Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Rural Housing Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Air Force Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local regulation for navigable waters within the vicinity of a large-scale regatta. The special local regulation is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the large-scale regatta. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Los Angeles-Long Beach.
This rule is effective from 11 a.m. on July 19, 2025 through 5 p.m. on August 4, 2025. This rule will be subject to enforcement from July 19, 2025 through July 26, 2025, and July 28, 2025 through August 4, 2025, from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander Kevin Kinsella, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 310-521-3860, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under the authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this special local regulation by July 19, 2025 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.
Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. The Captain of the Port Los Angeles-Long Beach (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a large-scale regatta taking place in July and August 2025 will be a safety concern for participants and mariners in the vicinity of the event. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the special local regulation while the regatta takes place.
This rule establishes a special local regulation that will be subject to enforcement from July 19, 2025 through July 26, 2025, and July 28, 2025 through August 4, 2025, from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day. The special local regulation will cover all navigable waters within the regatta racecourse. The duration of the regulation is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the regatta takes place. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the special local regulation area without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this special local regulation which will impact a small, designated area of the San Pedro Bay in a location where vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone.
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 rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation lasting only six hours each day that will prohibit entry within the vicinity of the regatta. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by VHF-FM Channel 13 (156.65 MHz) or 16 (156.8MHz). Those in the special local regulation must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(3) The COTP will provide notice of the regulated area through advanced notice via broadcast notice to mariners and by on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce multiple safety zones for recurring
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.939 will be enforced for the safety zones identified in the
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Marine Safety Unit Thousand Islands' Waterways Management Division; telephone 315-774-8546, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.939, Table 1, at the following dates and times for the following events:
In addition to this notification of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the Township of Brick Summer Fest fireworks displays on four dates in July. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable water during each of the three separate land-based fireworks displays. Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this event, located in in Brick, NJ. During the enforcement periods, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Officer Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
The portion of the regulation 33 CFR 165.506, for the location identified in entry 5 of table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) will be enforced from 9 p.m. through 9:45 p.m. on each of the following four dates: July 3, 2025, July 10, 2025, July 17, 2025, and July 24, 2025.
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Emmanuel Melendez, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways Management Division, telephone 206-815-6688, option 3, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in table 1 paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry No. 5 for four periods, for three separate land-based fireworks displays. The enforcement periods will be from 9 p.m. through 9:45 p.m. on July 3, 2025, July 10, 2025, July 17, 2025, and July 24, 2025. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States immediately prior to, during, and immediately after fireworks displays. Our regulation for safety zones of fireworks displays within the Fifth Coast Guard District, table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry 5 specifies the location of the regulated area as all waters of the Metedeconk River within a 300-yard radius of the fireworks launch platform in approximate position latitude 40°03′23″ N, longitude 074°06′39″ W, near the shoreline at Brick Township, NJ. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 165.506(d), vessels may not enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or designated Coast Guard patrol personnel on-scene.
In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the French Festival Fireworks on July 12th, 2025, in Cape Vincent, NY to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Ninth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this event in Cape Vincent, NY. During the enforcement periods, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.939 will be enforced for the Cape Vincent, regulated area listed in Table 1 to § 165.939(15) from 5:00 p.m. through 9:45 p.m. on July 12th, 2025.
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email Waterways Management Division Coordinator, U.S. Coast Guard MSU Thousand Islands; telephone 315-774-8724, email
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone regulation in 33 CFR 165.939 for the
In addition to this notification of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone, Lakeshore State Park, Milwaukee, WI on a portion of Lake Michigan in Milwaukee, WI. This action is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by a dragon boat race event. During the enforcement period listed below, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.929 will be enforced for the Lakeshore State Park regulated area listed in item 2 in Table 4 to § 165.929 from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on July 12, 2025.
