, Rule 4(b) in proposed Rule 7.23 to promote consistency with NYSE Rule 7.23, NYSE American Rule 7.23E, and NYSE Arca Rule 7.23-E.
The Exchange proposes Rule 7.23(c), which reflects the text of Article 16, Rule 4(c), with certain changes to conform with NYSE Rule 7.23(c), NYSE American Rule 7.23E(c), and NYSE Arca Rule 7.23-E(c). In proposed Rule 7.23(c), the Exchange proposes to add a reference to paragraph (a) of this Rule, to omit the references to Rule 1(d) and Rule 2(e), and to provide that Market Makers may be subject to disciplinary action, suspension, or revocation of registration by the Exchange, consistent with NYSE Rule 7.23(c), NYSE American Rule 7.23E(c), and NYSE Arca Rule 7.23-E(c). The Exchange further proposes to replace references to “this Rule 4” with “this Rule.” The Exchange also proposes to include in proposed Rule 7.23(c) that a Participant may seek review of actions taken by the Exchange taken pursuant to this Rule in
Finally, the Exchange proposes Rule 7.23(d), which is based on NYSE Rule 7.23(d), NYSE American Rule 7.23E(d), and NYSE Arca Rule 7.23-E(d). Proposed Rule 7.23(d) would provide that a Market Maker may apply to the Exchange to withdraw temporarily from its Market Maker status in the securities in which it is registered, based on demonstrated legal or regulatory requirements that necessitate its temporary withdrawal, or provide the Exchange an opinion of counsel certifying that such legal or regulatory basis exists. In such event, the Exchange will act promptly on a Market Maker's request and, if the request is granted, the Exchange may temporarily reassign the securities to another Market Maker. The Exchange proposes to adopt this rule text in lieu of the substantially similar text of Article 16, Rule 2(d) and to locate it under Rule 7.23, to promote consistency with the rules of its Affiliated Exchanges.
The Exchange does not propose to reinstate Article 16, Rule 4(f), which describes the LEAD Market Maker Program. The LEAD Market Maker Program related to the Liquidity Enhancing Access Delay as described in Article 20, Rule 8(h), which rule is no longer effective.
Proposed Rule 7.24 would set forth minimum performance standards for Designated Market Makers, to be determined by the Exchange from time to time, including (i) percent of time at the NBBO; (ii) percent of executions better than the NBBO; (iii) average displayed size; (iv) average quoted spread; and (v) in the event the security is a derivative security, the ability of the Designated Market Maker to transact in underlying markets. Proposed Rule 7.24 would also provide that Lead Market Makers (as defined in proposed Rule 1.1(m)) would be held to higher performance standards in the securities in which they are registered as Lead Market Maker than Designated Market Makers that are not Lead Market Makers. Proposed Rule 7.24 is based on NYSE Arca Rule 7.24-E, without any changes.
The Exchange proposes to designate Article 16 as “Reserved” and to delete the preamble in Article 16 designating the Article as inapplicable to trading on Pillar. Further to the proposed changes described above to relocate the content of Article 16 under Rule 7, Section 2, the Exchange also proposes to delete Article 16, Rules 1 through 6.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change sets forth rules governing Market Makers on the Exchange, which rules are based on rules previously approved on the Exchange for Market Makers, as well as on the approved rules of its Affiliated Exchanges pertaining to Market Makers. The Exchange believes that the proposed rules would promote competition because they would provide for obligations relating to Market Makers that are based on established rules, thereby reducing any potential barriers to entry for market makers registered on other exchanges to be approved as a Market Maker on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change would promote competition by providing Participants that are registered as market makers on other exchanges with the opportunity to similarly register as a Market Maker on the Exchange. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed rule change would promote competition by providing for market making activity on the Exchange, encouraging additional displayed liquidity, and facilitating price discovery for all market participants.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
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) of the
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
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.
On August 2, 2024, the Operating Committee for Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC (“CAT LLC”), on behalf of the following parties to the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (the “CAT NMS Plan” or “Plan”):
On November 18, 2024, the Commission instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the Proposed Amendment.
Rule 608(b)(2)(ii) of Regulation NMS provides that the time for conclusion of proceedings to determine whether a national market system plan or proposed amendment should be disapproved may be extended for an additional period up to 60 days (up to 300 days from the date of notice publication) if the Commission determines that a longer period is appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination or the plan participants consent to the longer period.
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period
By the Commission.
2:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 24, 2025.
The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to adjudications, examinations, and enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.
For further information, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
LCH SA is proposing to amend its Liquidity Risk Modelling Framework (the “Framework”), which describes the Liquidity Stress Testing framework by which the Collateral and Liquidity Risk Management department (“CaLM”) of LCH SA assures that LCH SA has enough cash available to meet any financial obligations, both expected and unexpected, that may arise over the liquidation period for each of the clearing services that LCH SA offers (the “Proposed Rule Change”).
In its filing with the Commission, LCH SA 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. LCH SA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Proposed Rule Change is being adopted to (1) enhance details about how LCH SA models for the liquidity needs arising from the daily settlement process in its RepoClear service related to the auto-collateralization feature in its Framework, (2) amend how LCH SA accounts for non-defaulting members' excess collateral in the calculation of the Standalone Operational Target and Liquidity Coverage Ratio (“LCR”) in its Framework, (3) quantify LCH SA's liquidity needs arising from clearing members replacing liquid resources with non-liquid resources for liquidity needs modelling, (4) clarify how LCH SA accounts for clearing members switching their respective pledging arrangement for collateral included in LCH SA's Standalone Operational Target and (5) enhance the Framework to simulate a sovereign country rating downgrade when computing liquidity reverse stress tests. LCH SA is proposing to make other non-substantive changes to correct errors and for purposes of conformity.
LCH SA is amending Section 1.6.1 by removing reference to cross-currency bilateral repo that involved a bilateral repo and an FX transaction (whereby LCH SA may pledge collateral denominated in one currency for cash denominated in a different currency as a liquidity resource to meet its liquidity resource requirement). LCH SA is making this change because it currently only uses triparty repo to perform cross-currency transactions under which the FX conversion is managed by the triparty agent. This amendment will also align the Framework with the LCH SA Liquidity Plan (the “Liquidity Plan”). The same change will be reflected in Appendix 6.5: “Liquidity risk monitoring reports” for consistency as well as to conform with Section 1.6.1.3.
LCH SA is also replacing reference to “FX spot market transaction” with “FX operation”, which LCH SA believes more accurately reflects the process. Finally, LCH SA is clarifying that there is no multicurrency committed lines anymore given the removal of the reference to the Norges bank secured committed facility. Therefore, only an uncommitted overdraft facility with an international bank remains in place.
LCH SA is proposing an amendment to remove reference to “successfully tested in 2016” to clarify that the operational effectiveness of the transfer of collateral to the 3G pool is tested on an annual basis as part of the war games exercises (
LCH SA is proposing to amend the summary table in Section 1.6.1.3 to align with the changes made to the preceding paragraphs. Specifically, reference to cross-currency bilateral repo transactions will be removed because LCH SA no longer utilizes these transactions to raise liquidity sources, and instead leverages cross currency triparty repo transactions. Moreover, the reference to FX transactions will be removed because the triparty cross currency repo transactions do not entail FX transactions, and instead, the FX conversion is managed by the triparty agent. LCH SA is also proposing to clarify that CaLM will demonstrate to the Board these prearranged funding arrangements used to raise euro liquidity are highly reliable even in extreme but plausible market conditions, as part of the annual review of the Liquidity Plan. In making this change, LCH SA is removing the historical reference to liquidity resources raised to meet its requirements in 2021 and 2022, as this reference is outdated and no longer applicable. For securities received from triparty reverse repo transactions where the agent is Clearstream as a Central Securities Depository, LCH SA is specifying that such securities are not considered Liquid Resources because LCH SA does not have the right to rehypothecate these securities for purposes of raising liquidity. This updated text will substitute the previous historical reference to the Clearstream triparty repo facility and its exclusion from liquid resources, as LCH SA has not completed the technical setup needed to rehypothecate such securities. LCH SA also proposes to clarify that collateral ineligible to be pledged to the ECB to raise liquidity via triparty repo transaction refers to USD- (U.S. Treasuries) and GBP-denominated securities (UK Gilts) only. LCH SA is also removing reference to a secured committed credit line with Norges Bank as an available liquidity resource, as this facility is no longer in place. Since LCH SA has access to an uncommitted credit line with an international bank to cover overdrafts up to €10mm, LCH SA is clarifying that this resource is uncommitted, given removal of the reference to the Norges bank secured committed facility. LCH SA will also amend Section 6.3: Appendix 3 and Section 6.5: Appendix 5 to reflect the removal of the Norges Bank facility for purposes of conforming throughout the Framework.
In Section 1.6.2, LCH SA describes the three main sources of liquidity needs for the clearing agency as those arising from member defaults, liquidity needs arising from interoperating CCP defaults and needs related to operational liquidity requirements. With respect to operational liquidity needs, LCH SA is proposing to clarify in Section 1.6.2.3 that a need may arise from the substitution of liquid resources to non-liquid resources upon member request. The previous reference to substitution of cash collateral by members was incomplete as all liquid resources could be considered as a need if switched to non-liquid resources. As part of this revision, LCH SA is removing reference to the need arising from an increase in Central Bank Guarantee (“CBG”) payments because there is no dual payment solution for members using the CBG solution and therefore no possibility to switch to another available regime of collateral if the CBG solution is used by a counterparty. Finally, LCH SA is adding the liquidity need arising from clearing members switching to a pledge regime (
As part of its daily settlement process, LCH SA has the ability to leverage the auto-collateralization feature for certain ECB-eligible securities as part of the ECB's T2S service for securities settlement. The ECB's T2S auto-collateralization service enables LCH SA to facilitate timely settlement of a RepoClear transaction in the event of a timing mismatch between the security delivery and the cash delivery in the settlement platform. Specifically, should a seller deliver ECB-eligible securities before delivery of cash by the buyer, the T2S auto-collateralization service will allow LCH SA to pledge these securities for cash at the applicable central security depository (“CSD”). LCH SA is therefore able to settle the seller instructions against the pledge of these securities as collateral for the liquidity borrowed from the T2S service.
If LCH SA is not able to find a legitimate buyer for delivering the securities within the end of day and to avoid any fees chargeable to LCH SA for securities pledged overnight, LCH SA must inject the full cash equivalent amount to release the securities from the auto-collateralization account and subsequently transfer these securities from the CSD to the BdF 3G Pool. In doing so, LCH SA can obtain liquidity from the BdF after adjusting for any applicable haircuts. LCH SA quantifies the liquidity need arising from this transaction by multiplying a pre-defined auto-collateralization limit set by the CCP for each Dedicated Cash Account (“DCA”), corresponding to a pool of securities in the settlement platform, by an applicable ECB haircut for each sovereign debt type. For the case in which multiple issuers are assigned to the same DCA, the auto-collateralization limit is set pro rata for each issuer based on the average daily settlement percentage from the previous year. LCH SA takes the sum of the results of
The current Framework therefore computes the auto-collateralization liquidity need by leveraging the specific limits set up in production and approved by LCH SA's Second Line Risk function and LCH SA management, in addition to utilizing the current ECB haircut schedule. The ECB assigns haircuts based on several parameters, including the type and issuer of the debt instrument, the residual maturity and overall credit quality. For example, the ECB as of August 2024 applies a larger haircut to sovereign debt issued by Italy compared with France for the same residual maturity due to the overall credit quality difference, among other factors. For Italy, Germany, Spain and Belgium, the current Framework applies 100% haircut for conservative reasons because the operational effectiveness of the “bulk” transfer from T2S to the 3G Pool was only recently demonstrated via a conclusive test in June 2024.
LCH SA is proposing to amend Section 1.6.2.4 of the Framework to provide additional clarification on the auto-collateralization feature that was not explicit in the current version of the Framework. Currently, the Framework lacks detail with respect to the auto-collateralization feature, including the operational steps by which LCH SA would utilize the feature. As such, LCH SA is proposing to add a paragraph describing the auto-collateralization feature, including how LCH SA will use it in the event a buyer does not deliver cash for delivered securities. This Section will also be amended to specify the three core steps involved should LCH SA utilize the auto-collateralization feature. The first step includes injecting the full amount of liquidity to unlock the pledged securities. Step two includes transferring the securities from the CSD to the 3G Pool and step three includes obtaining liquidity through the 3G Pool, after applying applicable ECB haircuts. LCH SA is also clarifying that because of the aforementioned steps, the maximum potential liquidity drain will be equal to the ECB haircut for each debt type applied by the BdF when the securities withdrawn from the settlement system are then pledged to the 3G Pool to source liquidity.
LCH SA is proposing to remove the following sentence because of the inclusion of the detailed steps describing the auto-collateralization functionality:
LCH SA is also clarifying that the maximum potential liquidity drain is modeled based on three elements: (1) the operational effectiveness and readiness of the transfer of securities from T2S to the 3G Pool for each issuer, as demonstrated on an annual basis through LCH SA's War Games exercises that are validated in governance; (2) actual limits for each debt type as defined in production and appropriately validated by all relevant stakeholders and Second Line Risk prior to any update as defined in a dedicated internal procedure; and (3) the current most conservative ECB haircut of the relevant debt category and step actually in force at the moment of the monitoring. With respect to the first element, LCH SA is clarifying that, in the event LCH SA is unable to effectively demonstrate the effective transfer of securities to the 3G Pool to source central bank liquidity as part of its War Games exercises, the haircut applied to the impacted issuer will be set at 100% and the corresponding liquidity need modelled will be equal to the full amount to be injected to reimburse the auto-collateral credit at end of day. LCH SA is also amending Section 6.5 (Appendix 5: Liquidity Risk Monitoring Reports) to provide an example intraday liquidity report that will be used to monitor for purposes of the second element referenced above. The previous report is therefore deleted as not accurate anymore. In addition, LCH SA is specifying that any changes to the ECB haircuts considered by the model or the auto-collateralization limits will be automatically reflected in the Framework modelling. LCH SA is also specifying that in the case of a distinct ECB category and haircut step and/or different operational readiness to transfer securities in bulk from T2S to the 3G Pool between different issuers assigned to the same DCA, the allocated portion of the limit to each issuer will be defined based on the average daily settlement obligation per security over the last year for purposes of computing the liquidity impact.
LCH SA is also proposing to delete the table reflecting the limits by settlement platform and activity as of March 30, 2022, and the associated footnotes. This table and related footnotes are primarily being removed because LCH SA will instead apply a more dynamic approach to determining the maximum liquidity drain that could occur by following the steps referenced above. An example of liquidity reporting is provided in Appendix 6.5 for informational purposes only and specifying that the model may utilize updated figures (to be defined in accordance with the specifications outlined in Section 1.6.2.4). The reference to applying an 11% haircut to ECB securities is being removed, as LCH SA will instead apply the current most conservative ECB haircut of the relevant category and step. LCH SA is also proposing to delete reference to the specific previous War Games exercises performed to demonstrate operational effectiveness for purposes of pledging securities to the 3G Pool in 2019 and 2021. This reference is now covered by the first element specified above regarding how LCH SA will determine operational effectiveness and readiness for issuers moving forward (
Collectively, these changes to the auto-collateralization feature described in the Framework do not directly impact the Framework methodology for calculating the LCR or the Operational Target. The respective formulas will remain the same, but instead when incorporating the liquidity need deriving from the auto-collateral functionality, the formulas will utilize dynamic input data (rather than static values defined in the LRMF), such as the most recent ECB haircuts and the actual auto-collateralization limits set up in production at the time of monitoring and according with the specific methodology described above. The purpose of the revisions to Section 1.6.2.4 is to enhance the clarity of the Framework by describing more explicitly the general steps considered by the CCP when modelling the potential liquidity need arising from the auto-collateralization functionality in the settlement platforms.
As part of determining its overall liquidity needs on an ongoing basis, LCH SA models for its operational liquidity needs as part of the Framework. The operational liquidity requirement is valued through the Operational Target in the daily liquidity stress tests. The requirement represents the amount of liquidity required to satisfy the liquidity needs borne from the ongoing operational management of LCH SA in a stressed environment. This
Moreover, a new liquidity need in Section 4.1.2(j) is being added to specify that in the calculation of the Operational Target there will be a provision to model the switch from collateral posted under FTT, and therefore included in liquid resources, to collateral posted under the pledge regime, and therefore considered as non-liquid resources if the member posting the collateral is not in default. This conforms with the change made to Section 1.6.2.3.
Finally, to conform with the changes made to Section 1.6.2.3, LCH SA will add as a liquidity requirement captured in the Framework (as Section 4.1.2(j)), the switch from collateral posted under FTT to the pledge regime. Because of the addition of the needs arising from the switch from FTT to pledge, LCH SA will add to Section 4.1.4 the needs arising from the switch as an input to the Operational Liquidity Requirements. Specifically, LCH SA's Operational Liquidity Requirements now comprise all items referenced in Section 4.1.2 (including Section 4.1.2(j)).
LCH SA is also proposing to amend how it models for the treatment of excess collateral of non-defaulting clearing members in its Operational Target calculation of the Framework. Currently under LCH SA's cover 2 Framework, LCH SA considers that in a default, non-defaulting members will withdraw all their excess collateral following a stress event. In contrast, excess collateral is considered a liquidity resource for defaulting members.
LCH SA is proposing to modify the assumption that all excess collateral is withdrawn immediately following a stress event in its Framework. Specifically, LCH SA would like to revise the assumption that all excess collateral will be withdrawn following the declaration of default in the LCR or during the non-default market stress scenario of the Operational Target standalone calculation. This proposed change would refine the Framework by more closely aligning it with current clearing member behaviors and with the appropriate liquidity horizon period (currently modeled at seven days), while at the same time maintaining a conservative assumption. To facilitate this change, LCH SA is proposing to model for a partial withdrawal of excess collateral based on an indicator calibrated with empirical clearing member data. The partial withdrawal will be based on the second worst observed relative variation experienced over seven days, capped at the biggest historical reduction in excess collateral over the liquidity horizon, utilizing up to ten years of historical data, initiating in 2018.
The rationale for considering the second highest observed historical relative excess decrease is that it represents a confidence level of 99.9% related to a stress event compared to the standard 99.7% used for margin computation in LCH SA. Moreover, as the value will be automatically integrated in the daily Operation Target as part of a dedicated monitoring, it allows ample time for LCH SA's Second Line Risk team to investigate any data issues or any data outliers without an immediate direct impact on production.
LCH SA is proposing to calibrate this indicator daily, thereby incorporating each new daily data point. In order to be consistent with the Framework, LCH SA is also proposing to align the withdrawal over a seven-day period (
To reflect this methodological change in the Framework, LCH SA is proposing to amend Section 4.1.5(d) by clarifying the description of how the withdrawal of excess collateral is modelled. Specifically, LCH SA is proposing to state that a portion of excess collateral is withdrawn over the seven-day liquidity horizon period, with the target estimated excess collateral amount assessed based on historical data dating back to 2018. LCH SA is also proposing to specify that the calibration of this amount will be updated daily as new data becomes available and up to a ten-year lookback period. As part of this change, Section 4.1.5 will also be amended to add that the relative reduction in excess collateral will correspond to the second worst observed relative decrease of excess collateral over a seven-day period, with a cap of the highest absolute reduction amount observed over seven days. LCH SA will provide additional details in Section 4.1.5 in the form of a specific formula as well as the list of assumptions made to clarify how the reduction in excess collateral will be applied. Previous references to the assumptions of excess collateral withdrawal on day T, day T+1 and day T+2 will be removed and replaced with the following clarifications:
• The overall compounded excess reduction over the liquidity horizon will correspond to the second worst relative rate observed over seven days excess reduction, over the calibration period capped at the highest absolute reduction amount observed;
• The biggest reduction relative rate observed on a single day will be applied the first day;
• In each intermediary day, the compounded excess reduction is above the 99.7% percentile confidence interval within the historical window observed;
• LCH SA assumes that it will not observe any increase of excess from members over the liquidity horizon; and
• The assumptions will be monitored daily, such that if a new second worst relative rate is observed, it will automatically be reflected in the computation of the metric.
LCH SA is also proposing to amend note 18 to add that, in addition to DKK, NOK, SEC, AUD, CAD, CHF and JPY securities, collateral belonging to FCM/BD clients and Portuguese and Finnish securities deposited through a triparty arrangement are excluded from liquidity assets in excess collateral. LCH SA will also exclude non-euro cash and CBGs. This last change is being made for purposes of accuracy and does not represent a change in the methodology of the Framework or procedures of LCH SA.
Also, a new note 19 will be added to reference the member behavioral analysis documented in Section 6.2 “Appendix 2”. Section 6.2 will be revised to clarify and provide additional evidence about the methodology detailed in Section 4.1.5. Specifically, in the bullet points summarizing the risk drivers, the phrase “Excess withdrawn” will be replaced by the phrase “Partial excess withdrawal” for purposes of clarity and to conform with similar changes made to the Framework.
Moreover, LCH SA is proposing to state it will assume that a portion of the amount of excess collateral will be withdrawn over seven days and this will substitute the current wording that states that the full amount is assumed to be withdrawn over three days. Moreover, the excess reduction will be based on the second worst relative downward reduction of excess, capped to an absolute amount corresponding to the highest absolute reduction amount observed in the lookback period. To support the change, LCH SA is proposing to add an example of how the intermediary daily excess reductions are modelled by the proposed methodology and included in a table reflecting the margin reduction rate, the cumulative reduction and the absolute value of the capped amount over each day of the seven-day period. LCH SA will also clarify that the figures presented in the example table are for informational purposes only and that the current model will utilize the most recent figures in accordance with Section 4.1.5.
LCH SA is also proposing to make a small amendment to Section 6.3 “Appendix 3: Reminder of SA's sources of liquidity and related risk drivers” with respect to excess collateral. That is, LCH SA is proposing to create a new category ” Excess Collateral” and to state that the source of liquidity considered is the excess posted by member and add the text “Partial withdrawal of excess.” LCH SA is further removing the specific reference to excess cash collateral, as the proposed wording is more aligned to the methodology presented in Section 4.1.5(d). LCH SA is also proposing to amend Section 6.4 “6.4 Appendix 4: Liquidity risk drivers synthesis by reports”. Specifically, the column labelled “Excess” under “BAU” will be amended to reflect that instead of 100 percent of excess collateral being withdrawn, LCH SA will utilize the second worst relative withdraw of excess collateral capped at the highest reduction amount observed, for each Operational Target, LCR Cover 2 for non-defaulting members and LCR Euronext Clearing. Changes to Sections 6.3 and 6.4 will be made to align with the changes made to Section 4.1.5.
To accurately account for the switch of liquid resources to non-liquid resources in the assumptions of the Framework, LCH SA is proposing to amend Section 4.1.5(e) to include details on the new proposed calculation and underlying assumptions. To align with changes performed in 4.1.2, LCH SA clarifies that the substitution refers to liquid resources (and not only cash or ECB-eligible collateral as reported in the header of the section 4.1.5(e) in the previous version of the Framework) to non-liquid resources. The result of the calculation represents the target estimated switch over a liquidity horizon of seven days and is based on historical data calibrated daily. LCH SA is proposing to build the time series of data utilized in the calculation until it reaches a maximum lookback period of 10 years (beginning in 2022). This revision also corresponds to the extension of the offering of securities in DKK, NOK, SEK, CAD, AUD, JPY, and CHF as eligible collateral. LCH SA is proposing a conservative assumption to this calculation by assuming clearing members will not switch non-liquid collateral with liquid collateral over the liquidity horizon and by applying the largest absolute net substitution amount historically observed on a single day over the lookback period, on the first day of the liquidity horizon. For each subsequent day, the compounded net substitution amount will be set above the 99.7% percentile confidence interval within the historical window observed. LCH SA will choose the overall compounded switch value over the liquidity horizon that corresponds to the second worst absolute observed seven-day substitution over the period (the “net substitution amount”). The net substitution amount is calculated for each date and collateral account and is based on a multi-step process that includes the calculation of two metrics: a negative substitution amount, or an amount that reflects a clearing member switching liquid resources with non-liquid resources, and a positive substitution amount, or an amount that reflects a clearing member switching from non-liquid to liquid resources. The net substitution amount represents the difference between the negative substitution amount and the positive substitution amount. LCH SA chooses the aggregate cumulative sum over each day of the liquidity horizon. Consequently, all the references to the former methodology and the related assumptions are proposed to be removed as the substitution is not performed anymore on the maximum historical substitution observed over the last 7 days. To complement this proposed change, LCH SA is adding in Appendix 6.2 (“Members Behaviour Analysis”) an illustrative example of the cumulative switch amounts from liquid resources to non-liquid resources over the seven-day liquidity horizon and reference in a new note 20. LCH SA will also clarify that the figures presented in the example table are for informational purposes only and that the current model will utilize the most recent figures in accordance with Section 4.1.5. The updated text replaces the previous paragraph in the previous version of the Framework that described the substitution methodology and gave an overall description of LCH SA's collateral composition and in particular the split between the ECB eligible EUR non cash collateral and non EUR collateral, which is now outdated as the collateral composition is a function of members' activity and the proposed new methodology adequately captures it more dynamically. In addition, the reference to reverse stress test results and concentration limits applied on non-cash collateral is being removed as this reference is no longer relevant for the description of the new methodology, as it calibrates substitution amount on the basis of actual data observed over the lookback period. For the purpose of providing accuracy, the first bullet point in Appendix 6.2, where the risks driven
For the avoidance of doubt, LCH SA is also clarifying in Section 4.1.5(e) that the assumptions underlying the calculation of the switch amount will be monitored daily and compared against the parameters set up in production according to the described methodology with new extrema automatically reflected in metric calculations (amounts presented in Appendix 2 represent minimum values and may therefore fluctuate daily). Moreover, LCH SA is specifying that the net substitution amount is determined using allocated collateral. To enhance the clarity of the Framework, note 21 will be added to specify which collateral type is excluded from the computation of the substitution quantity, either because it is already considered in different provisions of the Framework, or because the substitution from Liquid Resources to non-Liquid Resources is not possible for the specific collateral type.
LCH SA is also proposing to amend Section 6.4 “6.4 Appendix 4: Liquidity risk drivers synthesis by reports”. Specifically, the column labelled “Substitution” under “BAU” will be amended to align with Section 4.1.5(e) by reflecting that the Operational Target, the LCR Cover 2 and the LCR Euronext Clearing will all consider partial substitution to non-Liquid resources equal to the second worst substitution historically observed.
In addition, in Section 4.1.5(e), LCH SA is proposing to clarify that ECB eligible securities can be pledged to the central bank within the same day and the readiness must be tested and validated annually as part of the Liquidity Plan. That is, LCH SA will demonstrate its ability to perform the necessary activities for purposes of meeting its regulatory obligations related to ensuring access to liquidity. Furthermore, the new language replaces the current reference to War Games Q3 2022 results, given these results are outdated.
Finally, the previously applied methodology for tracking asset switches from cash or ECB eligible securities to non-euro securities, equity lodging, and the use of central bank guarantees are no longer relevant and have been removed. These methodologies, which relied on observed maximum daily switches over a seven-day period, conservative equity lodging and the specific assumption about CBG usage are outdated and not relevant anymore. Instead, a more comprehensive and holistic methodology has been introduced as described above to ensure a more accurate and dynamic approach to liquidity management.
Section 4.1.5(g) is being modified to specify that in alignment with Sections 4.1.5(d) and 4.1.5(e) the assumptions used to estimate the margin reduction in the Operational Target are monitored daily and in case of new extreme, this will be automatically reflected in the computation of the metric. Moreover, note 24 is being modified to state that the lookback used to calibrate the assumption of margin reduction does not end in 2022 because it is instead updated daily. The same amendment will be reflected in Appendix 6.2 (“Members Behaviour Analysis”), with the addition of the sentence specifying that the numbers reported in the example (which reflect the split on each day of the margin reduction) are provided for informational purposes only and that the model may utilize updated figures, which will be defined in accordance with the specifications outlined in Section 4.1.5(g). A new Section 4.1.5(j) is being added to provide details on how LCH SA models for the scenario where clearing members switch the regime of how collateral is posted to the clearing agency (
In Appendix 6.2 (“Members Behaviour Analysis”), LCH SA will add the bullet “Substitution to pledge regime” among the list of the risk drivers and will conform with Section 4.1.5(j), such that the provision will be equivalent to the difference between the second biggest historical amount of pledge observed and the actual observed pledge collateral amount.
LCH SA will also amend the risk mitigation measure referenced in Section 6.3: Appendix 3 as it pertains to pledged securities as collateral. Specifically, LCH SA will clarify that the risk related to clearing members moving away from FTT in favor of the pledge regime is accounted for in the modelling of the LCR and the Standalone Operational Target. This element is not a change in the current practice with respect to the LCR computation but an alignment with the introduction of the modelling of the switch from FTT to the Pledge regime in 4.1.5(j).
LCH SA is also proposing to amend Section 6.4 “6.4 Appendix 4: Liquidity risk drivers synthesis by reports”. Specifically, the column labelled “Substitution” under “BAU” will be amended to reflect that for the Operational Target, a provision to model the switch to the pledge regime according to Section 4.1.5(j) will be included, while for the LCR Cover 2 and LCR Euronext Clearing calculations, the pledge collateral will be set to the maximum limit allowed as described in Section 4.2.5.2.4 of the Framework. Language indicating the substitution would be the historical max including an increase of CBG payments would be deleted from each of these rows to reflect the different changes performed in section 4.1.5.(e) and (j) and the methodology described in Section 4.2.5.2.4 of the Framework. The reference to Central Bank Guarantee is outdated and not relevant anymore and it is replaced by the updated methodology described herein. For clarify, LCH SA notes that contrary to the LCR, the Standalone Operational Target assumptions do not imply clearing member defaults, thus justifying the difference of modelling the pledge regime.
The LCR assumes the default of the biggest 2 groups in term of liquidity while the Standalone Operational Target assumes a market stress event not leading to a default. Therefore, when integrating the Standalone Operational Target into the computation of the LCR, it is adjusted to be more conservative and align with different assumptions taken in the LCR. LCH SA is proposing to make certain clarifying changes with respect to how the Standalone Operational Target is calculated for its LCR under a cover 2 approach. LCH SA will substitute the text “Repayment of Excess cash posted by members” with “Repayment of Excess posted by members” to align with what is described in section 4.1.5(d). Moreover, LCH SA is clarifying that it will utilize a more conservative assumption regarding how it models for the switch from FTT to pledge, whereby the pledged collateral will be set to the maximum limit allowed as described in Section 4.2.5.2.4 of the Framework.
LCH SA will make a conforming change in Section 4.3.5.4 related to the Standalone Operational Target in the LCR calculation for a Euronext Clearing default to align with this change of Section 4.2.5.2.1, as the described change applies to both LCR cover 2 and LCR Euronext Clearing.
In addition, the sentence: “The margin outflows calculated in the operational target and related to the cover 2 is removed for LCR since the CCP will fully use the collateral of the defaulters” will be reworded to “The margin outflows calculated in the operational target and related to the cover 2 is removed from LCR liabilities since the CCP will fully use the collateral of the defaulters”. This change is being made to add more clarity regarding how LCH SA calculates LCR liabilities.
In Section 4.3.2: “Model inputs and Variable selection” (related to LCR Euronext Clearing), LCH SA will correct a typo and revise the previous name of the interoperable CCP, “CC&G” to the current name, “Euronext Clearing”.
As part of its ongoing monitoring of the Framework, LCH SA performs independent reverse stress tests for certain risk factors that could result in a liquidity shortfall. One of these independent reverse stress tests involves a Eurozone downgrade of peripheral and core countries that triggers an increase in ECB haircuts, whereby the value of liquidity resources decreases by an amount resulting in a liquidity deficit. LCH SA is proposing to review the assumptions underpinning the stress scenario by noting that the simulated downgrade will be based on the maximum simultaneous downgrade notches that occurred over seven days for each of the four rating agencies acknowledged by the ECB, aggregated per type of debt (
In addition, LCH SA will clarify in Section 5.3.2.3 that the table presented is an example of the aggregation of exposure for a member group during the combined reverse stress test that includes multiple defaults and is presented for illustrative purposes only.
Finally, LCH SA will also revise Appendix 6.2: “Members behaviour analysis”, by removing the two charts and the global wording related to discussion around increase of margins and the specific case of Brexit. This reference is being removed as it is outdated and these elements are no longer part of the Framework methodology.
LCH SA will clarify that the scenario list disclosed is for informational purposes only and represents the list of scenarios at the time of drafting the current version of the Framework. The actual computation of liquidity metrics is dependent on the actual scenarios used to calibrate the default fund for LCH SA's different services and thus may differ. Moreover, only the scenario labels will be left in the Framework, as this is more applicable for scenario identification than scenario numbers.
To address an independent Model Validation recommendation, a new section will be integrated to disclose a high-level functional workflow regarding the computation of liquidity metrics. The chart will be disclosed for informational purposes only, such that any revision will be made if LCH SA amends the methodology or the Framework.
To complement the changes to the Framework, LCH SA is also proposing to create a new procedure for the purposes of describing the Liquidity Resources including in its LCR calculation for the purposes of complying with the SEC's cover 1 liquidity requirements. The procedure will detail the specific LCR methodology, the escalation process for any potential breaches in the specific cover 1 metric, the frequency of LCH SA's review of the LCR methodology and the controls in place regarding the calculation and ongoing review of the LCR metric compliant with the SEC's cover 1 liquidity requirements and established practices.
LCH SA believes the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
The Framework is being amended primarily to enhance details about how LCH SA models for the liquidity needs arising from the daily settlement process in its RepoClear service related to the auto-collateralization feature in its Framework and amend how LCH SA accounts for non-defaulting members' excess collateral in the calculation of the Standalone Operational Target as well as the LCR in its Framework. The proposed changes to the Framework regarding the auto-collateralization feature will allow LCH SA to utilize dynamic input data, including the most recent ECB haircuts and the actual auto-collateralization limits set up in production at the time of monitoring. In addition, the Framework will be amended to provide a more targeted auto-collateralization limit, such that the allocated portion of the limit for each issuer, in the case where there is a distinct ECB category and haircut step and/or different operational readiness to transfer securities in bulk from T2S to the 3G Pool between different issuers assigned to the same DCA, will be defined based on the average daily settlement obligation per security over the last year for purposes of computing the liquidity impact. The proposed changes to the treatment of excess collateral in the Framework will allow LCH SA to modify the previous assumption that 100 percent of excess collateral is withdrawn immediately following a stress event in its Framework, to more closely align it with
Regulation 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i)
LCH SA is proposing to provide additional specificity in its Framework to more accurately reflect how it models liquidity needs arising from the daily settlement process in its RepoClear service related to the auto-collateralization feature. Specifically, LCH SA is proposing to detail the operational steps by which LCH SA would utilize the auto-collateralization feature, as this information is not currently in the Framework. LCH SA is also proposing to amend the Framework to more accurately reflect real-time information, including the current ECB haircut schedule for sovereign debt securities and the limits determined through real-time monitoring for each debt type. In addition to the proposed changes related to the auto-collateralization feature, the proposed changes to the treatment of excess collateral would modify how LCH SA quantifies the liquidity drain related to Clearing Member withdrawal behaviors in a stress event. Under the Proposed Rule Change, the withdrawal of excess collateral would be modeled based on Clearing Member historical behavior and aligned with the seven-day liquidity horizon. That is, LCH SA will model for the partial withdrawal of excess collateral that is based on the second worst observed relative variation experienced over seven days, capped at the biggest historical reduction in excess collateral over the liquidity horizon. This process would utilize up to ten years of historical data and the result will be automatically integrated in the Operation Target on a daily basis and form the basis of a dedicated monitoring process. The Proposed Rule Change will also clarify that LCH SA will monitor how excess collateral is modelled in the intermediary days within the liquidity horizon and that any change to the assumptions in the Framework will require approval by the ERCo.
LCH SA is also proposing to create a new procedure to describe its process for calculating the Liquidity Resources included in its LCR calculation to comply with the SEC's cover 1 liquidity requirements, detail the specific LCR cover 1 methodology, how it will escalate breaches in the daily review of the specific cover 1 metric, the frequency of LCH SA's review of the LCR methodology more broadly and the controls in place for how LCH SA will calculate and monitor the LCR metric to ensure ongoing compliance with the SEC's cover 1 liquidity requirements and established practices.
Based on the foregoing, LCH SA believes the Proposed Rule Change will allow it to more effectively measure, monitor, and manage its liquidity risk, including by maintaining sufficient liquid resources in all relevant currencies to effect same-day and, where appropriate, intraday and multiday settlement of payment obligations consistent with Regulation 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i).
Regulation 17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii)
To address a regulatory examination observation and for purposes of simplifying how this information is presented in the Framework, LCH SA is making clarifying changes to how it calculates liquidity resources for purposes of meeting the minimum liquid resource requirements under Exchange Act rule 17Ad-22(e)(7).
In addition, LCH SA is also proposing to amend how it models excess collateral withdrawal by leveraging the historical behavior of its membership and using a lookback period that
Finally, LCH SA proposes to update its Framework for independent reverse stress tests by revising the assumptions underlying its simulated Eurozone downgrade scenario, including the use of maximum downgrade notches from recognized rating agencies and recalibration of haircut categories per central bank rules. LCH SA is making these changes to the sovereign downgrade assumptions to address a Model Validation recommendation.
LCH SA is also clarifying that it will only include non-cash resources in its liquidity resources under a cover 1 scenario after performing a comprehensive analysis and presenting to the Board not less than annually to ensure such prearranged funding arrangements are deemed highly reliable even in extreme but plausible market conditions.
Finally, Regulation 17Ad-22(e)(7)(vi)(B)
As part of the process to assess the sufficiency of liquid resources held to meet the minimum liquid resource requirement set forth in Regulation 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i),
(1) add detail with respect to the auto-collateralization feature, including the operational steps by which LCH SA would utilize the feature;
(2) clarify that the maximum potential liquidity drain modelled is based on the operational effectiveness and readiness of the transfer of securities from T2S to the 3G Pool for each issuer, as demonstrated on an annual basis through LCH SA's War Games exercises,
(3) specify how the actual limits for each debt type are determined and validated by internal stakeholders;
(4) clarify that the most conservative ECB haircut of the relevant debt category and step currently in force will apply when determining the maximum liquidity drain; and
(5) make other updates and conforming changes to align with proposed revisions in (1) through (4) above.