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Commander Jessica Anderson, Sector Lake Michigan Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 414-216-8428, email:
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone regulation in 33 CFR 165.929 for the Lakeshore State Park dragon boat race event in item 2 in Table 4 to § 165.929 from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Saturday, July 12, 2025. The regulation for recurring marine events within the State of Wisconsin in item 2 in Table 4 to § 165.929, specifies the location of the regulated area for this event. All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port (COTP) Lake Michigan, or designated on-scene representative to enter, move within, or exit this safety zone during the enforcement time listed in this notice of enforcement. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the COTP Lake Michigan or designated representative. Upon being hailed by the U.S. Coast Guard by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel must proceed as directed.
In addition to this notification of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone while the U.S. Navy Blue Angels Squadron conducts aerobatic performances over Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, Hawaii. This safety zone is necessary to protect watercrafts and the general public from hazards associated with the U.S. Navy Blue Angels aircraft performing low flying, high powered jet aerobatics over open water. This rulemaking prohibits persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Honolulu or a designated representative.
This rule is effective on August 8 through August 10, 2025. It will be subject to enforcement from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. each day.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email Chief Petty Officer Bradley W. Lindsey, Waterway Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; DIPS 571-610-0730, email
On November 12, 2024, Marine Corps Base Hawaii (MCBH) 2025 Airshow coordinators notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting an Air Show that includes an aerial performance “show box” extending beyond the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The COTP Honolulu has determined that potential hazards associated with the aerial performance would be a safety concern for anyone within the “show box” that extend beyond the Kaneohe Bay Naval Defensive Sea. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.
As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published May 21, 2025. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. on August 8 through August 10, 2025. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within the following points 21° 26.159′ N, 157° 47.312′ W; then south to 21° 25.890′ N, 157° 47.250′ W; then northeast to 21° 27.943′ N, 157° 44.953′ W; then west to 21° 28.016′ N, 157° 45.250′ W; and returning southwest to the starting point to complete a rectangle. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of watercrafts and the general public from hazards associated with the U.S. Navy Blue Angels aircraft low flying, high powered jet aerobatics over open waters. Vessels requiring emergency transit through the zone may request permission by contacting the on-scene Patrol Commander on VHF channel 16 (156.800 MHz) or the Honolulu Captain of the Port at telephone number 808-842-2600.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) 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. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration and time of day of the regulated area. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small designated area of Kaneohe Bay and offshore waters. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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.
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
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that extends the Kaneohe Bay Naval Defense Sea Area on both sides that would prevent vessels from entering the flight paths for the acrobatic performances. 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
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative via CH. 16 VHF or by calling the 24hr command center at 808-842-2600. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Final rule.
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) includes provisions for prioritized examination of patent applications. Those provisions have been implemented by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in previous rulemakings. The AIA provides that the USPTO may not accept more than 10,000 requests for prioritization in any fiscal year (October 1 to September 30) until regulations setting another limit are prescribed. In 2019 and 2021, the USPTO published interim rules that expanded the limit on the number of requests to 12,000 and 15,000, respectively. The current final rule further expands the availability of prioritized examination by increasing the limit on the number of prioritized examination requests that may be accepted in a fiscal year to 20,000.
Kery Fries, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, at 571-272-7757; or Parikha Solanki, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, at 571-272-3248.
Section 11(h) of the AIA provides for prioritized examination of an application. See Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 324 (2011). Section 11(h)(1)(B)(i) of the AIA also provides that the USPTO may, by regulation, prescribe conditions for the acceptance of a request for prioritized examination, and section 11(h)(1)(B)(iii) provides that “[t]he Director may not accept in any fiscal year more than 10,000 requests for prioritization until regulations are prescribed under this subparagraph setting another limit.” Id.
The USPTO implemented the prioritized examination provision of the AIA for original utility or plant nonprovisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) in a final rule published on September 23, 2011.
The number of requests for prioritized examination has been increasing steadily over the years. The USPTO published an interim rule in 2019 expanding the availability of prioritized examination by increasing the limit on the number of prioritized examination requests that may be accepted in a fiscal year from 10,000 to 12,000.
In fiscal year 2024, the USPTO received more than 15,000 requests for prioritized examination. The current final rule increases the number of prioritized examination requests that may be accepted in a fiscal year to 20,000, so that the USPTO can continue to accommodate the number of applicants wishing to utilize this program.