LCH SA also identified a need to modify how LCH SA accounts for non-defaulting members' excess collateral in the calculation of the Standalone Operational Target as well as LCR in its Framework. Specifically, LCH SA identified the need to modify the Framework to quantify the withdrawal of excess collateral over a seven-day liquidity horizon based on the second worst observed relative variation experienced over seven days, capped at the biggest historical reduction in excess collateral, utilizing up to ten years of historical data, and implement daily back testing to ensure any changes in the partial withdrawal scenario are flagged to senior management, such that any new extreme would automatically be integrated in the Framework the following day. LCH SA is also proposing additional updates and confirming changes to the Framework for consistency. LCH SA believes the Proposed Rule Change is therefore appropriate for determining its liquidity needs and resources in light of current and evolving market conditions, consistent with Regulation 17Ad-22(e)(7)(vi)(B).
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act requires that the rules of a clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the Proposed Rule Change have not been solicited or received. LCH SA will notify the Commission of any written comments received by LCH SA.
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 Vanessa Countryman, 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 material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to file number SR-LCH SA-2025-003 and should be submitted on or before May 13, 2025.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Louisiana dated April 16, 2025.
Issued on April 16, 2025.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 210496 and for economic injury is 210500.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration is Louisiana.
Proposal to extend the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Categories of Archaeological Material of Costa Rica (“the Costa Rica Agreement”).
Anashya Srinivasan, Cultural Heritage Center, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs at (202) 919-0062, or
Pursuant to the authority vested in the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, and pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(1), an extension of the Costa Rica Agreement is hereby proposed.
A copy of the Costa Rica Agreement, the Designated List of categories of
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew information collection. The collection involves Aviation Maintenance Technician School (AMTS) applicants and certificate holders. The information to be collected will be used to ensure AMTS applicants and certificate holders meet applicable requirements prior to being certificated, and on an ongoing basis following FAA certification.
Written comments should be submitted by June 23, 2025.
Please send written comments:
Tanya Glines by email at:
Applicants and certificate holders submit the required information to their FAA Flight Standards office. The FAA uses this information to determine compliance with part 147 requirements for issuing or maintaining an air agency certificate. When applicants meet all requirements, the FAA issues a certificate with the appropriate ratings. For certificated AMTS, the FAA uses the submitted information to verify an AMTS provides appropriate training at each training location, meets quality control system requirements, and ensures that AMTS students receive appropriate documentation showing the student's eligibility to take the FAA mechanic certification tests.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This document provides the public notice that Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) petitioned FRA to supplement an existing waiver from certain regulations to include locomotive horns.
FRA must receive comments on the petition by May 22, 2025. FRA will consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable.
John Mardente, Railroad Safety Specialist, FRA Engineering & Technology Division, telephone: 202-493-1335, email:
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letter dated April 4, 2025, DART petitioned FRA for an amendment to a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR parts 222 (Use of Locomotive Horns at Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossings), and 229 (Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards). The relevant Docket Number is FRA-2004-20000.
Specifically, DART seeks additional relief from § 222.21,
In support of its request, DART contends that the requested relief “will allow operational consistency, efficiency[,] and safety among the entire fleet of DART [light rail vehicles] because it will allow DART operators to use the same audible warning device at all crossings within the DART Light Rail System.”
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 22, 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.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This document provides the public notice that Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) petitioned FRA for an extension of relief from certain regulations concerning virtual simulation training.
FRA must receive comments on the petition by May 22, 2025. FRA will consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable.
Lance Hawks, Rail Safety Specialist, FRA Human Performance Division, telephone: 678-633-7400, email:
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letters dated November 14, 2024 and February 4, 2025, CPKC petitioned FRA for an extension of relief from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 232, Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment; End-of-Train Devices. The relevant Docket Number is FRA-2020-0001.
Specifically, CPKC seeks an extension of relief from § 232.203(b)(8),
In support of its request, CPKC states that the “systematic, blended training curriculum . . . exceeds the training objectives of [the regulations] and will continue to increase proficiency, ultimately reducing air brake defects across the CPKC network.” Additionally, CPKC cites the individual training environment of the simulation as more conducive to learning and states that “[d]ue to the velocity within CPKC's network, it is often difficult to provide a consistent training and testing environment.”
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 22, 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.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This document provides the public notice that by letter received October 18, 2024, Union Pacific Railroad (UP) petitioned FRA seeking approval to discontinue or modify a signal system.
FRA must receive comments on the petition by June 23, 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: 406-210-3608, email:
Under part 235 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that by letter received October 18, 2024, UP petitioned FRA seeking approval to discontinue or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2024-0121.
Specifically, UP requests to remove circuitry and signal equipment for the Atchison Bridge (at milepost 330.8) on the Atchison Industrial Lead near Atchison, Kansas. UP states that “[p]ersonnel will be instructed to visually inspect” the bridge before occupying it, and “stop signs will be placed in lieu of signals for any movements made onto the bridge.”
In support of the request, UP states that no freight traffic moves across the bridge, as the “associated track on the east side of the river and bridge is no longer usable.” The only movements onto Atchison Bridge would be an occasional “poke move” made by a local team that will stop and inspect the bridge. In its petition, UP also notes that the “safety of the system will be retained.”
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 June 23, 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 better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden, and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent by May 22, 2025
To submit comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection, please type the following link into your browser:
VA PRA information: Dorothy Glasgow, 202-461-1084,
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden, and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent by May 22, 2025.
To submit comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection, please type the following link into your browser:
VA PRA information: Dorothy Glasgow, (202) 461-1084,
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
Federal Trade Commission.
Final rule amendments.
The Federal Trade Commission amends the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule (the “Rule”), consistent with the requirements of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. The amendments to the Rule, which are based on the FTC's review of public comments and its enforcement experience, include one new definition and modifications to several others, as well as updates to key provisions to respond to changes in technology and online practices. The amendments are intended to strengthen protection of personal information collected from children, and, where appropriate, to clarify and streamline the Rule since it was last amended in January 2013.
The complete public record of this proceeding will be available at
James Trilling, Attorney, (202) 326-3497; Manmeet Dhindsa, Attorney, (202) 326-2877; Elizabeth Averill, Attorney, (202) 326-2993; Andy Hasty, Attorney, (202) 326-2861; or Genevieve Bonan, Attorney, (202) 326-3139, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.
This document states the basis and purpose for the Federal Trade Commission's (“Commission” or “FTC”) decision to adopt certain amendments to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule that were proposed and published for public comment on January 11, 2024, in a notice of proposed rulemaking (“2024 NPRM”).
The final amendments to the COPPA Rule include a new definition for
In the 2024 NPRM, the Commission proposed a number of Rule modifications relating to educational technology (“ed tech”), including new definitions of
Congress enacted COPPA in 1998. On November 3, 1999, the Commission issued the COPPA Rule, which became effective on April 21, 2000.
In 2013, the Commission adopted changes to the COPPA Rule, consistent with the COPPA statute, in light of changing technology and business practices (“2013 Amendments”).
The Commission initiated the underlying review of the COPPA Rule in July 2019 when it published a document in the
Following consideration of these comments and other feedback received, the Commission issued the 2024 NPRM in the
In the 2024 NPRM, the Commission proposed minor revisions to the Rule to address various stylistic, grammatical, and punctuation issues. The Commission proposed amending the Rule to change the term “Web site” to “website” throughout the Rule, noting that this better aligns with the COPPA statute's use of the term, as well as how the term is used in the marketplace.
The Commission proposed a new stand-alone definition for “mixed audience website or online service” as “a website or online service that is directed to children under the criteria set forth in paragraph (1) of the definition of website or online service directed to children, but that does not target children as its primary audience, and does not collect personal information from any visitor prior to collecting age information or using another means that is reasonably calculated, in light of available technology, to determine whether the visitor is a child.”
Since the Commission established the “mixed audience” category in the 2013 Amendments, the Commission has viewed “mixed audience” sites and services as a subset of the “child-directed” category of websites or online services.
Unlike other child-directed sites and services, those that do not target children as their primary audience may decide to age screen visitors in order to apply COPPA's protections only to visitors who identify as under 13. Under both the current Rule and proposed stand-alone definition for “mixed audience website or online service,” an operator of a mixed audience website or online service may not collect personal information from any visitor until it collects age information from the visitor or uses another means that is reasonably calculated, in light of available technology, to determine whether the visitor is under 13. To the extent that a visitor identifies as under 13, the operator may not collect, use, or disclose the child's personal information without first complying with the Rule's notice and parental consent provisions.
The proposed stand-alone definition of “mixed audience website or online service” received general support from many commenters, but also generated many requests for clarification.
A number of commenters asked for additional guidance about when websites and online services will be considered general audience, primarily child-directed, or mixed audience.
Other commenters expressed concern that the new definition prevents mixed audience websites and online services from utilizing the exceptions to the COPPA Rule's verifiable parental consent requirement set forth in § 312.5(c).
One commenter urged the Commission to state that general audience and mixed audience websites and online services containing “kid-friendly portions” of content or services are not primarily child-directed.
Another commenter suggested amending the definition of “mixed audience website or online service” to mean “a website or online service that does not target children as its primary audience but where a portion of the website or online service would satisfy the criteria set forth in paragraph (1) of the definition of website or online service directed to children.”
The proposed definition of “mixed audience website or online service” also included language to provide additional clarity about how an operator of a mixed audience website or online service can determine whether a user is a child. The Commission received a variety of comments about this aspect of the proposed definition. Some commenters expressed support for the flexibility built into the Commission's proposal to permit operators of mixed audience websites or online services to collect age information or use other reasonably calculated means to determine whether a visitor is a child.
Other commenters raised concerns related to this aspect of the proposed definition of “mixed audience website or online service.” For example, one commenter opposed references to the “collection of age information” on the ground that “collection” implies retention of information, which the commenter indicated should not be necessary to achieve the goal of determining users' ages; the commenter favored alternative age verification strategies that avoid retention of age information.
Other commenters requested clarification about whether the proposed definition of “mixed audience website or online service” permits collection of information without first obtaining parental consent for the purpose of determining whether a user is a child.
Another commenter suggested that the neutrality requirement for age screening in the proposed definition “presents considerable challenges” because age assurance methodologies present different levels of accuracy and some require the collection of personal
After carefully considering the record and comments, and for the reasons discussed in Part II.B.1.b of this document, the Commission is adopting an amended version of the proposed definition of “mixed audience website or online service” that includes additional language clarifying operators of mixed audience websites and online services may collect personal information for the limited purposes set forth in § 312.5(c) prior to determining visitor age. The Commission intends for operators of mixed audience websites and online services to have the same ability to utilize the exceptions to the verifiable parental consent requirement set forth in § 312.5(c) as operators of other child-directed websites and online services.
In the 2024 NPRM, the Commission proposed amending the definition of “online contact information” in § 312.2 of the Rule by adding to the non-exhaustive list of identifiers that constitute online contact information “an identifier such as a mobile telephone number provided the operator uses it only to send a text message.”
A substantial majority of commenters addressing the proposed amendment to the definition supported it.
While not clearly opposing the proposal, one FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program, Privacy Vaults Online, Inc. (“PRIVO”), suggested that the use of text messages to seek parental consent might make it more difficult for parents to recognize senders, review disclosures, and contact the operator if they subsequently decide to withdraw consent.
A minority of commenters opposed the proposal to amend the definition of “online contact information.”
Some commenters suggested that sending text messages to mobile telephone numbers without the consent of mobile telephone subscribers might have the potential to conflict with Federal and State laws related to text messaging
At least one commenter expressed confusion about whether the Commission intended the proposed Rule amendments to constitute approval of operators' use of text messages to obtain verifiable parental consent.
The Commission is also adjusting the definition of “online contact information” proposed in the 2024 NPRM to limit the use of mobile telephone numbers, in the absence of verifiable parental consent, to purposes related to obtaining verifiable parental consent. In the 2024 NPRM, the Commission discussed the importance of avoiding situations where mobile telephone numbers collected from children would be used to make voice calls to children without parental consent. After carefully considering the record and comments, the Commission has adjusted the proposed language to prevent situations where operators are utilizing mobile telephone numbers collected from a child for purposes unrelated to obtaining verifiable parental consent.
After carefully considering the record and comments, and for the reasons discussed in Part II.B.2.b of this document, the Commission has decided to adopt an amended version of the
The COPPA statute and the COPPA Rule define “personal information” as individually identifiable information about an individual collected online, including, for example, a first and last name, an email address, or a Social Security number. The COPPA statute also authorizes the Commission to include within the COPPA Rule's definition of personal information “any other identifier that the Commission determines permits the physical or online contacting of a specific individual.”
In the 2024 NPRM, the Commission proposed using its statutory authority to expand the Rule's coverage by amending the definition of personal information to include “[a] biometric identifier that can be used for the automated or semi-automated recognition of an individual, including fingerprints or handprints; retina and iris patterns; genetic data, including a DNA sequence; or data derived from voice data, gait data, or facial data.”
Many commenters expressed general support for amending the Rule's definition of personal information to include biometric identifiers.
A number of commenters that generally supported adding in the definition of personal information a new provision for biometric data encouraged the Commission to consider expanding the biometric identifier provision in the definition of personal information beyond what the Commission proposed in the 2024 NPRM.
For a variety of reasons, a significant number of industry group and other commenters opposed the biometric identifier provision proposed in the 2024 NPRM.
The Commission notes that the proposed expansion of the definition of personal information to include biometric identifiers appropriately responds to marketplace developments such as the increasingly common use of technologies relying on facial recognition, retina or iris imagery, or fingerprints to allow individuals to unlock mobile devices and to access accounts or facilities,
Other commenters objecting to the proposed biometric identifier provision argued that it is inconsistent with the COPPA statute because the enumerated biometric identifiers do not necessarily identify a specific individual.
Commenters also encouraged the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of constraining the collection and use of biometric identifiers,
Some commenters urged the Commission to consider adjusting the language proposed in the 2024 NPRM to reduce perceived inconsistencies between the proposed biometric identifier provision and various State laws and industry standards.
Other commenters urged the Commission to consider limiting the proposed biometric identifier provision to biometric identifiers that are used or intended to be used to recognize or identify an individual, to better align with State laws and to simplify operators' compliance obligations.
Other commenters suggested the proposed biometric identifier provision should be similarly narrowed for different reasons. For example, several industry commenters suggested adjusting the provision from biometric identifiers that “can be used” for automated or semi-automated recognition to a biometric identifier that “is used” for automated recognition of an individual, to, in their view, be more consistent with the definition of personal information in the COPPA statute and to avoid vagueness concerns.
In response, the Commission notes that it disagrees with these commenters' assertions that such adjustments are necessary to comport with the COPPA statute. The phrase “can be used” is consistent with the COPPA statute, which defines personal information to mean “individually identifiable information about an individual collected online” rather than an alternative such as information used to identify an individual.
Numerous commenters were particularly critical of the Commission's proposal to include the words “data derived from voice data, gait data, or facial data” in the biometric identifier provision the Commission proposed in the 2024 NPRM.
After carefully considering the record and comments, the Commission has decided to adopt an amended version of the biometric identifier provision the Commission proposed in the 2024 NPRM. The Commission previously explained that the proposed provision included a non-exhaustive list of examples of covered biometric identifiers that can be used for the automated or semi-automated recognition of an individual.
The Commission has carefully considered input from commenters emphasizing that biometric identifiers are important for uses such as identity authentication, security, age assurance, and virtual reality, and that expanding the definition of personal information to include biometric identifiers will make it more burdensome for operators to collect and use such data from children because they will need to notify parents and obtain verifiable parental consent. However, the Commission is persuaded that enabling parents to make decisions about whether operators are collecting and using their children's biometric identifiers for any purpose and the other benefits commenters identified associated with restricting the collection of children's biometric identifiers without parental consent outweigh the attendant burdens imposed on operators.
The Commission also solicited comments about whether it should consider establishing any exceptions to Rule requirements with regard to biometric data, such as when such data is promptly deleted.
Other commenters opposed creating any exceptions tied to prompt deletion of biometric identifiers.
A number of commenters suggested the Commission should consider exceptions for biometric identifiers that are based on specific use cases, such as when fingerprints or facial data are used for security or authentication purposes.
After carefully considering the record and comments related to this question, the Commission has decided not to add any additional exceptions to COPPA Rule requirements related to biometric data at this time, other than the exception to prior parental consent set forth in proposed § 312.5(c)(9) in the 2024 NPRM for the collection of audio files containing a child's voice. The Commission has carefully considered the input from commenters emphasizing that biometric identifiers are important for uses such as identity authentication and security purposes, age assurance, and virtual reality, and that expanding the definition of personal information to include biometric identifiers will make it more burdensome for operators to collect and use such data from children.
The Commission also requested comment on whether it should revise the definition of “personal information” to specifically list government-issued identifiers beyond Social Security numbers that are currently included in the definition.
One commenter noted such identifiers are likely already covered under the existing definition of personal information, but suggested that adding an explicit provision for government-issued identifiers would provide greater clarity.
Since the 2013 Amendments to the Rule, the definition of personal information has included screen or user names to the extent that these identifiers function in the same manner as “online contact information.” In the 2024 NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether screen or user names should also be treated as online contact information or personal information if the screen or user names do not allow one user to contact another user through the operator's website or online service, but could enable one user to contact another by assuming that
A minority of commenters expressed support for this suggestion.
A majority of commenters opposed this proposal for a variety of reasons.
The Commission currently does not have sufficient evidence concerning either the extent to which children are currently reusing their screen and user names across platforms or the prevalence of children being contacted via screen or user names through secondary platforms to warrant amending the Rule.
The Commission solicited comments in Question Six of the “Questions for the Proposed Revisions to the Rule” section of the 2024 NPRM about whether an avatar generated from a child's image should constitute personal information under the Rule even if the photograph of the child is not itself uploaded to the site or service and no other personal information is collected from the child, and, if so, whether the current Rule provides sufficient coverage or whether further modifications to the definition of personal information are necessary to ensure coverage.
A minority of commenters supported treating avatars based on a child's image as personal information under the circumstances described in Question Six.
Another commenter discussed potentially sensitive information that might be derived from avatars such as ethnicity or disability information, but suggested more research should precede expansion of the definition.
For a variety of reasons, a majority of commenters opposed the idea of treating avatars described in Question Six as personal information under the Rule.
Industry commenters also raised practical and policy-related objections to the idea of requiring operators to treat avatars generated from a child's image, in situations where the operator has not itself collected the child's photograph, as personal information. For example, commenters suggested that expanding coverage for avatars under the Rule would be burdensome and confusing, and introduce significant compliance challenges, particularly because operators that do not collect photographs or videos of users would have difficulty determining whether an avatar is created from a child's image.
After carefully considering the record and comments, the Commission is persuaded that it would likely be difficult for operators to determine whether an avatar is generated from a child's image in situations where they have not collected an image of the child. For example, with the advent of generative AI, the Commission expects that it would be possible for a user to create a highly realistic avatar that might appear to be generated from a child's image. The Commission also does not currently have sufficient evidence that avatars are individually identifying. Indeed, a number of the comments received suggest that avatars are often temporary and may not resemble users.
The definition of personal information in the current Rule includes “information concerning the child or the parents of that child that the operator collects online from the child and combines with an identifier described in [the Rule's definition of “personal information”].”
A coalition of State attorneys general suggested the Commission consider amending this provision to: “information concerning the child or the parents of that child that the operator collects online from the child and combines with an identifier described in [the Rule's definition of `personal information'], or which may otherwise be linked or reasonably linkable to personal information of the child.”
A number of commenters asked the Commission to clarify when, or if, inferred data would be considered personal information under the provision in paragraph 10 of the Rule's definition of personal information.
Several industry commenters asked the Commission to confirm that the catch-all provision in paragraph 10 of the definition of personal information does not extend to inferred data.
After carefully considering the record and comments related to this question, the Commission has decided to retain the existing language in paragraph 10 of the Rule's definition of personal information, which tracks the definition in the COPPA statute and provides broad coverage for a wide range of information that is collected from children when such information is combined with other identifiers set forth in the definition.
As discussed earlier, after carefully considering the record and comments, the Commission is adopting an amended version of the biometric provision proposed in the 2024 NPRM to be included in the definition of personal information. Specifically, the Commission has decided not to include the language “data derived from voice data, gait data, or facial data” in the provision for the reasons discussed in Part II.B.3.b. The Commission has also decided to replace the word “including” with “such as” and to provide additional illustrative examples of biometric identifiers to provide further clarity concerning the provision's coverage. The language the Commission is adopting for the biometric identifier provision in the final Rule's definition of personal information includes the following: “A biometric identifier that can be used for the automated or semi-automated recognition of an individual, such as fingerprints; handprints; retina patterns; iris patterns; genetic data, including a DNA sequence; voiceprints; gait patterns; facial templates; or faceprints[.]” As discussed in Part II.B.3.c.ii, the Commission has also decided to amend paragraph 6 of the definition of personal information to include “[a] government-issued identifier, such as a Social Security, [S]tate identification card, birth certificate, or passport number[.]”
The current Rule defines “support for the internal operations of the website or online service” to include seven enumerated activities and further provides that the information collected to perform such activities cannot be used or disclosed to “contact a specific individual, including through behavioral advertising, to amass a profile on a specific individual, or for any other purpose.”
The Commission received at least one comment supporting the first proposed amendment to the definition of “support for the internal operations of the website or online service”
A number of consumer advocacy groups, school-related groups, governmental commenters, and other commenters supported the proposal to restrict the use of persistent identifiers collected under the support for the internal operations exception to COPPA's verifiable parental consent requirement to contact a specific individual in order to encourage or prompt use of a website or online service.
For a variety of reasons, a majority of commenters that weighed in on this proposal, representing different types of stakeholders, opposed amending the definition's use restriction to prohibit operators from relying on the support for the internal operations exception when persistent identifiers are being used in connection with processes that encourage or prompt the use of a website or online service.
Several commenters asserted the proposed language is vague or overbroad and fails to give operators adequate notice of the prohibited conduct.
Many commenters emphasized that the proposed restriction could have unintended consequences, such as preventing operators from using prompts and notifications that are beneficial for children.
Other industry and public interest group commenters argued that the proposed use restriction unduly restricts legal speech and may violate First Amendment constitutional protections.
After carefully considering the record and comments, and for the reasons discussed in Part II.B.4.b of this document, the Commission adopts the proposed amendment clarifying that persistent identifiers used for the activities enumerated in paragraphs (1)(i) through (vii) of the definition of “support for the internal operations of the website or online service” may be used or disclosed in connection with those activities.
By contrast, the Commission is persuaded that adding “in connection with processes that encourage or prompt use of a website or online service” to the use restriction as proposed is overly broad and would constrain beneficial prompts and notifications, as well as those that prolong children's engagement with sites and services, in
In Question Nine of the “Questions for the Proposed Revisions to the Rule” section of the 2024 NPRM, the Commission noted that some commenters on the 2019 Rule Review Initiation recommended modifications to the “support for the internal operations of the website or online service” definition to limit personalization to “user-driven” actions and to exclude methods designed to maximize user engagement.
Most commenters that responded to Question Nine recommended against the Commission amending the definition of “support for the internal operations of the website or online service” to differentiate between user-driven versus operator-driven personalization actions.
By contrast, a coalition of State attorneys general recommended that the Commission amend the definition of “support for the internal operations of the website or online service” to limit “personalization” to “user-driven” actions.
Some commenters recommended that, if the Commission decides to exclude some personalization techniques from the support for the internal operations of the website or online service definition, the Commission should focus only on personalization that is based upon user profiling
Having carefully considered the record and comments regarding the idea of amending the support for the internal operations of the website or online service definition to exclude operator-driven personalization, the Commission finds persuasive the reasons set forth by commenters that recommended the Commission decline to make such an amendment. The Commission therefore declines to make such an amendment to the definition at this time.
The 2024 NPRM noted that the support for the internal operations exception to the COPPA Rule's verifiable parental consent requirement permits operators to collect persistent identifiers for contextual advertising purposes without parental consent as
Several commenters responded to Question Ten by expressing concerns with the COPPA Rule's treatment of contextual advertising.
By contrast, a large number of commenters recommended that the Commission maintain the position that the support for the internal operations exception to the COPPA Rule's verifiable parental consent requirement permits the use of persistent identifiers for contextual advertising.
Having carefully considered the record and commenters' responses to Question Ten, the Commission declines to modify the COPPA Rule's treatment of contextual advertising. As discussed further in Part II.C.2, the Commission's addition of new § 312.4(d)(3) will enhance the Commission's ability to monitor operators' use of the support for the internal operations exception to the COPPA Rule's verifiable parental consent requirement for contextual advertising and other purposes.
The Rule's current definition of “website or online service directed to children” includes in its first paragraph a list of factors that the Commission considers in determining whether a particular website or online service is child-directed. The second paragraph states that a website or online service shall be deemed directed to children when it has actual knowledge that it is collecting personal information directly from users of another website or online service directed to children. The third paragraph provides that certain “mixed audience” websites and online services that are child-directed under the multi-factor test set forth in the first paragraph of the definition will not be deemed directed to children if the website or online service does not collect personal information from any visitor prior to collecting age information and prevents the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information from visitors who identify themselves as under 13 without first complying with the notice and parental consent provisions of the Rule. The fourth paragraph provides that a website or online service will not be deemed child-directed solely because it refers or links to a commercial website or online service directed to children.
The Commission proposed a number of amendments to this definition in the 2024 NPRM that were intended to provide additional insight and clarity regarding how the Commission currently interprets and applies the definition and were not intended to substantively change the Rule.
The determination of whether a website or online service is child-directed is fact-based and requires flexibility as individual factors may be more, or less, relevant depending on the context. In the 2024 NPRM, the Commission preserved the multi-factor test for determining child-directedness in the Rule,
The Commission received numerous comments in response to this proposal, with many commenters expressing support for including certain proposed examples in the definition of “website or online service directed to children” while opposing the inclusion of other proposed examples.
Regarding the examples of “marketing or promotional materials or plans” and “representations to consumers or to third parties,” a majority of commenters addressing the proposal supported including such examples.
Most of the commenters that opposed the Commission's proposal primarily raised concerns with the addition of “reviews by users or third parties” and “the age of users on similar websites or services” to paragraph (1) of the definition. Some commenters contended these examples are not “competent and reliable empirical evidence” of audience composition or intended audience, and are therefore inconsistent with the standard set forth in the final sentence of paragraph (1) and should not be considered in the Commission's assessment of child-directedness.
Regarding the age of users on similar websites or services, commenters emphasized that operators would likely not have access to data about the ages of users of websites or online services controlled by others,
In response to these comments, the Commission reiterates that the inquiry in determining child-directedness requires consideration of a totality of the circumstances. Depending on the facts, reviews or the age of users on similar websites or online services may receive little weight in determining audience composition or the intended audience of a website or online service. For example, the Commission understands that reviews may not always be representative, accurate, or genuine and that content ratings or other ratings published by platforms or other third
After carefully considering the record and comments, and for the reasons discussed in Part II.B.5.a.ii of this document, the Commission has decided to amend paragraph (1) of the definition as proposed.
In Question Eleven of the “Questions for the Proposed Revisions to the Rule” section of the NPRM, the Commission requested comment on various questions related to whether it should offer an exemption within the definition of website or online service directed to children, or other incentive, if an operator of a website or online service undertakes an analysis of its audience composition and determines that no more than a specific percentage of its users are likely to be children under 13.
The Commission received some comments supporting such an exemption.
However, a large majority of commenters addressing Question Eleven opposed implementing such an exemption.
After carefully considering the record and comments, the Commission has determined not to move forward with an exemption related to audience analysis at this time. The Commission is persuaded by the comments suggesting that an exemption based on audience composition may be inconsistent with the multi-factor approach used to determine whether a website or online service is child-directed as well as the comment suggesting that small and medium-sized businesses may be disadvantaged by such a provision because they have fewer resources to conduct and update audience analyses.
Currently, the second paragraph of the definition of “[w]eb site or online service directed to children” states that “[a] website or online service shall be deemed directed to children when it has actual knowledge that it is collecting personal information directly from users of another website or online service directed to children.”
Commenters supporting the proposal agreed that the amendment addressed a “loophole” that is contrary to COPPA's intent.
However, a majority of the commenters addressing this proposal opposed it, raising several concerns.
Given the general lack of support for the NPRM proposal, the Commission has decided not to remove the term “directly” from paragraph (2) of the definition of “website or online service directed to children.” Practical considerations, such as how a third party would provide notice and obtain verifiable parental consent in accordance with the COPPA Rule without having a direct relationship to the child or parent, make the proposal difficult to implement. In addition, given other proposed amendments the Commission is finalizing,
The Commission also notes that in circumstances where downstream entities receive personal information collected from children on a child-directed website or online service, the operator of the child-directed site or service and any third party that has actual knowledge that it is collecting personal information directly from users of another website or online service that is directed to children would be liable for violating COPPA.
In the 2024 NPRM, the Commission proposed amending paragraph (3) of the definition of “website or online service directed to children” to remove content now covered by the new proposed definition for “mixed audience website or online service” and adding a statement clarifying that “[a] mixed audience website or online service shall not be deemed directed to children with regard to any visitor not identified as under 13.”
In the 2024 NPRM, the Commission proposed various amendments to § 312.4(c) of the COPPA Rule, which governs “[c]ontent of the direct notice to the parent.” In totality, the proposed amendments would expand the disclosures required in direct notices.
As a threshold matter, one commenter generally opposed expanding the disclosures required in direct notices, warning that such expansion “will add regulatory burden without creating any added privacy or benefits for children or consumers generally.”
Under the current Rule, § 312.4(c)(1) sets forth the required content of the direct notice when an operator collects personal information in order to initiate a request for parental consent under the parental consent exception set forth in § 312.5(c)(1).
In the 2024 NPRM, the Commission proposed amending the heading of § 312.4(c)(1) and making minor amendments to § 312.4(c)(1)(i), (ii), and (vi).
The Commission received minimal feedback about these proposals. Without specifically supporting or opposing the proposed amendment, CIPL suggested that the proposed change to the § 312.4(c)(1) heading “greatly expands the scope of” § 312.4(c)(1) because it clarifies that § 312.4(c)(1)'s requirements apply to all instances in which an operator provides direct notice to a parent for purposes of obtaining consent rather than applying only when an operator is collecting a parent's online contact information pursuant to the parental consent exception provided by § 312.5(c)(1) of the Rule.
After careful consideration of the record and comments, and for the reasons discussed above, the Commission has concluded that the proposed amendments clarify operators' obligations and appropriately extend the requirements of § 312.4(c)(1) to all instances in which the operator provides direct notice to a parent for the purposes of obtaining consent.
Section 312.4(c)(1)(iii) currently requires the direct notice to include “[t]he additional items of personal information the operator intends to collect from the child, or the potential opportunities for the disclosure of personal information, should the parent provide consent.” In the 2024 NPRM, the Commission proposed to amend § 312.4(c)(1)(iii) by deleting “additional,” inserting a requirement for the direct notice to state “how the operator intends to use such information,” and replacing “or” with “and.”
Several commenters generally supported the proposed requirement for the direct notice to state how the operator intends to use the personal information collected from the child if the parent provides consent. The Center for Democracy and Technology, for example, stated that “[a]dditional information about the intended use of the child's data is vital for ensuring the parent gives fully informed consent for the operator to collect their child's data, and therefore should be included in the [direct] notice.”
Some commenters that supported these additions also suggested the Commission take further steps to “provide parents with a more comprehensive understanding of how their child's data may be utilized beyond the initial collection, enabling them to make more informed decisions regarding consent.”
The Commission agrees with the children's advocates coalition and the State attorneys general coalition that, in some instances, direct notices disclosing how the operator would use each element of personal information the operator collects would be most helpful to parents. In other instances, however, the Commission is concerned that an item-by-item correlation of personal information elements and uses could be superfluous, unduly complex, and in tension with the need for direct notices to be clear and concise.
After careful consideration of the record and comments, and for the reasons discussed in Part II.C.1.b.ii, the Commission believes the amendments the Commission proposed to § 312.4(c)(1)(iii) would further the important goals of increasing operator transparency and empowering parents. The Commission is therefore finalizing the amendments to § 312.4(c)(1)(iii) as originally proposed.
In the 2024 NPRM, the Commission proposed adding new § 312.4(c)(1)(iv)
Many commenters addressed whether proposed new § 312.4(c)(1)(iv) should require operators to identify in the direct notice by name or by category the third parties to which disclosures would be made. In separate comments, Common Sense Media and a children's advocates coalition each urged the Commission to require operators to identify third parties by name and category, stating that doing so was necessary to ensure parents' decision-making was adequately informed.
Other commenters argued that operators should only be required to identify the categories of third parties to which disclosures would be made.
Two commenters from the advertising industry—the American Association of Advertising Agencies and Privacy for America—opined that operators should not be required to identify the names or categories of third-party disclosure recipients at all.
The Commission agrees with the commenters that suggested knowing the third parties with which an operator shares children's personal information is an important consideration for parents. The Commission believes that requiring operators to identify such third parties in the direct notice will enhance parents' ability to make an informed decision about whether to consent to the collection of their child's personal information. The Commission also agrees with the many commenters that stressed the importance of clear and concise direct notices. Accordingly, the Commission believes the Rule should provide operators with enough flexibility to ensure they are able to meaningfully identify the third-party disclosure recipients in a direct notice that is also clear and concise. In some cases, the Commission believes that categories may help parents understand the implications of the parent's decision in a way that names may not, particularly where the third party might be unfamiliar to consumers (
Many commenters also weighed in with views on where operators should be required to identify the third parties to which disclosures would be made.
Considering the likely importance of the information to parents, and the role that direct notices play in helping parents make informed decisions, the Commission agrees with those commenters that urged the Commission to require operators to identify third-party disclosure recipients in the direct notice (as well as the online notice). To mitigate concerns that such a requirement might lead to unduly long and complex direct notices, and mindful of the different contexts in which parents may encounter the different notices, the Commission notes that operators may include a hyperlinked cross-reference from the direct notice to the section in the operator's online notice where operators are able to provide more detail regarding the third parties to which, and the purposes for which, the operator discloses personal information.
In addition to whether operators must identify third-party disclosure recipients by name or category, and whether operators must include such identification in operators' direct and online notices, commenters also addressed other aspects of proposed § 312.4(c)(1)(iv). Some commenters emphasized that operators should be required to state which disclosures are integral to the nature of the website or online service,
Under proposed § 312.4(c)(1)(iv), and the proposed amendments to § 312.4(c)(1)(iii), operators would be required to provide direct notices that clearly state (by name or category) which third parties
After careful consideration of the record and comments, and for the reasons discussed in Part II.C.1.c.ii of this document, the Commission has decided to amend § 312.4(c)(1) to add a new paragraph (iv) as originally proposed in the 2024 NPRM, with a minor modification. For consistency with the changes described in Part II.D.1.c, the Commission is dropping the words “the nature of” from the last clause of the proposed amendments to § 312.4(c)(1)(iv) for consistency with longstanding guidance
Under the current Rule, § 312.4(d)(2) requires operators to include in their online notice a description of the
Many commenters generally supported the Commission's proposed amendments to § 312.4(d)(2) and the additional transparency about operators' personal information disclosure and retention practices that the proposed amendments would require.
As discussed in Part II.C.1.c.ii, a wide range of commenters opined that the third parties to which the operator discloses personal information and the purposes for such disclosures are important considerations for parents.
Considering the potentially significant privacy implications of an operator's disclosure practices,
Several commenters also addressed the Commission's proposal to require operators to include in their online notice their data retention policy for children's personal information. Some commenters focused on the content that operators should be required to include within these retention policies. To satisfy the requirement to provide a written children's data retention policy in the § 312.4(d) online notice,
The current Rule requires operators to describe in their online notice how the operator uses the children's data that the operator collects.
Other commenters focused on the format and placement of the operator's retention policy within the operator's online notice. Concerned about possible “clutter,” kidSAFE suggested that the Commission consider allowing operators to include within their online notice a link to their data retention policy rather than the actual retention policy.
The Commission believes that an operator's retention policy for children's personal information must be included as part of the operator's online notice, enabling parents and other interested persons to consistently and efficiently locate the policy. To mitigate concerns that such a requirement might lead to unduly long, complex, or cluttered online notices, the Commission notes that operators may use various design features, such as expandable sections (enabling a reader to obtain more detail within a given section), or intra-notice hyperlinks (enabling a reader to quickly navigate between sections within the online notice).
After careful consideration of the record and comments, the Commission has decided to adopt the amendments to § 312.4(d)(2) as proposed in the 2024 NPRM, with one adjustment: rather than permitting operators to include in their online notice “the identities or specific categories of any third parties to which the operator discloses personal information,” operators must include the identities and specific categories of any such third parties. As discussed in Part II.C.2.a.ii, the Commission believes that requiring operators to provide the names and categories of third-party disclosure recipients will improve parents' ability to make informed decisions about the websites or online services their children use and facilitate enhanced accountability for operators.
In the 2024 NPRM, the Commission proposed adding new § 312.4(d)(3), which would require an operator's online notice to include, “[i]f applicable, the specific internal operations for which the operator has collected a persistent identifier pursuant to” § 312.5(c)(7)'s support for the internal operations exception to the Rule's verifiable parental consent requirement, “and the means the operator uses to ensure that such identifier is not used or disclosed to contact a specific individual, including . . . in connection with processes that encourage or prompt use of a website or online service, or for any other purpose (except as specifically permitted to provide support for the internal operations of the website or online service).”
Some consumer advocate and industry commenters supported proposed § 312.4(d)(3) while also recommending changes to it. A children's advocates coalition expressed strong support for proposed § 312.4(d)(3) and also recommended that the Commission revise the proposed section to require operators' online notices to “specify each particular internal operation(s) purpose or activity for each identifier” the operator collects pursuant to § 312.5(c)(7).