This increase in the maximum number of prioritized examination requests accepted in any fiscal year will not negatively impact overall pendency across all applications. First, the number of applications accepted for prioritized examination will remain a small fraction of the patent examinations completed in a fiscal year. Second, the USPTO has recently terminated, or allowed to expire, a number of pilot programs that permitted patent applications meeting certain eligibility criteria the opportunity to be advanced out of turn for examination. The USPTO has determined that any potential pendency or workflow impacts of these 5,000 additional prioritized examination applications is offset by the cumulative effect of the termination or expiration of programs such as: the Semiconductor Technology Pilot Program, the Cancer Moonshot Expedited Examination Pilot Program, the First-Time Filer Expedited Examination Pilot Program, and the current suspension of the Climate Change Mitigation Pilot Program. In other words, the additional prioritized examination availability combined with the sunset of these pilot programs is expected to have a net neutral or positive effect on overall pendency. Furthermore, an increase in prioritized examination opportunities provides the USPTO with additional resources for building capacity to examine all patent applications in a more timely manner.
Accordingly, the USPTO is further expanding the availability of prioritized examination by increasing the limit on the number of prioritized examination requests that may be accepted in a fiscal year to 20,000, beginning in fiscal year 2025 (October 1, 2024, through September 30, 2025) and continuing every fiscal year thereafter until further notice.
The following is a discussion of the amendment to 37 CFR part 1.
Moreover, the USPTO, pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), finds good cause to adopt the changes in this final rule without prior notice and an opportunity for public comment, as such procedures would be contrary to the public interest. Delay in the promulgation of this final rule to provide prior notice and comment procedures would cause harm to those applicants who desire to file a request for prioritized examination with a new application or request for continued examination. Immediate implementation of the changes in this final rule is in the public interest because: (1) the public does not need time to conform its conduct, as the changes in this final rule do not add any additional requirement for requesting prioritized examination of an application; and (2) those applicants who would otherwise be ineligible for prioritized examination will benefit from the immediate implementation of the changes in this final rule.
In addition, pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the USPTO finds good cause to adopt the changes in this interim rule without the 30-day delay in effectiveness as such delay would be contrary to the public interest. Immediate implementation of the changes in this interim rule is in the public interest because: (1) the public does not need time to conform its conduct, as the changes in this final rule do not add any additional requirement for requesting prioritized examination of an application; and (2) those applicants who would otherwise be ineligible for prioritized examination will benefit
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information has a currently valid OMB control number.
Administrative practice and procedure, Biologics, Courts, Freedom of information, Inventions and patents, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 37 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), unless otherwise noted.
(e) * * * No more than 20,000 requests for such prioritized examination will be accepted in any fiscal year.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio or Ohio EPA) on July 30, 2021, as supplemented on August 6, 2024, and clarified by Ohio on June 16, 2025, as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule for the program's second implementation period. Together, Ohio's 2021 SIP submission, 2024 SIP supplement, and 2025 clarification address the requirement that States must periodically revise their long-term strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. Ohio's complete SIP submission also addresses other applicable requirements for the second implementation period of the Regional Haze Program. EPA is taking this action pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the CAA.
This final rule is effective on August 7, 2025.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0544. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Alisa Liu, Air and Radiation Division (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-3193,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On July 30, 2021, Ohio EPA submitted a revision to its SIP to address regional haze for the second implementation period, supplemented it on August 6, 2024, and clarified it on June 16, 2025.
On August 30, 2024, EPA proposed to approve Ohio's Regional Haze SIP revision. A detailed analysis of Ohio's plan and EPA's evaluation are contained in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), dated August 30, 2024 (89 FR 71124), and will not be restated here. In the NPRM, EPA proposed to find that Ohio's Regional Haze SIP submission as supplemented satisfied the regional haze requirements for the second implementation period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f), including the incorporation by reference of Director's Final Findings and Orders (DFFOs) with specific emissions rates in Ohio's long-term strategy into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.1870(d) at three power plants (Cardinal Power Plant, General James M. Gavin Power Plant, and Ohio Valley Electric Corp.—Kyger Creek Station) and retirements by 2028 at two power plants (Miami Fort Power Station and Zimmer Power Station).