Many commenters opposed the proposed addition of § 312.4(d)(3). Several raised concerns about the technical nature of the types of activities that are considered to be “support for the internal operations,” and indicated that disclosures about such activities would be “highly technical and unlikely to be useful to parents.”
One commenter queried whether the disclosure of personal information collection and use practices would duplicate disclosures in existing privacy policies required by other laws.
After carefully considering the record and comments, the Commission adopts the proposed new § 312.4(d)(3) with modifications. For the reasons explained in Parts II.B.4.c and II.D.5.c, the Commission has decided not to adopt the proposed amendments to the definition of “support for the internal operations of the website or online service” and § 312.5(c)(4) that would specifically restrict processes or uses that “encourage or prompt use of a website or online service.” Therefore, the Commission will not specifically require the online notice to include disclosure of the means operators use to ensure that persistent identifiers are not used “in connection with processes that encourage or prompt use of a website or online service” as proposed in the 2024 NPRM.
In response to questions raised about the detail the online notice must provide regarding the operator's use of persistent identifiers for support for internal operations purposes, the Commission clarifies that § 312.4(d)(3) will require an operator to disclose—in general, categorical terms—how the operator uses persistent identifiers for support for internal operations purposes.
Moreover, the Commission agrees that operators need not prove a negative. Operators must, however, explain in their online notice what policies or practices are in place to avoid using persistent identifiers for unauthorized purposes, such as by providing a general statement about training, data segregation, and data access and storage.
The Commission has determined that new § 312.4(d)(3), as modified and clarified, will enhance oversight of operators' use of the exception relating to support for the internal operations in § 312.5(c)(7) and therefore adopts new § 312.4(d)(3).
In the 2024 NPRM, the Commission proposed a new § 312.4(d)(4) to require that when an “operator collects audio files containing a child's voice pursuant to” the audio file exception to the verifiable parental consent requirement that the Commission proposed to codify in § 312.5(c)(9), the operator's online notice must include “a description of how the operator uses such audio files and that the operator deletes such audio files immediately after responding to the request for which they were collected[.]”
One commenter sought clarification as to whether proposed § 312.4(d)(4) seeks disclosure of the purpose for which, rather than technical explanations of how, the operator uses the covered audio files.
A children's advocates coalition strongly supported proposed § 312.4(d)(4) and also recommended that the Commission amend the proposed language to clarify that an operator's online notice must describe the purpose for which the operator will use each covered audio file or each category of covered audio files.
After carefully considering the record and comments, and for the reasons discussed in Part II.C.2.c.ii of this document, the Commission adopts § 312.4(d)(4) as proposed.
Section 312.5(a)(2) currently states that “[a]n operator must give the parent the option to consent to the collection and use of the child's information without consenting to disclosure of his or her personal information to third parties.”
A wide range of commenters expressed general support for the Commission's proposed amendments to § 312.5(a)(2).
In addition to expressing support for the proposed amendments to § 312.5(a)(2), numerous commenters opined on what a separate consent process for disclosures should look like, urging the Commission to avoid implementing the proposed § 312.5(a)(2) amendments in a way that could allow for consent to be obtained through manipulative design features or strategies.
Some commenters opposed the proposed separate consent requirement altogether, arguing that it was redundant,
Like many of the commenters that addressed the proposed amendments to § 312.5(a)(2), the Commission agrees that a separate consent requirement for non-integral disclosures to third parties, such as for third-party advertising, enhances transparency and enables parents to make more deliberate and meaningful choices, and is thus adopting the approach proposed in the NPRM in the final rule, with minor language modifications as discussed in Part II.D.1.c. As to how and when such separate consent must be sought, rather than prescribe rigid requirements, the Commission is persuaded that operators should be provided sufficient flexibility to enable them to integrate the separate consent requirement in a way that enhances parents' ability to make deliberate and meaningful choices. In many contexts, seeking a parent's consent for non-integral disclosures to third parties during the initial verifiable parental consent flow may be an efficient way to obtain a parent's deliberate and meaningful consent. The Commission is persuaded, however, by
Regardless of whether an operator seeks a parent's consent for non-integral disclosures to third parties during the initial verifiable parental consent flow or at a later time, the key question is whether a parent's consent to the underlying third-party disclosures is freely given, informed, specific, and unambiguously expressed through an affirmative action distinct from the parent's consent to the operator's collection and use of their child's personal information. To be clear, consent flows that mislead, manipulate, or coerce parents—including choice architectures that deceive parents about the effect of a consent, or trick parents into providing their consent—will not suffice.
Moving beyond whether separate consent should be required and what form it should take, a few commenters asserted that the Commission should require operators to obtain separate parental consent before disclosing children's personal information to entities that might not meet the Rule's definition of a “third party” (and thus would fall outside the scope of the proposed separate consent requirement).
The Commission believes proposed § 312.5(a)(2) would sufficiently cover the entities described by these commenters given how the Rule defines the terms “Operator,” “Person,” and “Third party.” The Rule's definition of “Operator” covers the “person” who operates the subject website or online service, where “Person” is defined as “any individual, partnership, corporation, trust, estate, cooperative, association, or other entity.”
The Commission also believes proposed § 312.5(a)(2) would sufficiently cover the sharing scenarios described by commenters given how the Rule defines “Collect” and “Disclose.” Under the Rule, “Collects or collection means the gathering of any personal information from a child by any means,”
Many commenters additionally provided their views on what types of disclosures the Commission should consider “integral to the nature of the website or online service,” and some commenters urged the Commission to
Some commenters observed that the proposed separate consent requirement could create potential complications for platform providers that host services developed by third parties. One commenter, for example, asked whether parents would be required to provide separate consent for each login to a new child-directed website or online service by their child using an email service.
The Commission agrees that disclosures to third parties that are necessary to provide the product or service the consumer is asking for are integral to the website or online service and would not fall within the scope of the proposed amendments to § 312.5(a)(2). Of course, operators would have to identify such disclosures in the notices required under §§ 312.4(c)(1)(iv) and 312.4(d). Disclosures of a child's personal information to third parties for monetary or other consideration, for advertising purposes, or to train or otherwise develop artificial intelligence technologies, are not integral to the website or online service and would require consent pursuant to the proposed amendments to § 312.5(a)(2).
After carefully considering the record and comments, and for the reasons discussed in Part II.D.1.b of this document, the Commission adopts the amendments to § 312.5(a)(2) as originally proposed, with two minor modifications. The Commission is persuaded by certain commenters' overall calls for clarity on this provision. Therefore, the Commission is dropping the words “the nature of” from the first sentence of the proposed amendments to § 312.5(a)(2) for consistency with longstanding guidance
Section 312.5(b) of the COPPA Rule governs “[m]ethods for verifiable parental consent.”
The Commission received numerous comments in support of this proposed amendment.
Opposition to the proposal came from one FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program, which framed the proposed amendment as “a step backwards,” as it would allow “permissioning at the highest level of assurance without any transparency to the parent or accountability by the service.”
With respect to the concerns raised by the FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program, while the Commission recognizes that debit cards are now more widely available to teens than in the past, the comment did not cite data indicating that debit cards are available to children under 13. With respect to the 11% figure of parents who are willing to accept a credit or debit card charge on the basis that the charge will be refunded, that option is still available to operators, but the Commission's proposed approach would allow a credit or debit card, or other qualifying online payment, to be used without requiring the operator to enter a monetary charge and subsequently refund the amount of the charge. The Commission expects that more parents would be willing to use this option to provide verifiable parental consent if the monetary charge requirement is dropped. The Commission believes the proposed amendment could help eliminate a barrier to some parents providing verifiable parental consent while still ensuring that the use of credit cards, debit cards, or other online payment systems that provide the primary account holder with notification of each discrete transaction meets § 312.5(b)'s requirement that verifiable parental consent methods “must be reasonably calculated, in light of available technology, to ensure that the person providing consent is the child's parent.”
After carefully considering the record and comments, and for the reasons discussed in Part II.D.2.b of this document, the Commission adopts the amendment to § 312.5(b)(2)(ii) as originally proposed.
In the 2024 NPRM, the Commission proposed adding to COPPA Rule § 312.5(b)(2)'s list of approved verifiable consent methods two methods that the Commission approved pursuant to the process set forth in § 312.12(a) after the Commission last amended the COPPA Rule in 2013.
The Commission proposed adding to the Rule a new § 312.5(b)(2)(vi) that would codify as an approved verifiable parental consent method the use of a knowledge-based authentication process that meets the particular criteria the Commission approved in December 2013.
Several commenters supported the Commission's proposal to codify such a knowledge-based authentication process as an approved verifiable parental consent method.
Although it generally supported the overall proposal to codify knowledge-based authentication as an approved verifiable consent method, FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program kidSAFE urged the Commission to omit the proposed requirement that the probability of correctly guessing the answers to the dynamic, multiple-choice questions be “low.”
After carefully considering the record and comments, and for the reasons discussed in Part II.D.3.b of this document, the Commission adopts new § 312.5(b)(2)(vi) as originally proposed.
The Commission proposed codifying as new § 312.5(b)(2)(vii) a previously approved verifiable parental consent method involving the matching of an image of a face to verified photo identification, subject to the particular criteria that the Commission approved in November 2015.
Several commenters supported the Commission's proposal to codify the face match to photo identification verifiable parental consent method in the Rule.
Commenters that opposed codifying this parental consent method in the Rule expressed concerns regarding privacy, the cost or accuracy of human review, and the amount of burden that operators or parents bear when using the method.
First, the Commission conditioned its approval of the parental consent method on the requirements that operators must not use the information collected pursuant to the method for any purpose other than completing the verifiable parental consent process, and must destroy the information “promptly” after the verifiable consent process has been completed.
application makes clear that information collected will be promptly destroyed and that the information will not be used for any other purpose. Approval of the proposed method is conditioned on adherence to these conditions.”).
Second, the Commission believes that human review by trained personnel can enhance the likelihood of an operator concluding correctly whether an individual pictured in a government-issued identification that technology has determined is authentic is the same as the individual pictured in a second image that technology has determined came from a live person rather than a photo.
The Center for Democracy and Technology recommended that the COPPA Rule state that the children's personal information security program that the 2024 NPRM proposed to require under § 312.8 must ensure the deletion of the information collected in conjunction with the newly approved verifiable parental consent methods in proposed § 312.5(b)(2)(vi) and (vii).
The Center for Democracy and Technology also stated that the Commission should provide guidance to operators regarding how they should confirm the authenticity of government-issued IDs submitted pursuant to the face match to photo identification method.
Another commenter recommended that the Commission consider requiring operators to conduct and disclose risk assessments for disparate treatment and bias before they use facial recognition technology in conjunction with the method.
After carefully considering the record and comments, and for the reasons discussed in Part II.D.4.b of this document, the Commission adopts new § 312.5(b)(2)(vii) with the minor modification of stating that operators' deletion of parents' identification and images collected to use the face match to photo identification verifiable parental consent method must occur “promptly” after confirmation of a match between them.
Section 312.5(c) of the Rule enumerates a number of exceptions to obtaining verifiable parental consent, stating that “[v]erifiable parental consent is required prior to any collection, use, or disclosure of personal information from a child
Some commenters supported the proposed amendment to § 312.5(c)(4).
However, a majority of commenters responding to this 2024 NPRM proposal opposed it.
The Commission remains deeply concerned about the use of push notifications and other engagement techniques that are designed to prolong children's time online in ways that may be harmful to their mental and physical health. However, the Commission also finds commenters' concerns about inconsistency between the proposal and the COPPA statute
The Commission also solicited comments about whether the Rule should be amended to address other engagement techniques and if, and how, the Rule should “differentiate between techniques used solely to promote a child's engagement with the website or online service and those techniques that provide other functions, such as to personalize the child's experience on the website or online service.”
Several commenters responded with a variety of suggestions. One industry commenter that opposed the amendment to § 312.5(c)(4) proposed in the 2024 NPRM indicated some support for narrower restrictions in the Rule that would impose use restrictions on techniques that solely promote a child's engagement and that would not apply to techniques that serve other functions, such as to personalize the child's experience and make content more relevant.
Another commenter suggested the Commission should develop, with appropriate experts and other stakeholders, guidelines for “minimally addictive technology practices for child-directed services.”
Given the variety, and generality, of suggestions advanced in the limited number of comments responding to Question Fifteen in the “Questions for the Proposed Revisions to the Rule” section of the 2024 NPRM, the Commission is not amending the Rule to address specific engagement techniques at this time.
Section 312.5(c)(7) sets forth the exception to the requirement to obtain verifiable parental consent when an operator is collecting “a persistent identifier and no other personal information and such identifier is used
Commenters supporting the proposed amendment commended the requirement for “businesses to disclose if and when they are collecting information from a child to support internal operations, what operational purpose this serves, and affirm that it is not used for targeted advertising.”
Commenters opposing the proposed amendment stated that publicly providing notice of data collection for the purpose of support for the internal operations would have “minimal, if any, benefit to parents,” suggesting that the requirement would cause online notices to be too lengthy to be of use when they should be clear and concise;
The Commission is receptive to the point that lengthy notices could become less effective at empowering parents to make privacy decisions for their children. However, the Commission weighs this against its concerns that additional transparency is needed with respect to operators' use of the § 312.5(c)(7) exception and that some operators may not comply with the use restriction.
After carefully considering the record and comments, and for the reasons discussed in Part II.D.6.b of this document, the Commission adopts the amendment to § 312.5(c)(7) as originally proposed.
In the 2024 NPRM, the Commission observed that “permitting parents to provide consent via text message would offer them significant convenience and utility,” and also noted that “consumers are likely accustomed to using mobile telephone numbers for account creation or log-in purposes.”
A number of industry commenters and one FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program
At least one industry commenter suggested an alternative method of verifiable parental consent, proposing that the Commission add a new provision to § 312.5(b)(2) that would merely require “[h]aving a parent reply to a message sent using the parent's online contact information.”
At least two commenters opposed the idea of amending the Rule in a way that would allow operators to use text messages to obtain verifiable parental consent.
After carefully considering the record and comments, and for the reasons discussed in Part II.D.7.b of this document, the Commission has decided to incorporate into § 312.5(b)(2)(ix) of the Rule a new “text plus” method for obtaining verifiable parental consent that contains requirements similar to those for the “email plus” method set forth in § 312.5(b)(2)(vi) of the current Rule. Importantly, as with the “email plus” method, the new “text plus” method can only be utilized when an operator does not “disclose” children's personal information, because both forms of communication carry a higher risk of a child impersonating a parent than do other approved methods of obtaining verifiable parental consent. Specifically, the new provision that the Commission is adding to the Rule as § 312.5(b)(2)(ix) includes the following language: “Provided that, an operator that does not `disclose' (as defined by § 312.2) children's personal information, may use a text message coupled with additional steps to provide assurances that the person providing the consent is the parent. Such additional steps include: Sending a confirmatory text message to the parent following receipt of consent, or obtaining a postal address or telephone number from the parent and confirming the parent's consent by letter or telephone call. An operator that uses this method must provide notice that the parent can revoke any consent given in response to the earlier text message.”
In the 2024 NPRM, the Commission proposed to add to § 312.5(c) a ninth category of exception to the Rule's verifiable parental consent requirement.
The Commission received some comments that supported codifying the agency's treatment of audio files in proposed § 312.5(c)(9).
After carefully considering the record and comments, and for the reasons discussed in Part II.D.8.b of this document, the Commission will add the audio file exception to § 312.5(c)(9) of the Rule as proposed in the 2024 NPRM.
The Commission noted in the 2024 NPRM that several commenters on the 2019 Rule Review Initiation recommended that the Commission encourage platforms to participate in the verifiable parental consent process.
A variety of commenters asserted that platform-based consent could benefit individual operators and parents by making the verifiable parental consent process more efficient. For example, FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program kidSAFE stated that platform-based consent could help developers obtain verifiable parental consent “in a streamlined and industry-standard fashion” and “greatly alleviate the costs associated with implementing [verifiable parental consent], especially for smaller developers.”
ACT | The App Association stated that some platforms already implement measures such as family plans and parental controls that “allow[ ] parent[s] a simplified process to see what their kids are doing on their devices and decide what limits they want to set for their children, and ensure[ ] that parents have meaningful notice of and control over how an app collects, uses, and discloses their children's personal information without imposing unnecessary burdens and costs on app developers.”
Some commenters cited online gaming as a particular context in which platform-based consent mechanisms would be useful. The ESA stated that the process of creating an account on a game platform before accessing any game content can provide “a convenient moment for parents to receive COPPA notices and provide verifiable parental consent,” whereby “[p]ublishers can provide information about their practices for the collection, use, and disclosure of children's personal information in a uniform way, such as on game pages where parents and players can access the game for the first time on the platform.”
Some commenters that supported the development of platform-based consent mechanisms raised potential implementation concerns and suggested steps that the Commission could take to address those concerns and to incentivize development of platform-based consent mechanisms. The ESA, for example, urged that the Commission should permit operators to choose between platform-level and operator-level consent rather than making platform-based consent mandatory.
Numerous commenters voiced skepticism about or opposed platform-based consent mechanisms. One such commenter stated that platform-based consent “opens too many doors to opaque privacy practices that would be against the interests of children and against the spirit of COPPA.”
An individual commenter asserted that variations in what individual operators are asking parents to consent to make the idea of a common consent mechanism operationally difficult to
In light of the diverse comments that the Commission received regarding platform-based consent mechanisms, and the fact that the Commission did not include proposed language regarding such mechanisms in the 2024 NPRM, the Commission is not at this time adding language to the COPPA Rule specific to the issue of platform-based consent mechanisms. The Commission might seek additional public comment on the issue in the future.
Section 312.7 of the Rule provides that “[a]n operator is prohibited from conditioning a child's participation in a game, the offering of a prize, or another activity on the child's disclosing more personal information than is reasonably necessary to participate in such activity.”
With respect to the scope of § 312.7, the Commission noted in the 2024 NPRM that it was considering adding new language in the section to provide that an “activity” means “any activity offered by a website or online service, whether that activity is a subset or component of the website or online service or is the entirety of the website or online service.”
The 2024 NPRM also sought public comments on additional specific questions related to § 312.7 of the Rule including: what efforts operators take to comply with § 312.7, whether the Commission should specify whether disclosures for particular purposes are reasonably necessary or not reasonably necessary in a particular context, and to what extent the Commission should consider the information practices disclosed to the parent in assessing whether information collection is reasonably necessary, given that operators generally must provide notice and seek verifiable parental consent before collecting personal information.
Numerous advocacy organizations expressed support for the Commission's statement in the 2024 NPRM that § 312.7 is an outright prohibition on collecting more information than is reasonably necessary, even if the operator obtains consent to collect information beyond what is reasonably necessary.
The Commission received comments both supporting and opposing the possibility of adding new language to § 312.7 to define “activity.” A wide range of commenters generally supported the definition of “activity” that the Commission presented for public comment in the 2024 NPRM.
On the other hand, commenters including trade associations, scholars, a coalition of State attorneys general, and an FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor Program opposed adding language to § 312.7 to define “activity.”