On June 16, 2025, Ohio clarified in a letter that Zimmer Power Station Unit B006 retired in 2022 and that Miami Fort Power Station is considering converting Units B015 and B016 to natural gas in lieu of permanently shutting down. As such, Ohio stated that the DFFOs for these two facilities are not necessary for reasonable progress and are no longer part of its SIP submittal. Ohio EPA confirmed the past retirement of Zimmer Power Station Unit B006 is already permanent and federally enforceable.
The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened August 30, 2024, was extended until October 15, 2024, was reopened on a limited basis on February 28, 2025, and finally closed on March 17, 2025. 89 FR 71124, August 30, 2024; 89 FR 76442, September 18, 2024; 90 FR 10876, February 28, 2025. During this period, EPA received relevant comments from the following individuals, businesses, agencies, and organizations: Buckeye Power, Inc. and Ohio Valley Electric Corporation
All comments received are included in the rulemaking docket for this action. In the June 17, 2025, Response to Comments document, which is included in the docket for this rulemaking, EPA provides full detailed responses to all significant comments received that further explain the basis for our final action.
EPA received comments on the NPRM addressing topics including, but not limited to, new emission limits, docket organization, cost considerations, visibility, enforceability of retirements, enforceability of permit conditions, existing effective controls, four-factor analyses,
Comments received from Buckeye Power Inc., which operates Cardinal Power Plant, and Ohio Valley Electric Corporation, which operates Kyger Creek Station, were supportive of the proposed rulemaking and of the new emission limits for those facilities that Ohio EPA effectuated through DFFOs.
USFS expressed concern regarding EPA's consideration of costs/sales ratios as well as the comparison of emission reductions from already implemented shutdowns and fuel conversions to potential additional emission reductions.
NPS provided alternative considerations regarding the four-factor analyses and effective controls demonstrations submitted by Ohio for General James M. Gavin Power Plant, Cardinal Power Plant, Ohio Valley Electric Corp.—Kyger Creek Station, and Carmeuse Lime, Inc.—Maple Grove Operations. NPS also asserted that, at times, Ohio's implementation of the FLM consultation process did not follow the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) and (3).
The Coalition to Protect America's National Parks raised concerns about the number of industrial facilities in Ohio, their disproportionate impact on communities of color and low income, and their impact on Ohio's residents in general.
The Environmental Groups raised concerns about the impact of emissions from General James M. Gavin Power Plant on public health and regional haze in certain mandatory Class I Federal areas.
The Conservation Groups commented on benefits of improved visibility at Class I areas that would also improve public health. The Conservation Groups questioned the enforceability of permanent shutdowns, and whether the commitments to shut down 15 units by 2028 was as an adequate reason not to require new emission controls on these units. The Conservation Groups also questioned the enforceability of permit conditions requiring certain facilities to convert to natural gas and limited use. By forgoing four-factor analyses for Ohio Valley Electric Corp.—Kyger Creek Station, Cardinal Power Plant, and FirstEnergy Generation LLC—Bay Shore Plant, the Conservation Groups commented that Ohio failed to show that these facilities were effectively controlled and that cost-effective controls were not likely available. For the four-factor analyses that Ohio provided for General James M. Gavin Power Plant and Carmeuse Lime, Inc.—Maple Grove Operations, the Conservation Groups asserted that EPA's proposed approval of Ohio's conclusions was arbitrary and capricious and not reasonable considering the requirements of the CAA. For both facilities, the Conservation Groups commented on Ohio's consideration of visibility as a fifth factor. As an overarching concern, the Conservation Groups asserted that EPA could not exempt sources from Best Available Retrofit Technology requirements in the second implementation period. Regarding Ohio's DFFOs, the Conservation Groups questioned whether the requirements are practically enforceable, whether the terms were permanent, and whether they provide for monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping to provide adequate reporting for citizen enforcement.
The Conservation Groups also raised concerns about Ohio's implementation of the State-to-State consultation process, referring to requests from the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) and the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) for four-factor analyses, low sulfur fuel standards, and lower emission limits. As to the FLM consultation process, the Conservation Groups reiterated comments provided by the FLMs that addressed Ohio's public notice process, reasons used to forgo four-factor analyses, assumptions used in cost calculations, evaluation of certain control measures, and consideration of visibility as a fifth factor. Environmental justice was also expressed as an area of concern by the Conservation Groups. The Conservation Groups commented that the public was not given an opportunity to review or comment on the work products of the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) during Ohio's development of their SIP revision. As to EPA's NPRM, the Conservation Groups commented that EPA's proposed action was not clear as to how the DFFOs were to be incorporated by reference into Ohio's SIP. Overall, the Conservation Groups urged EPA to disapprove Ohio's SIP revision and issue a FIP as soon as possible.
Regarding the reopening of the public comment period to notify the public that three permits were added to the docket, Buckeye Power, Inc. and Ohio Valley Electric Corporation provided additional comments, noting that the reopening of the comment period was unexpected and unnecessary, asserting that the presence of the permits
As discussed in further detail in our proposed rule, this rule, the June 17, 2025, Response to Comments document, and the brief summary of those responses below, EPA finds that Ohio submitted a Regional Haze SIP revision that meets all the regional haze requirements for the second implementation period.
EPA concludes that Ohio's determinations of the measures necessary for reasonable progress were based on a reasonable consideration of the four statutory factors as discussed in the NPRM. Ohio thoroughly examined sources for existing effective controls and for potential additional emission controls through four-factor analyses. While Ohio provided information on control costs/sales ratios and visibility, Ohio did not use this information to reject potential additional emission controls. Ohio also did not reject emission controls merely because of other ongoing emission reductions. Rather, in consideration of the four statutory factors, Ohio found that potential additional controls were not cost-effective.
While some commenters suggested that Ohio should consider certain add-on control measures as cost-effective based on thresholds established by other States, the preamble to the Regional Haze Rule speaks to the flexibility afforded to States when considering the cost of compliance factor. See,
In all cases, Ohio appropriately considered the four statutory factors and carefully weighed the potential emission controls and the large statewide reductions achieved during the second implementation period before appropriately deciding on whether further controls were necessary to make reasonable progress or needed in the State's long-term strategy. Ohio documented that 27 of the 38 coal-fired units above Ohio's threshold for source selection have either already permanently shut down, converted to limited use, converted to natural gas, or accepted enforceable limits. For the units that have already been retired, the record demonstrates that the shutdowns are federally enforceable and permanent. Based on 2016 emissions as shown in Table 4 of Ohio's SIP submittal, the shutdowns and conversions that have already taken place during the second implementation period represent statewide reductions of more than 37,000 tons per year sulfur dioxide (SO
For 2028 projections of emissions and visibility impairment, Ohio's technical demonstrations relied upon the thorough analysis and modeling provided by LADCO, which were subject to public notice and comment at both the State and Federal level. Based on this modeling, EPA notes that emissions from Ohio are not reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I areas that are above the 2028 uniform rate of progress.
Ohio documented quantifiable and meaningful reductions in SO
Given these facts and others discussed more fully in the NPRM and June 17, 2025, Response to Comments document, EPA agrees that it was reasonable for Ohio to conclude that existing Federally enforceable measures as well as controls included in the DFFOs constitute reasonable progress for the State's long-term strategy in the second implementation period.
Although one comment asserted that EPA did not provide an independent evaluation of Ohio's four-factor analyses for General James M. Gavin Power Plant and Carmeuse Lime, Inc.—Maple Grove Operations and, as such, that EPA's proposed approval of Ohio's SIP revisions was arbitrary and capricious, EPA carefully evaluated Ohio's SIP revisions along with the associated record in the docket and documented the information the State relied upon for transparency to the public.
As to comments regarding Ohio's participation in the FLM consultation process and the State-to-State consultation process, EPA fully considered Ohio's public notices that documented the FLMs' recommendations, MANE-VU's and VISTAS' requests, and Ohio's Responses in proposing to find that Ohio's FLM and State-to-State consultation process satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) and (3) and 51.308(f)(2)(ii), respectively.