Some commenters, including some that expressed general support for defining “activity,” recommended that the Commission revise, or provide more specific guidance regarding, the definition the Commission set forth in the 2024 NPRM. Mental Health America, for example, recommended that the Commission “make the implicit
A group of scholars stated that the potential definition of “activity” the Commission set forth in the 2024 NPRM raises questions about whether the COPPA Rule permits an operator to use personal information for targeted advertising, even after obtaining verifiable parental consent.
After careful consideration of the record and comments, the Commission has decided not to add new language to § 312.7 to define “activity.” Questions and concerns that commenters raised about defining “activity” in § 312.7 are substantial enough to warrant additional consideration before the Commission would add new language to define this term.
In considering defining the meaning of “activity” in § 312.7, the Commission was not attempting to categorically prohibit behavioral advertising to children where the parent has provided consent. Amended § 312.5(a)(2) of the Rule does not prohibit operators from collecting personal information to engage in targeted advertising. To do so, operators must obtain the parent's opt-in consent. If the parent chooses not to consent, the operator may not condition the child's access to the operator's website or service on the child disclosing personal information for behavioral advertising purposes, and such advertising must be off by default.
Although the Commission has decided not to define the meaning of “activity” in § 312.7, the Commission notes that at least some of the potential benefits that commenters contended the Commission could provide by defining the meaning of “activity” are substantially achieved through other revisions that the Commission is making to the COPPA Rule. As discussed in Parts II.C.1.b and II.C.1.c, the Commission is amending § 312.4(c)(1)(iii) and (iv) to require that an operator's direct notice to a parent for the purpose of obtaining verifiable parental consent must state, respectively, how the operator intends to use the personal information the operator seeks consent to collect from the child and, if applicable, the purposes for disclosing such personal information to one or more third parties, should the parent provide consent.
Relatively few commenters responded in particular to the Commission's question of whether it should specify whether disclosures for particular purposes are reasonably necessary or not reasonably necessary in a particular context.
Commenters that responded to the Commission's question regarding the extent to which the Commission should consider the information practices disclosed to the parent in assessing whether information collection is reasonably necessary
After carefully considering the record and comments, the Commission is not making any amendments to § 312.7. Commenters' varied responses weigh against the Commission making amendments at this time.
Section 312.8 of the COPPA Rule requires operators to “establish and maintain reasonable procedures to protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of personal information collected from children” and to “take reasonable steps to release children's personal information only to service providers and third parties who are capable of maintaining” the information's confidentiality, security, and integrity and provide assurances that they will do so.
In the 2024 NPRM, the Commission proposed amendments to § 312.8 to provide additional clarity as to steps operators can take to comply with § 312.8's “reasonable procedures” standard.
Many commenters supported the Commission's proposed revisions to § 312.8 of the Rule.
Some commenters recommended that the Commission specify additional requirements in § 312.8.
Along the same lines as commenters that recommended the Commission should include additional specific safeguards in § 312.8, another commenter recommended that the Commission “compile best practices and carefully examine” State, Federal, and international data security rules “to help avoid conflicting provisions and unnecessary duplication.”
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”) recommended that the Commission require operators' information security programs to mitigate harms to individuals rather than harms to the operator.
The Toy Association opined that the proposed requirement for operators to obtain written assurances that third parties will maintain reasonable safeguards would be unduly burdensome.
Numerous commenters stated that, if an operator already maintains a general information security program that applies both to children's personal information and to other data and otherwise satisfies proposed § 312.8, the Commission should not require the operator to establish and maintain a separate children's personal information security program.
Some commenters proposed the inclusion of particular language in § 312.8 consistent with that recommendation. The Future of Privacy Forum, for example, recommended that the Commission revise the proposed amendments to § 312.8 to require a “written security program that contains safeguards that are appropriate to the sensitivity of the personal information collected from children” instead of a “written children's personal information security program.”
The Commission agrees that an operator should not be required to implement requirements specifically to protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of personal information collected from children if the operator has established, implemented, and maintained an information security program that applies both to children's personal information and other information and otherwise meets the requirements the Commission proposed in § 312.8 of the 2024 NPRM. Accordingly, the Commission is modifying the language it proposed in § 312.8 of the 2024 NPRM. In particular,
One commenter expressed concern that the Commission's proposed revision of § 312.8 does not make sufficiently clear the level of detail that a written children's personal information security program must contain.
Some commenters requested that the Commission clarify that the employee an operator designates to coordinate its information security program to protect personal information collected from children in accord with proposed § 312.8(b)(1) of the Rule may also have other job duties.
kidSAFE raised the concern that the Commission's proposed revisions to § 312.8 of the Rule are “extremely cost and resource prohibitive for small businesses” and will “push companies over the edge financially or lead them to turn a blind-eye to children users.”
Having carefully considered the record and comments, and for the reasons discussed in Part II.F.b of this document, the Commission adopts the revisions to § 312.8 as proposed in the 2024 NPRM, except for minor changes to make clear that an operator need not implement requirements specifically to protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of personal information collected from children if the operator has established, implemented, and maintained an information security program that applies both to children's personal information and other information and otherwise meets § 312.8's requirements. In particular, as discussed in more detail
Current § 312.10 of the COPPA Rule states that “[a]n operator of a website or online service shall retain personal information collected online from a child for only as long as is reasonably necessary to fulfill the purpose for which the information was collected.”
Some commenters that responded to the Commission's 2019 Rule Review Initiation recommended that the Commission clarify operators' obligations under § 312.10. Commenters expressed concern that, because § 312.10 does not set forth specific time limits on data retention, operators could read the COPPA Rule to allow indefinite retention of children's personal information.
In addition to noting that § 312.10 is an outright prohibition against indefinite retention, the Commission proposed in the 2024 NPRM to amend § 312.10 to state more clearly operators' duties with regard to the retention of personal information collected from children. First, the Commission proposed clarifying that operators may retain children's personal information for only as long as is reasonably necessary for the specific purposes for which it was collected, and not for any secondary purpose.
Numerous commenters stated general support for the Commission's proposed revisions to § 312.10.
A few commenters raised questions about the “secondary purpose” language in the proposed amendments to § 312.10. The IAB asked the Commission to clarify whether the retention of children's personal information to improve products and services or to personalize content shown to children would be a “secondary purpose,” and recommended that the Commission clarify in amended § 312.10 that “activities constituting `support for the internal operations' are not secondary purposes.”
A large number of commenters requested that the Commission clarify that the express prohibition on indefinite retention in the proposed amendments to § 312.10 will not prevent operators from retaining children's personal information indefinitely for purposes such as security, fraud and abuse prevention, financial record-keeping, ensuring service continuity, complying with other legal or regulatory requirements, or ensuring the age-appropriateness of the website or online service.
The Commission does not see a need to adjust its initial proposal based on these recommendations. The proposed amendments to § 312.10 would permit operators to retain children's personal information for as long as is reasonably necessary to fulfill the specific purposes for which the operator collects the information and discloses to parents. The Commission believes that the proposed revisions to § 312.10 would give operators sufficient flexibility to establish, and state in their written children's personal information retention policies, reasonable retention periods for children's personal information to satisfy any of the purposes commenters identified while ensuring that operators do not retain children's personal information indefinitely. For example, the proposed revisions would permit an operator to retain children's personal information for a specific amount of time after the child has last used the operator's website or online service, or a subscription has ended, if there is a business need for retaining the information and the operator's retention policy explains the operator will take such action.
Similar to comments that the Commission received in response to its proposal to revise § 312.8 to require operators to maintain a written children's personal information security program, numerous commenters urged the Commission to clarify that the proposed revisions to § 312.10 would not require operators to establish, implement, or maintain a separate, distinct written children's data retention policy as long as they maintain a general data retention policy that encompasses children's personal information.
One commenter, the IAB, opined that the Commission underestimated the burden of the Commission's proposal to require operators to establish and maintain a written data retention policy addressing personal information collected from children.
Some commenters opposed § 312.10's proposed requirement for operators to publish their data retention policies addressing personal information collected from children on the grounds that the policies could contain information that is proprietary or could otherwise compromise the safety or security of a website or online service or that of its vendors, and that potential benefits to consumers do not outweigh those potential risks.
EPIC recommended that the Commission more clearly impose “both a necessity and a volume limitation” in § 312.10 by stating that an operator may retain personal information collected online from a child for only “as long as reasonably necessary and proportionate to provide the service requested by a child or parent.”
After carefully considering the record and comments, and for the reasons stated in Part II.G.b, the Commission finalizes the amendments to § 312.10 that it proposed in the 2024 NPRM with minor modifications. In particular, the Commission is dropping the words “and not for a secondary purpose” from the first sentence of proposed § 312.10, and changing “purpose” to “purposes” in the second sentence of proposed § 312.10. The Commission is also removing the words “that precludes indefinite retention” from the fourth sentence of proposed § 312.10 because the third sentence of proposed § 312.10 states unequivocally that personal information collected online from a child may not be retained indefinitely. In addition, the Commission is changing “children's data retention policy” in proposed § 312.10 to “data retention policy,” and inserting “addressing personal information collected from children” in the final sentence of proposed § 312.10 so that the revised sentence will state that “[t]he operator must provide its written data retention policy addressing personal information collected from children in the notice on the website or online service provided in accordance with § 312.4(d).” These changes make clearer that operators may only retain children's personal information for as long as reasonably necessary to fulfill the specific purposes for which it was collected, and that the amended Rule will not require an operator to establish, implement, and maintain a separate written children's data retention policy if the operator has established, implemented, and maintained a written data retention policy that encompasses children's personal information and meets the requirements the Commission proposed in § 312.10 of the 2024 NPRM.
Section 312.11 of the COPPA Rule enables industry groups or others to submit for Commission approval self-regulatory guidelines that implement substantially the same or greater protections for children as those contained in §§ 312.2 through 312.8 and 312.10 of the Rule. The provision requires FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs to satisfy specific obligations, including implementing an “effective, mandatory mechanism for the independent assessment” of member
Section 312.11(b) requires FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs to demonstrate that they meet certain performance standards, including conducting an at least annual independent assessment of member operators' compliance with the Safe Harbor programs' self-regulatory program guidelines. Section 312.11(b)(2) currently specifies that a FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program's required assessments of a member's compliance with the Safe Harbor program's guidelines must include comprehensive review of the member's “information policies, practices, and representations.” In conjunction with the proposal to add more specificity to § 312.8 of the Rule, the 2024 NPRM proposed clarifying in § 312.11(b)(2) that such comprehensive reviews must include member operators' “information privacy and security policies, practices, and representations.”
Several commenters expressed overall support for this proposed amendment to § 312.11(b)(2).
Another commenter expressed support and suggested that, to the extent the revised COPPA Rule permits operators to comply with § 312.8 by maintaining a single comprehensive information security program that applies to the operator's business as a whole, rather than requiring a separate security program if one part of the operator's business is directed to children, then, consistent with that approach, the FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs should not require a separate children's personal information security program.
Some FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs expressed concerns about the proposed amendment of § 312.11(b)(2).
After carefully considering the record and comments, the Commission is adopting the proposed amendment to § 312.11(b)(2). The Rule has always included both privacy- and security-related requirements, and the Commission in this rulemaking is putting more focus on operators' data security requirements. Revised § 312.11(b)(2) does not require operators to create an additional information security program exclusively dedicated to children's data. In parallel with adding specificity to the Rule's data security requirements,
Section 312.11(d) of the Rule sets forth requirements for FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs to, among other things, submit annual reports to the Commission and maintain for not less than three years, and make available to the Commission upon request, consumer complaints alleging that subject operators violated the Safe Harbor program's FTC-approved guidelines, records of the Safe Harbor program's disciplinary actions taken against subject operators, and results of the Safe Harbor program's § 312.11(b)(2) assessments.
To strengthen the Commission's oversight of FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs, the 2024 NPRM proposed several amendments to § 312.11(d). The Commission proposed to require FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs' mandatory reports to the Commission to (1) identify (a) each subject operator, (b) all approved
One FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program, iKeepSafe, expressed overall support for increased transparency in the Rule, stating that “the ability to monitor ongoing activities within all Safe Harbors would foster the ability to identify ongoing challenges within the Program or perhaps identify data privacy trends that can be addressed across the board.”
Some commenters expressed concerns about the burden of the proposed additional reporting requirements.
The Commission takes seriously concerns about the burden and accessibility of COPPA Safe Harbor program membership as it balances the interests of consumers with the obligations placed on FTC-approved Safe Harbor programs and their members. But transparency and accountability of the FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs are important to encouraging COPPA compliance. The Commission believes that the proposed amendments to § 312.11(d) will impose modest or trivial costs (for example, in publicly identifying members).
Finally, one commenter recommended that the Commission require FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs' annual assessments of subject operators' compliance with Safe Harbor programs guidelines to be “publicly accessible.”
While the Commission strongly agrees that helping parents make informed decisions is an important goal of the Rule, FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs' assessments of subject operators' compliance with their guidelines may include confidential and proprietary information, as well as information about issues other than subject operators' compliance with the Safe Harbor program's guidelines. As discussed in further detail
The 2024 NPRM proposed amending § 312.11(d)(1) to require FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs' annual reports to the Commission to identify each subject operator and all approved websites or online services, as well as any subject operators that left the program during the time period covered by the annual report. Commenters generally supported this proposed amendment to the annual report requirements.
Some FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs expressed support for the proposed amendment.
The Commission proposed to amend § 312.11(d)(1)(i) to require an FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program's annual report to include a “narrative description of the Safe Harbor program's business model, including whether [the Safe Harbor program] provides additional services such as training to subject operators.”
Most commenters that addressed this proposed amendment supported it. One FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program noted that the Commission already collects a business model narrative in Safe Harbor programs' annual reports even though the Rule does not explicitly require it.
The Commission proposed to amend § 312.11(d)(1)(ii) to require FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs to submit with the Safe Harbor program's annual report to the Commission copies of each consumer complaint related to each subject operator's violation of the Safe Harbor program's guidelines. One FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program supported this proposed amendment,
The Commission has carefully considered these points and does not seek to create a new requirement that FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs must collect complaints from operators. The proposed amendment requires FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs to submit consumer complaints that they receive directly or that an operator shares with the Safe Harbor program, but does not impose an additional obligation for a Safe Harbor program to request complaints from its member operators. After carefully considering the record and comments, the Commission amends § 312.11(d)(1)(ii) as originally proposed.
Current § 312.11(d)(1)(iii) requires that FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs' annual reports to the Commission include a description of any disciplinary action taken against any subject operator under § 312.11(b)(3). In the 2024 NPRM, the Commission proposed amending this provision, which, upon finalization of the proposed amendments, will now be redesignated as § 312.11(d)(1)(iv), to clarify that an FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program's report must include a description of each disciplinary action the Safe Harbor program took against any subject operator during the reporting period and to require that the report include a description of the process for determining whether a subject operator was subjected to discipline.
One supportive commenter, Public Knowledge, stated that, along with the proposed requirement for FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs to include copies of consumer complaints related to violations of COPPA in their annual reports to the Commission, this proposed amendment “would strengthen internal regulation, empower parents to make informed decisions, and not significantly burden [Safe Harbor] programs.”
Expressing concerns about this proposal, FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program ESRB requested that the Commission clarify the proposed reporting requirement would apply only “to the formal disciplinary measures set out in Section 312.11(b)(3) of the COPPA Rule,” and not require reporting on issues of non-compliance that do not lead to such disciplinary measures because the issues are, for example, technical and inadvertent and promptly and easily remediated.
As the ESRB noted in its comment, the Commission's template for FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program annual reports already asks programs to describe what constitutes a violation of the Safe Harbor program's guidelines and the types of disciplinary measures taken.
If an FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program determines, in its assessment of an operator, that some corrective action is warranted but does not discipline the operator due to prompt responsiveness or other similar reasons, then amended § 312.11(d) will not require disclosure in the Safe Harbor program's annual report. In other words, the Commission is not attempting to redefine what constitutes a disciplinary action for subject operators' non-compliance with an FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program's guidelines. After carefully considering the record and comments, the Commission is finalizing § 312.11(d)(1)(iv) as proposed.
In the 2024 NPRM, the Commission also proposed amending § 312.11(d)(4) to require each FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program to “publicly post a list of all current subject operators on [its] websites and online services,” and to “update the list every six months to reflect any changes to the approved safe harbor program['s] subject operators or their applicable websites and online services.”
Some commenters supported the proposal to require FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs to publicly identify members, including those who leave the Safe Harbor program.
By contrast, some commenters expressed concerns about the proposal to require FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs to publicly identify members.
The Commission expects that FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs' identification of members will be helpful to parents as they make decisions about which websites or online services to allow their children to use. A number of FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs already identify their members in various ways, such as on their websites or by having members display seals indicating their participation in the program.
The Commission proposed that FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs submit triennial reports detailing each Safe Harbor program's technological capabilities and mechanisms for assessing members' fitness for membership in each respective program. The Commission received several comments in support of this proposed amendment.
Because the technologies that FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs use to assess operators' practices may change as business practices change and as the tools used to assess those practices evolve, the Commission declines to set forth such standards in the Rule. In the process of reviewing the triennial reports and annual reports, the Commission expects that agency staff will raise concerns if the technical tools employed are inadequate.
Current § 312.11(f) reserves the Commission's right to revoke the approval of any FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program whose guidelines or implementation of guidelines do not meet the requirements set forth in the Rule, and requires modifications to Safe Harbor guidelines to be submitted prior to March 1, 2013. The Commission proposed to redesignate this provision as § 312.11(g) in light of the newly proposed § 312.11(f), and to delete the March 2013 deadline because this date has long passed.
Several comments supported the proposed amendments to this section.
Current § 312.11(g) addresses operator compliance with the FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program guidelines. In the 2024 NPRM, the Commission proposed to redesignate this provision as § 312.11(h) in light of its proposal to add a new paragraph (f) in § 312.11 and the resulting need to redesignate paragraph (g) in § 312.11. The Commission did not receive any comments related to this proposed amendment and will therefore adopt it as originally proposed.
In the 2024 NPRM, the Commission solicited comments on what conflicts would affect an FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program's ability to effectively assess a subject operator's fitness for membership.
The Commission received few comments addressing this issue. One commenter raised concerns that FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs may offer compliance consulting services in addition to their role in overseeing member operators' compliance with the guidelines, and that such a dual role is a conflict of interest.
The Commission received responses from two FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs regarding conflicts of interest. The ESRB rejected “the assumption that conflicts of interest are inherent in the COPPA Safe Harbor program,” pointing among other things to the Commission's “robust” oversight of the Safe Harbor programs.
Based on the comments received, the Commission has determined that the proposed amendments to FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor reporting requirements under the Rule will facilitate the Commission's ability to monitor Safe Harbor programs and that it is unnecessary to adopt additional amendments to the Rule to address potential conflicts of interest. The Commission will continue to monitor the FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs closely.
Currently, the Rule defines “[c]ollects or collection” as, in relevant part, “the gathering of any personal information from a child by any means, including . . . [e]nabling a child to make personal information publicly available in identifiable form. An operator shall not be considered to have collected personal information under this paragraph if it takes reasonable measures to delete all or virtually all personal information from a child's postings before they are made public and also to delete such information from its records.”