While some comments raised concerns regarding public health, park visitation, and local economies, EPA notes that these are not considerations within the Regional Haze Program. With respect to public health concerns in particular, the primary national ambient air quality standards are among the standards that provide public health protection, including protection for the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly.
Although some commenters urged EPA to disapprove Ohio's SIP revision and issue a FIP as soon as possible, as stated throughout our proposed action, this action, and the June 17, 2025, Response to Comments document, EPA has determined that Ohio reasonably considered the statutory and regulatory requirements and appropriately determined what measures are necessary for reasonable progress for the second implementation period and, therefore, a FIP is not necessary. For additional justification and rationale for this final action, please see the June 17, 2025, Response to Comments document located in the docket.
EPA is finalizing its approval of Ohio's July 30, 2021, Regional Haze SIP submission as supplemented on August 6, 2024, for the second planning period as proposed, with the exception of the DFFOs for Miami Fort and Zimmer Power Stations, after considering all comments received as addressed in detail in the June 17, 2025, Response to Comments document as well as Ohio's June 16, 2025, letter provided during EPA's review process.
EPA is approving the Regional Haze SIP revision submitted by Ohio EPA on July 30, 2021, supplemented on August 6, 2024, and clarified on June 16, 2025, as satisfying the regional haze requirements for the second implementation period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f). EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference into Ohio's SIP at 40 CFR 52.1870(d) the following Ohio EPA DFFOs for Cardinal Power Plant, B001, B002, and B009 (State effective date: July 26, 2024); Ohio Valley Electric Corp.—Kyger Creek, B001, B002, B003, B004, and B005 (State effective date: July 26, 2024); and General James M. Gavin Power Plant, B003 and B004 (State effective date: July 26, 2024).
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 the Ohio EPA's DFFOs described in section IV of this preamble and set forth in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 8, 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, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The additions read as follows:
(d) * * *
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Interim final rule; request for comment.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking interim final action on revisions to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Coke Oven Batteries (COB) source category and the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks (PQBS) source category by revising certain compliance deadlines for standards finalized in 2024. Specifically, the EPA is amending the compliance deadlines for certain 2024 revisions to the COB and PQBS NESHAPs from July 7, 2025 and January 6, 2026, to July 5, 2027. The EPA seeks comment on this final action and will respond to comments received and revise this final action as appropriate.
This interim final rule is effective on July 8, 2025. Comments on this rule must be received on or before August 7, 2025.
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 (Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category) and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051 (Coke Oven Batteries source category) by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Comments received may be posted without change to
U.S. EPA, Attn: Jonathan Witt, Mail Drop: D243-04, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5645; email address:
Submit your written comments, identified by Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 or EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051, at
Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or other online file sharing services (
As defined in the
Statutory authority to issue the amendments finalized in this action is provided by the same Clean Air Act (CAA) provisions that provided authority to issue the regulations that set the compliance deadlines being amended in this action: CAA section 112, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412). Statutory authority for the rulemaking procedures followed in this action is provided by Administrative Procedure Act (APA) section 553(b)(B), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) (good cause exception to notice-and-comment rulemaking).
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by September 8, 2025. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.
The COB NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart L), promulgated on October 27, 1993, established standards for emissions from doors, lids, and offtakes at heat and/or nonrecovery (HNR) facilities and any new coke production process with by-product chemical recovery facilities. The PQBS NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC), promulgated on April 14, 2003, established emissions standards for pushing coke out of ovens, quenching hot coke, and battery stacks of oven combustion. The risk and technology review (RTR) for the 1993 COB NESHAP was completed on April 5, 2005. In the most recent action, finalized July 5, 2024, the EPA completed a periodic technology review for the COB NESHAP, and an RTR for the PQBS NESHAP, that resulted in amendments to these rules (89 FR 55684) (the “Coke Ovens rule”), which included: (1) maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards to address previously unregulated emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from the PQBS source category pursuant to our interpretation of
Relevant to this action, the Coke Ovens rule finalized the following standards in the COB source category pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6): (1) fenceline monitoring requirements; (2) revised leak standards for doors, lids, and offtakes; and (3) revised pressure monitoring requirements for oven doors at HNR facilities. In addition, the Coke Ovens rule finalized the following standards to address previously unregulated HAP in the PQBS source category: (1) four new emission standards based on MACT for pushing operations: acid gases (AG),
Following the issuance of the Coke Ovens rule, the American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute (and the Coke Oven Environmental Task Force (COETF) that it manages), SunCoke Energy, and the United States Steel Corporation submitted petitions for reconsideration on September 3, 2024, detailing alleged errors, requesting corrections, and expressing concerns regarding the technical feasibility of certain new requirements and the timing of compliance.