Overall, the Commission received relatively few comments in response to Question Two. Some commenters generally supported the Commission continuing to permit the use of automatic moderation or filtering technologies as a means to delete all or virtually all personal information from children's one-to-one communications.
Asserting that automated filtering entails holding data at least briefly in order to delete it, one commenter opposed the Commission continuing to permit the use of automated filtering systems as a means for operators to avoid being deemed to have collected personal information from children in any context, including one-to-one communications.
In all, commenters largely did not weigh in as to whether an operator should be allowed to enable a child to communicate one-to-one with another user, possibly an adult, without providing notice or seeking verifiable parental consent from the parent, when the one-to-one communication is moderated by the operator using automated means alone. That question concerns whether automated means are sufficiently reliable to ensure safety when a child is in direct communication with another individual (as opposed to a context where the communications will be available to other users, such as in a chat room).
In reply to commenters' responses to Question Two of the “Questions for the Proposed Revisions to the Rule” section of the 2024 NPRM regarding deletion, the Commission expects that operators relying upon automatic deletion of children's personal information to avoid having to provide notice and obtain verifiable parental consent will ensure that such deletion occurs in real time, concurrent with facilitating the communication, and without storing the personal information for any length of time. The Commission does not propose to adopt changes to require notice and verifiable parental consent in this circumstance. However, the Commission will monitor this issue closely for potential abuse.
In the 2024 NPRM, the Commission requested comment on whether an effective date of six months after the issuance of the Commission's final Rule would be an appropriate effective date for any proposed changes that do not specify an effective date.
Most commenters that opined on an appropriate effective date recommended that the effective date be one year
The Commission has carefully considered the record and comments regarding an appropriate effective date for any proposed changes that do not specify an effective date. The effective date for the final Rule will be 60 days from the date the final Rule is published in the
The Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, requires Federal agencies to seek and obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) before undertaking a collection of information directed to ten or more persons.
While the amended Rule requires operators to establish, implement, and maintain a written comprehensive security program and data retention policy, such requirements do not constitute a “collection of information” under the PRA. Namely, under the amended Rule, each operator's security program and the safeguards instituted under such program will vary according to the operator's size and complexity, the nature and scope of its activities, and the sensitivity of the information involved. Thus, although each operator must summarize its compliance efforts in one or more written documents, the discretionary balancing of factors and circumstances that the amended Rule allows does not require entities to answer “identical questions” and therefore does not trigger the PRA's requirements.
As required by the PRA, the Commission sought OMB review of the modified information collection requirements at the time of the publication of the NPRM. OMB directed the Commission to resubmit its request at the time the final Rule is published. Accordingly, simultaneously with the publication of this final Rule, the Commission is resubmitting its clearance request to OMB. FTC staff has estimated the burdens associated with the amendments as set forth below.
According to the PRA, “practical utility” is “the ability of an agency to use information, particularly the capability to process such information in a timely and useful fashion.”
With respect to disclosure requirements, the amendments to § 312.4(c) more clearly articulate the
With respect to reporting obligations, the amended Rule includes additional reporting obligations that will apply only to the small number of FTC-approved Safe Harbor programs. The changes include additional requirements for Safe Harbor programs' mandatory reports to the Commission to identify each subject operator and their approved websites or online services, as well as any subject operators that have left the Safe Harbor program; describe the Safe Harbor program's business model; describe the process for determining whether an operator is subject to discipline; and provide copies of consumer complaints related to each subject operator's violation of the program's guidelines.
Given the justifications stated above for the amended disclosure and reporting requirements, the amendments will have significant practical utility.
As noted in the Regulatory Flexibility Act section, FTC staff estimates that in 2025 there are approximately 6,140 operators subject to the Rule.
In total, to the extent that any of the Commission's amendments to the Rule's definitions might result in minor additional numbers of operators being subject to the Rule, FTC staff believes that any such increase will be offset by other operators of websites or online services adjusting their information collection practices so that they will not be subject to the Rule.
For this burden analysis, FTC staff updates its recently published estimate to 430 new operators per year.
Commission staff does not expect that the Rule amendments will increase operators' recordkeeping obligations. With respect to the FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs, similarly, the Commission has not revised the recordkeeping requirement applicable to those programs under § 312.11(d)(3).
Based on Census data, FTC staff estimates that the Rule affects approximately 430 new operators per year. FTC staff does not expect that new operators' obligations with respect to disclosure of their privacy practices through a direct notice and an online notice will take more time to complete under the revised Rule than under the existing Rule, except with respect to disclosure of a data retention policy. The amended Rule includes a new requirement that operators disclose a data retention policy. Commission staff estimates it will require, on average, approximately 10 hours to meet the data
The amended Rule imposes various new disclosure requirements on operators that will require them to update the direct and online notices that they previously provided. Specifically, the amendments require operators to update the direct and online notices with additional information about the operators' information practices. Additionally, the amended Rule requires operators to disclose a data retention policy. Finally, the amended Rule will now require operators utilizing the support for the internal operations exception, 16 CFR 312.5(c)(7), to provide an online notice.
FTC staff believes that an existing operator's time to make these changes to its online and direct notices for the first time would be no more than that estimated for a new entrant to craft an online notice and direct notice for the first time,
The amended Rule will also require each FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program to provide a list of all current subject operators, websites, and online services on each of the FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program's websites and online services, and the amended Rule further requires that such list be updated every six months thereafter. Because FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs already keep up-to-date lists of their subject operators, FTC staff does not anticipate this requirement will significantly burden FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs. To account for time necessary to prepare the list for publication and to ensure that the list is updated every 6 months, FTC staff estimates 10 hours per year. Aggregated for one new FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program and six existing FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs, this amounts to an estimated cumulative disclosure burden of 70 hours per year (7 respondents × 10 hours).
The amendments will require FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs to include additional content in their annual reports. The amendments will also require each FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program to submit a report to the Commission every three years detailing the program's technological capabilities and mechanisms for assessing subject operators' fitness for membership in the program.
The burden of conducting subject operator audits and preparing the annual reports likely varies by FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program, depending on the number of subject operators. FTC staff estimates that the additional reporting requirements for the annual report will require approximately 50 hours per program per year. Aggregated for one new FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program (50 hours) and six existing FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs (300 hours), this amounts to an estimated cumulative reporting burden of 350 hours per year (7 respondents × 50 hours).
Regarding the reports that the amended Rule will require FTC-approved Safe Harbor programs to submit to the Commission every three years, § 312.11(c)(1) of the existing Rule already requires FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs to include similar information in their initial application to the Commission. Specifically, existing § 312.11(c)(1) requires that the application address FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs' business models and the technological capabilities and mechanisms they will use for initial and continuing assessment of operators' fitness for membership in their programs. Consequently, the three-year reports should merely require reviewing and potentially updating an already-existing report. FTC staff estimates that reviewing and updating existing information to comply with amended § 312.11(f) will require approximately 10 hours per FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program. Divided over the three-year period, FTC staff estimates that annualized burden attributable to this requirement would be approximately 3.33 hours per year (10 hours ÷ 3 years) per FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program, which staff will round down to 3 hours per year per FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program. Given that several FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs are already available to website and online service operators, Commission staff anticipates that no more than one additional entity is likely to become an FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program within the next three years of PRA clearance. Aggregated for one new FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program and six existing FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs, this amounts to an estimated cumulative reporting burden of 21 hours per year (7 respondents × 3 hours).
As previously noted, FTC staff estimates an incremental annual burden of 4,300 hours (430 respondents × 10 hours) associated with developing and posting a retention policy in the online notice. Consistent with its past estimates and based on its 2013 rulemaking record,
Regarding legal personnel, FTC staff anticipates that the workload among law firm partners and associates for assisting with COPPA compliance would be distributed among attorneys at varying levels of seniority.
FTC staff anticipates that computer programmers responsible for posting privacy policies and implementing direct notices and parental consent mechanisms would account for the remaining 717 hours. FTC staff estimates an hourly wage of $60.43 for technical personnel in 2025, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”) data.
As previously discussed, FTC staff estimates that the annualized disclosure burden for these requirements for the 6,140 existing operators would be 141,220 hours per year. Thus, apportioned five to one, this amounts to 117,683 hours of legal and 23,537 hours of technical assistance. Applying hourly rates of $655 and $60.43, respectively, for these personnel categories, associated labor costs would total approximately $78,504,706 ($77,082,365 + $1,422,341) in 2025.
Previously, industry sources have advised that all of the labor to comply with new Safe Harbor program requirements would be attributable to the efforts of in-house lawyers. FTC staff estimates an average hourly rate of $111.94 for a Washington DC in-house lawyer in 2025.
FTC staff assumes that compliance officers, at a mean estimated hourly wage of $39.92 in 2025, will prepare annual reports and the triennial report.
Because both operators and FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs will already be equipped with the computer equipment and software necessary to comply with the existing Rule's notice requirements, the amended Rule should not impose any additional capital or other non-labor costs.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601
In Part II of this document, the Commission adopts many of the amendments the Commission proposed in the 2024 NPRM, adopts some of them with minor modifications, and declines to adopt a small number of them. As discussed in the IRFA in the 2024 NPRM, the Commission believes the amendments it is adopting will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Among other things, the amendments clarify definitions, increase content requirements for existing notices, increase specificity for existing security requirements, increase clarity for existing retention and deletion requirements, and increase specificity for certain reporting requirements.
Although the amendments will require some entities to implement notices they were not required to provide before, obtain consent they previously were not required to obtain, and implement new retention policies, the Commission believes this will not require significant additional costs for entities covered by the Rule. Instead, the Commission believes some of the amendments, such as an amendment to create an additional exception to the Rule's verifiable parental consent requirement, might even reduce costs for some entities covered by the Rule. Therefore, based on available information, the Commission certifies that the amendments will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While the Commission certifies under the RFA that the amended Rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, and hereby provides notice of that
The objectives of the amendments are to update the COPPA Rule to ensure that children's online privacy continues to be protected, as directed by Congress, even as new online technologies emerge and existing online technologies evolve, and to clarify existing obligations for operators under the Rule. The legal basis for the amendments is the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 6501
As discussed in Part II of this document, the Commission received numerous comments that argued that amendments the Commission proposed—including some of the amendments the Commission is now adopting—would be burdensome for businesses. A small number of such comments raised general concerns about the burden that certain proposed amendments would have on small entities. The comments that made assertions about burden did not address the IRFA in particular, or provide empirical evidence about the asserted burdens.
For example, one FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program characterized as “cost and resource prohibitive for small businesses” the Commission's proposed revision to § 312.8 to require operators to establish, implement, and maintain a “comprehensive written security program.”
A trade association asserted that “businesses with smaller staff” might be less able than other businesses to designate employees “to coordinate” an information security program in order to comply with amended § 312.8 “as such coordination would likely be in addition to employees' existing roles.”
A different trade association asserted that the proposed amendment to § 312.10 to require operators to provide a written children's personal information retention policy in the online notice required by § 312.4(d) would “burden smaller operators disproportionately in comparison to their larger counterparts that can dedicate time and expenses to crafting, updating, and managing such a public policy.”
In commenting on the proposed amendments to the definition of “website or online service directed to children” in § 312.2 of the Rule, two industry groups asserted that it might be “entirely infeasible” for small entities to comb the internet for third-party user reviews in order to assess their audience composition.
One commenter asserted that the proposed amendment to § 312.4(c)(4) of the Rule to require operators to list in their direct notices the identities or categories of third parties to which they disclose children's personal information would potentially harm small entities by incentivizing regulated entities to work only with large vendors in order to limit the number of third parties to track and update on such lists.
A commenter asserted that the time and resources needed to implement the human-review component of the face match to verified photo identification verifiable parental consent method the Commission proposed to codify in new § 312.5(b)(2)(vii) would cause small entities to struggle to use the consent method.
In response to Question Ten of the “Questions for the Proposed Revisions to the Rule” section of the NPRM, some commenters asserted that amending the Rule to require operators to obtain verifiable parental consent to collect and use persistent identifiers for contextual advertising would negatively affect startup and small entities, in particular.
A trade association asserted that it would be difficult for its members that are small entities to comply with the Final Rule if the effective date were less than one year after its adoption.
In all, the Commission does not believe it needs to make any changes to its IRFA in response to these comments.
Part II provides a section-by-section analysis that discusses the provisions proposed in the NPRM, the comments received, the Commission's responses to the comments, and any changes made by the Commission as a result.
The Commission did not receive any comments from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.
The COPPA Rule applies to operators of commercial websites or online services directed to children that collect personal information through such websites or online services, and operators of any commercial websites or online services with actual knowledge that they are collecting personal information from children. The Rule also applies to operators of commercial websites or online services that have actual knowledge that they are collecting personal information directly from users of another commercial website or online service directed to children.
Based on the previous estimates and the Commission's compliance monitoring efforts in the areas of children's privacy, FTC staff estimates that approximately 6,140 operators may be subject to the Rule's requirements, with approximately 430 new operators becoming subject to the Rule each year.
Under the Small Business Size Standards issued by the Small Business Administration, “Web Search Publishers and All Other Information Services” qualify as small businesses if the firms have fewer than 1,000 employees, and “Software Publishers” qualify as small businesses if they have $47 million or less in sales. Using 2021 and 2017 Census Statistics of United States Businesses data on the number of firms in the above categories that would qualify as small businesses, FTC staff estimates that approximately 94% to 98% of operators potentially subject to the Rule qualify as small entities.
The amended Rule will impose reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements. For example, while not constituting a “collection of information” under the PRA, the amended Rule will require operators to establish, implement, and maintain a written comprehensive security program. The amended Rule will also increase the disclosure requirements for covered operators, and it will increase the disclosure and reporting requirements for FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs. Specifically, the amendments require operators to update existing disclosures with additional content requirements, namely, to update the direct and online notices with additional information about the operators' information practices. Some operators may have to provide disclosures that the Rule did not previously require. Additionally, the amended Rule requires operators to disclose a data retention policy.
The amended Rule will require each FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program to provide a list of all current subject operators and their certified websites or online services on each of the FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor program's websites and online services, and the amended Rule further requires that such list be updated every six months thereafter. The amendments will also require FTC-approved COPPA Safe Harbor programs to include additional content in their annual reports and submit a new report to the Commission every three years detailing the program's technological capabilities and mechanisms for assessing subject operators' fitness for membership in the program.
The estimated burden imposed by these amendments is discussed in the PRA section of this document. While the Rule's compliance obligations apply equally to all entities subject to the Rule, it is unclear whether the economic burden on small entities will be the same as, or greater than, the burden on other entities. That determination would depend upon a particular entity's compliance costs, some of which may be largely fixed for all entities (
As explained in the PRA section and this FRFA, FTC staff estimates that there are approximately 6,140 websites or online services that qualify as operators under the amended Rule, and that approximately 94% to 98% of such operators qualify as small entities under the SBA's Small Business Size standards.
As the Commission described in the IRFA, the Commission attempted to tailor each proposed amendment to avoid unduly burdensome requirements for businesses subject to the Rule. Additionally, the Commission built flexibilities into various amendments to reduce burden for all entities subject to the Rule. For example, the amendments the Commission is adopting permit flexibilities within the information security program, such as to tailor the program to an entity's operations and allow the employee coordinating the program to have other job duties, and within the data retention policy, such as allowing entities to maintain a general written data retention policy that encompasses children's personal information rather than maintaining a separate children's data retention policy. Because the Commission estimates that small entities account for 94% to 98% of entities subject to the Rule, the Commission anticipates that such flexibilities will reduce burden on small entities. In addition, in response to comments, and as discussed in Part II, the Commission has further clarified
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Communications, Computer technology, Consumer protection, Infants and children, Internet, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Science and technology, Trade practices, Youth.
15 U.S.C. 6501 through 6506.
This part implements the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (15 U.S.C. 6501,
(1) Requesting, prompting, or encouraging a child to submit personal information online;
(2) Enabling a child to make personal information publicly available in identifiable form. An operator shall not be considered to have collected personal information under this paragraph if it takes reasonable measures to delete all or virtually all personal information from a child's postings before they are made public and also to delete such information from its records; or
(3) Passive tracking of a child online.
(1) The release of personal information collected by an operator from a child in identifiable form for any purpose, except where an operator provides such information to a person who provides support for the internal operations of the website or online service; and
(2) Making personal information collected by an operator from a child publicly available in identifiable form by any means, including but not limited to a public posting through the internet, or through a personal home page or screen posted on a website or online service; a pen pal service; an electronic mail service; a message board; or a chat room.
(1) Receives notice of the operator's personal information collection, use, and disclosure practices; and
(2) Authorizes any collection, use, and/or disclosure of the personal information.
(1) It is collected or maintained by an agent or service provider of the operator; or
(2) The operator benefits by allowing another person to collect personal information directly from users of such website or online service.
(1) A first and last name;s
(2) A home or other physical address including street name and name of a city or town;
(3) Online contact information as defined in this section;
(4) A screen or user name where it functions in the same manner as online contact information, as defined in this section;
(5) A telephone number;
(6) A government-issued identifier, such as a Social Security, State identification card, birth certificate, or passport number;
(7) A persistent identifier that can be used to recognize a user over time and across different websites or online services. Such persistent identifier includes, but is not limited to, a customer number held in a cookie, an Internet Protocol (IP) address, a processor or device serial number, or unique device identifier;
(8) A photograph, video, or audio file where such file contains a child's image or voice;
(9) Geolocation information sufficient to identify street name and name of a city or town;
(10) A biometric identifier that can be used for the automated or semi-automated recognition of an individual, such as fingerprints; handprints; retina patterns; iris patterns; genetic data, including a DNA sequence; voiceprints; gait patterns; facial templates; or faceprints; or
(11) Information concerning the child or the parents of that child that the operator collects online from the child and combines with an identifier described in this definition.
(1) Those activities necessary to:
(i) Maintain or analyze the functioning of the website or online service;
(ii) Perform network communications;
(iii) Authenticate users of, or personalize the content on, the website or online service;
(iv) Serve contextual advertising on the website or online service or cap the frequency of advertising;
(v) Protect the security or integrity of the user, website, or online service;
(vi) Ensure legal or regulatory compliance; or
(vii) Fulfill a request of a child as permitted by § 312.5(c)(3) and (4).
(2) Provided, however, that, except as specifically permitted by paragraphs (1)(i) through (vii) of this definition, the information collected for the activities listed in paragraphs (1)(i) through (vii) of this definition cannot be used or disclosed to contact a specific individual, including through behavioral advertising, to amass a profile on a specific individual, or for any other purpose.
(1) An operator with respect to the collection or maintenance of personal information on the website or online service; or
(2) A person who provides support for the internal operations of the website or online service and who does not use or disclose information protected under this part for any other purpose.
(1) In determining whether a website or online service, or a portion thereof, is directed to children, the Commission will consider its subject matter, visual content, use of animated characters or child-oriented activities and incentives, music or other audio content, age of models, presence of child celebrities or celebrities who appeal to children, language or other characteristics of the website or online service, as well as whether advertising promoting or appearing on the website or online service is directed to children. The Commission will also consider competent and reliable empirical evidence regarding audience composition and evidence regarding the intended audience, including marketing or promotional materials or plans, representations to consumers or to third parties, reviews by users or third parties, and the age of users on similar websites or services.
(2) A website or online service shall be deemed directed to children when it has actual knowledge that it is collecting personal information directly from users of another website or online service directed to children.
(3) A mixed audience website or online service shall not be deemed directed to children with regard to any visitor not identified as under 13.
(4) A website or online service shall not be deemed directed to children solely because it refers or links to a commercial website or online service directed to children by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link.
It shall be unlawful for any operator of a website or online service directed to children, or any operator that has actual knowledge that it is collecting or maintaining personal information from a child, to collect personal information from a child in a manner that violates the regulations prescribed under this part. Generally, under this part, an operator must:
(a) Provide notice on the website or online service of what information it collects from children, how it uses such information, and its disclosure practices for such information (§ 312.4(b));
(b) Obtain verifiable parental consent prior to any collection, use, and/or disclosure of personal information from children (§ 312.5);
(c) Provide a reasonable means for a parent to review the personal information collected from a child and to refuse to permit its further use or maintenance (§ 312.6);
(d) Not condition a child's participation in a game, the offering of a prize, or another activity on the child disclosing more personal information than is reasonably necessary to participate in such activity (§ 312.7); and
(e) Establish and maintain reasonable procedures to protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of personal information collected from children (§ 312.8).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(i) If applicable, that the operator has collected the parent's or child's online contact information from the child, and, if such is the case, the name of the child or the parent, in order to obtain the parent's consent;
(ii) That the parent's consent is required for the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information, and that the operator will not collect, use, or disclose any personal information from the child if the parent does not provide such consent;
(iii) The items of personal information the operator intends to collect from the child, how the operator intends to use such information, and the potential opportunities for the disclosure of personal information, should the parent provide consent;
(iv) Where the operator discloses personal information to one or more third parties, the identities or specific categories of such third parties (including the public if making it publicly available) and the purposes for such disclosure, should the parent provide consent, and that the parent can consent to the collection and use of the child's personal information without consenting to the disclosure of such personal information to third parties except to the extent such disclosure is integral to the website or online service;
(v) A hyperlink to the operator's online notice of its information practices required under paragraph (d) of this section;
(vi) The means by which the parent can provide verifiable consent to the collection, use, and disclosure of the information; and
(vii) If the operator has collected the name or online contact information of the parent or child to provide notice and obtain parental consent, that if the parent does not provide consent within a reasonable time from the date the direct notice was sent, the operator will delete the parent's or child's online contact information and the parent's or child's name from its records.
(2)
(i) That the operator has collected the parent's online contact information from the child in order to provide notice to, and subsequently update the parent about, a child's participation in a website or online service that does not otherwise collect, use, or disclose children's personal information;
(ii) That the parent's online contact information will not be used or disclosed for any other purpose;
(iii) That the parent may refuse to permit the child's participation in the website or online service and may require the deletion of the parent's online contact information, and how the parent can do so; and
(iv) A hyperlink to the operator's online notice of its information practices required under paragraph (d) of this section.
(3)
(i) That the operator has collected the child's online contact information from the child in order to provide multiple online communications to the child;
(ii) That the operator has collected the parent's online contact information from the child in order to notify the parent that the child has registered to receive multiple online communications from the operator;
(iii) That the online contact information collected from the child will not be used for any other purpose, disclosed, or combined with any other information collected from the child;
(iv) That the parent may refuse to permit further contact with the child and require the deletion of the parent's and child's online contact information, and how the parent can do so;
(v) That if the parent fails to respond to this direct notice, the operator may use the online contact information collected from the child for the purpose stated in the direct notice; and
(vi) A hyperlink to the operator's online notice of its information practices required under paragraph (d) of this section.
(4)
(i) That the operator has collected the name and the online contact information of the child and the parent in order to protect the safety of a child;
(ii) That the information will not be used or disclosed for any purpose unrelated to the child's safety;
(iii) That the parent may refuse to permit the use, and require the deletion, of the information collected, and how the parent can do so;
(iv) That if the parent fails to respond to this direct notice, the operator may use the information for the purpose stated in the direct notice; and
(v) A hyperlink to the operator's online notice of its information practices required under paragraph (d) of this section.
(d)
(1) The name, address, telephone number, and email address of all operators collecting or maintaining personal information from children through the website or online service. Provided that: The operators of a website or online service may list the name, address, phone number, and email address of one operator who will respond to all inquiries from parents concerning the operators' privacy policies and use of children's information, as long as the names of all the operators collecting or maintaining personal information from children through the website or online service are also listed in the notice;
(2) A description of what information the operator collects from children, including whether the website or online service enables a child to make personal information publicly available; how the operator uses such information; the operator's disclosure practices for such information, including the identities and specific categories of any third parties to which the operator discloses
(3) If applicable, the specific internal operations for which the operator has collected a persistent identifier pursuant to § 312.5(c)(7); and the means the operator uses to ensure that such identifier is not used or disclosed to contact a specific individual, including through behavioral advertising, to amass a profile on a specific individual, or for any other purpose (except as specifically permitted to provide support for the internal operations of the website or online service);
(4) Where the operator collects audio files containing a child's voice pursuant to § 312.5(c)(9), a description of how the operator uses such audio files and that the operator deletes such audio files immediately after responding to the request for which they were collected; and
(5) If applicable, that the parent can review or have deleted the child's personal information, and refuse to permit further collection or use of the child's information, and state the procedures for doing so.
(a)
(2) An operator must give the parent the option to consent to the collection and use of the child's personal information without consenting to disclosure of his or her personal information to third parties, unless such disclosure is integral to the website or online service. An operator required to give the parent this option must obtain separate verifiable parental consent to such disclosure.
(b)
(2) Existing methods to obtain verifiable parental consent that satisfy the requirements of this paragraph include:
(i) Providing a consent form to be signed by the parent and returned to the operator by postal mail, facsimile, or electronic scan;
(ii) Requiring a parent, in connection with a transaction, to use a credit card, debit card, or other online payment system that provides notification of each discrete transaction to the primary account holder;
(iii) Having a parent call a toll-free telephone number staffed by trained personnel;
(iv) Having a parent connect to trained personnel via video-conference;
(v) Verifying a parent's identity by checking a form of government-issued identification against databases of such information, where the parent's identification is deleted by the operator from its records promptly after such verification is complete;
(vi) Verifying a parent's identity using knowledge-based authentication provided:
(A) the verification process uses dynamic, multiple-choice questions, where there are a reasonable number of questions with an adequate number of possible answers such that the probability of correctly guessing the answers is low; and
(B) the questions are of sufficient difficulty that a child age 12 or younger in the parent's household could not reasonably ascertain the answers;
(vii) Having a parent submit a government-issued photographic identification that is verified to be authentic and is compared against an image of the parent's face taken with a phone camera or webcam using facial recognition technology and confirmed by personnel trained to confirm that the photos match; provided that the parent's identification and images are promptly deleted by the operator from its records after the match is confirmed; or
(viii) Provided that, an operator that does not “disclose” (as defined by § 312.2) children's personal information, may use an email coupled with additional steps to provide assurances that the person providing the consent is the parent. Such additional steps include: Sending a confirmatory email to the parent following receipt of consent, or obtaining a postal address or telephone number from the parent and confirming the parent's consent by letter or telephone call. An operator that uses this method must provide notice that the parent can revoke any consent given in response to the earlier email.
(ix) Provided that, an operator that does not “disclose” (as defined by § 312.2) children's personal information, may use a text message coupled with additional steps to provide assurances that the person providing the consent is the parent. Such additional steps include: Sending a confirmatory text message to the parent following receipt of consent, or obtaining a postal address or telephone number from the parent and confirming the parent's consent by letter or telephone call. An operator that uses this method must provide notice that the parent can revoke any consent given in response to the earlier text message.
(3)
(c)
(1) Where the sole purpose of collecting the name or online contact information of the parent or child is to provide notice and obtain parental consent under § 312.4(c)(1). If the operator has not obtained parental consent after a reasonable time from the date of the information collection, the operator must delete such information from its records;
(2) Where the purpose of collecting a parent's online contact information is to provide voluntary notice to, and subsequently update the parent about, the child's participation in a website or online service that does not otherwise collect, use, or disclose children's personal information. In such cases, the parent's online contact information may not be used or disclosed for any other purpose. In such cases, the operator must make reasonable efforts, taking into consideration available technology, to ensure that the parent receives notice as described in § 312.4(c)(2);
(3) Where the sole purpose of collecting online contact information from a child is to respond directly on a one-time basis to a specific request from the child, and where such information is not used to re-contact the child or for any other purpose, is not disclosed, and is deleted by the operator from its records promptly after responding to the child's request;
(4) Where the purpose of collecting a child's and a parent's online contact information is to respond directly more than once to the child's specific request, and where such information is not used for any other purpose, disclosed, or combined with any other information
(5) Where the purpose of collecting a child's and a parent's name and online contact information, is to protect the safety of a child, and where such information is not used or disclosed for any purpose unrelated to the child's safety. In such cases, the operator must make reasonable efforts, taking into consideration available technology, to provide a parent with notice as described in § 312.4(c)(4);
(6) Where the purpose of collecting a child's name and online contact information is to:
(i) Protect the security or integrity of the website or online service;
(ii) Take precautions against liability;
(iii) Respond to judicial process; or
(iv) To the extent permitted under other provisions of law, to provide information to law enforcement agencies or for an investigation on a matter related to public safety; and where such information is not used for any other purpose;
(7) Where an operator collects a persistent identifier and no other personal information and such identifier is used for the sole purpose of providing support for the internal operations of the website or online service. In such case, the operator shall provide notice under § 312.4(d)(3);
(8) Where an operator covered under paragraph (2) of the definition of
(9) Where an operator collects an audio file containing a child's voice, and no other personal information, for use in responding to a child's specific request and where the operator does not use such information for any other purpose, does not disclose it, and deletes it immediately after responding to the child's request. In such case, there also shall be no obligation to provide a direct notice, but notice shall be required under § 312.4(d).
(a) Upon request of a parent whose child has provided personal information to a website or online service, the operator of that website or online service is required to provide to that parent the following:
(1) A description of the specific types or categories of personal information collected from children by the operator, such as name, address, telephone number, email address, hobbies, and extracurricular activities;
(2) The opportunity at any time to refuse to permit the operator's further use or future online collection of personal information from that child, and to direct the operator to delete the child's personal information; and
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a means of reviewing any personal information collected from the child. The means employed by the operator to carry out this provision must:
(i) Ensure that the requestor is a parent of that child, taking into account available technology; and
(ii) Not be unduly burdensome to the parent.
(b) Neither an operator nor the operator's agent shall be held liable under any Federal or State law for any disclosure made in good faith and following reasonable procedures in responding to a request for disclosure of personal information under this section.
(c) Subject to the limitations set forth in § 312.7, an operator may terminate any service provided to a child whose parent has refused, under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, to permit the operator's further use or collection of personal information from his or her child or has directed the operator to delete the child's personal information.
An operator is prohibited from conditioning a child's participation in a game, the offering of a prize, or another activity on the child's disclosing more personal information than is reasonably necessary to participate in such activity.
(a) The operator must establish and maintain reasonable procedures to protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of personal information collected from children.
(b) At a minimum, the operator must establish, implement, and maintain a written information security program that contains safeguards that are appropriate to the sensitivity of the personal information collected from children and the operator's size, complexity, and nature and scope of activities. To satisfy this requirement, the operator must:
(1) Designate one or more employees to coordinate the operator's information security program;
(2) Identify and, at least annually, perform additional assessments to identify internal and external risks to the confidentiality, security, and integrity of personal information collected from children and the sufficiency of any safeguards in place to control such risks;
(3) Design, implement, and maintain safeguards to control risks identified through the risk assessments required under paragraph (b)(2) of this section. Each safeguard must be based on the volume and sensitivity of the children's personal information that is at risk, and the likelihood that the risk could result in the unauthorized disclosure, misuse, alteration, destruction or other compromise of such information;
(4) Regularly test and monitor the effectiveness of the safeguards in place to control risks identified through the risk assessments required under paragraph (b)(2) of this section; and
(5) At least annually, evaluate and modify the information security program to address identified risks, results of required testing and monitoring, new or more efficient technological or operational methods to control for identified risks, or any other circumstances that an operator knows or has reason to know may have a material impact on its information security program or any safeguards in place to protect personal information collected from children.
(c) Before allowing other operators, service providers, or third parties to collect or maintain personal information from children on the operator's behalf, or before releasing children's personal information to such entities, the operator must take reasonable steps to determine that such entities are capable of maintaining the confidentiality, security, and integrity of the information and must obtain written assurances that such entities will employ reasonable measures to maintain the confidentiality, security, and integrity of the information.
Subject to sections 6503 and 6505 of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, a violation of a regulation prescribed under section 6502(a) of this Act shall be treated as a violation of a
An operator of a website or online service shall retain personal information collected online from a child for only as long as is reasonably necessary to fulfill the specific purpose(s) for which the information was collected. When such information is no longer reasonably necessary for the purposes for which it was collected, the operator must delete the information using reasonable measures to protect against unauthorized access to, or use of, the information in connection with its deletion. Personal information collected online from a child may not be retained indefinitely. At a minimum, the operator must establish, implement, and maintain a written data retention policy that sets forth the purposes for which children's personal information is collected, the business need for retaining such information, and a timeframe for deletion of such information. The operator must provide its written data retention policy addressing personal information collected from children in the notice on the website or online service provided in accordance with § 312.4(d).
(a)
(b)
(1) Program requirements that ensure operators subject to the self-regulatory program guidelines (“subject operators”) provide substantially the same or greater protections for children as those contained in §§ 312.2 through 312.8, and 312.10.
(2) An effective, mandatory mechanism for the independent assessment of subject operators' compliance with the self-regulatory program guidelines. At a minimum, this mechanism must include a comprehensive review by the safe harbor program, to be conducted not less than annually, of each subject operator's information privacy and security policies, practices, and representations. The assessment mechanism required under this paragraph can be provided by an independent enforcement program, such as a seal program.
(3) Disciplinary actions for subject operators' non-compliance with self-regulatory program guidelines. This performance standard may be satisfied by:
(i) Mandatory, public reporting of any action taken against subject operators by the industry group issuing the self-regulatory guidelines;
(ii) Consumer redress;
(iii) Voluntary payments to the United States Treasury in connection with an industry-directed program for violators of the self-regulatory guidelines;
(iv) Referral to the Commission of operators who engage in a pattern or practice of violating the self-regulatory guidelines; or
(v) Any other equally effective action.
(c)
(1) A detailed explanation of the applicant's business model, and the technological capabilities and mechanisms that will be used for initial and continuing assessment of subject operators' fitness for membership in the safe harbor program;
(2) A copy of the full text of the guidelines for which approval is sought and any accompanying commentary;
(3) A comparison of each provision of §§ 312.2 through 312.8, and 312.10 with the corresponding provisions of the guidelines; and
(4) A statement explaining:
(i) How the self-regulatory program guidelines, including the applicable assessment mechanisms, meet the requirements of this part; and
(ii) How the assessment mechanisms and compliance consequences required under paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section provide effective enforcement of the requirements of this part.
(d)
(1) By October 22, 2025, and annually thereafter, submit a report to the Commission that identifies each subject operator and all approved websites or online services, as well as any subject operators that have left the safe harbor program. The report must also contain, at a minimum:
(i) a narrative description of the safe harbor program's business model, including whether it provides additional services such as training to subject operators;
(ii) copies of each consumer complaint related to each subject operator's violation of a safe harbor program's guidelines;
(iii) an aggregated summary of the results of the independent assessments conducted under paragraph (b)(2) of this section;
(iv) a description of each disciplinary action taken against any subject operator under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, as well as a description of the process for determining whether a subject operator is subject to discipline; and
(v) a description of any approvals of member operators' use of a parental consent mechanism, pursuant to § 312.5(b)(3);
(2) Promptly respond to Commission requests for additional information;
(3) Maintain for a period not less than three years, and upon request make available to the Commission for inspection and copying:
(i) Consumer complaints alleging violations of the guidelines by subject operators;
(ii) Records of disciplinary actions taken against subject operators; and
(iii) Results of the independent assessments of subject operators' compliance required under paragraph (b)(2) of this section; and
(4) No later than July 21, 2025, publicly post on each of the approved safe harbor program's websites and online services a list of all current subject operators and, for each such operator, list each certified website or online service. Approved safe harbor programs shall update this list every six months thereafter to reflect any changes to the approved safe harbor programs' subject operators or their applicable websites and online services.
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(a)
(b)
The provisions of this part are separate and severable from one another. If any provision is stayed or determined to be invalid, it is the Commission's intention that the remaining provisions shall continue in effect.
By direction of the Commission.
(a) All language under the section entitled “Management of the Marine National Monument” in Proclamation 9173 is deleted and replaced with the following:
(b) The Secretary of Commerce, through the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, shall expeditiously publish new proposed rules in the
(b) Upon completion of the process described in subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary of Commerce shall consider updating the Department of Commerce's contribution to the Unified Regulatory Agenda. The Secretary of Commerce shall resume submission of annual reports to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, and the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality pursuant to these activities as described in Executive Order 13921.
(c) The Secretary of Commerce shall direct the National Marine Fisheries Service to incorporate less expensive and more reliable technologies and cooperative research programs into fishery assessments conducted pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1867. As soon as practicable, the Secretary of Commerce shall expand exempted fishing permit programs to promote fishing opportunities nationwide. Further, the Secretary of Commerce shall take all appropriate action to modernize data collection and analytical practices that will improve the responsiveness of fisheries management to real-time ocean conditions.
(d) The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall develop and implement an America First Seafood Strategy to promote production, marketing, sale, and export of United States fishery and aquaculture products and strengthen domestic processing capacity. This program shall accelerate the Department of Agriculture's efforts to educate American consumers about the health benefits of seafood and increase seafood purchases in nutrition programs.
(e) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative, in consultation with members of the Interagency Seafood Trade Task Force, shall assess seafood competitiveness issues and jointly develop a comprehensive seafood trade strategy. The strategy shall be based upon the Seafood Trade Strategy of November 3, 2020, that improves access to foreign markets and addresses unfair trade practices—including IUU fishing and unjustified non-tariff barriers—while ensuring a fair and competitive domestic market for United States seafood producers.
(f) The United States Trade Representative shall examine the relevant trade practices of major seafood-producing nations, including with regard to IUU fishing and the use of forced labor in the seafood supply chain, and consider appropriate responses, including pursuing solutions through negotiations or trade enforcement authorities, such as under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2411).
(g) The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other relevant agencies, shall immediately consider revising or rescinding recent expansions of the Seafood Import Monitoring Program to unnecessary species and further improve the program to more effectively target high-risk shipments from nations that routinely violate international fishery regulations. The Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall use cost savings to improve thorough checks at United States ports to prevent IUU seafood from entering the market. The Secretary of Commerce shall further consider options to use improved technology to identify foreign fishery-related violations.
(h) Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall review all existing marine national monuments and provide recommendations to the President of any that should be opened to commercial fishing. In making these recommendations, the Secretary of Commerce will consider whether the opening of the monuments to commercial fishing would be consistent with the preservation of the historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest originally identified in the proclamations establishing the marine national monuments.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.