On March 20, 2025, the EPA responded to the petitions for reconsideration, granting discretionary reconsideration on the following issues (the applicable NESHAP is listed in parentheses):
For fenceline monitoring, the EPA has identified two issues that warrant reconsideration:
• First, the COETF commented that the EPA should be using the actual fenceline boundary when setting the action level (instead of using the polar grid approach). In the final rule, according to the commenter, the EPA used receptors at the fenceline boundary to set the action level but did not include the receptor with the highest modeled benzene concentration. The EPA agrees that this had the potential to yield a lower action level than necessary and is thus granting reconsideration to reevaluate.
• Second, in the final rule, the EPA required that facilities must employ “appropriate real-time sampling techniques” (1) in their site-specific monitoring plans if they plan to account for proximate onsite sources of benzene emissions, and (2) to locate the cause of an action level exceedance if a root cause determination has not been made within 30 days. In their petition for reconsideration, the COETF argued that real-time monitors are not widely used in the cokemaking industry. They also argued that the Coke Ovens rule did not address multiple issues with real-time monitors, including the technical feasibility of locating and installing real-time monitors, the difficulty of using real-time benzene monitor data and the two-week average benzene monitor data at the fenceline to determine an appropriate delta c (the lowest concentration subtracted from the highest concentration), the complexity of using these monitors at coke facilities, and the cost of installing and operating monitors. The EPA agrees that evaluating these issues is necessary to assess whether the standards as finalized are feasible for sources to comply with and is thus granting reconsideration on appropriate real-time sampling techniques.
For the MACT standards in the PQBS NESHAP, the EPA has identified three issues that warrant reconsideration. First, petitioners indicated that there were several issues related to limited data. After the comment period, which closed on October 2, 2023, the COETF submitted the following documents to the EPA that provided additional information on the limited data issue:
• December 29, 2023, white paper from the COETF titled “Coke Ovens RTR Proposed Rule: White Paper on Proposed Standards” (hereafter referred to as the “Variability White Paper”);
• April 2, 2024, white paper from Trinity Consultants (at the request of the COETF) titled “Intra-Mine Variability Factor for Mercury in Metallurgical Coals” (hereafter referred to as the “Trinity IMV Hg White Paper”);
• May 3, 2024, white paper from Trinity Consultants (at the request of the COETF) titled “Upper Prediction Limit Calculations with Intra-Mine Variability Factor” (hereafter referred to as the “Trinity UPL IMV White Paper”).
These white papers discussed the concept of intra-mine variability factors, which would account for the natural variability of mercury, fluorine, and chlorine within metallurgical coal when determining the MACT standards. The papers indicate that the amount of mercury within the coal has a direct impact on the amount of mercury emissions, and the amounts of fluorine and chlorine within the coal have direct impacts on the amounts of HF and HCl emissions, respectively. The COETF noted that similar “intra-quarry variability” factors had been applied by the EPA in other manufacturing industries (
Second, in a March 22, 2024, email, the COETF requested that: (1) HCl be used as a surrogate for HF; and (2) a health-based emission limit (HBEL) be established for HCl (in lieu of a harder-to-meet MACT floor limit). The COETF asserted that HCl is a more appropriate surrogate for of the same reasons articulated in the final rule for the Integrated Iron and Steel source category, where the EPA stated that the “numerical standard for HCl being finalized in this rule shall act as a work practice (or surrogate) for HF, as control of HCl will also control HF” (89 FR 23310, October 9, 2024). The COETF also asserted that an HBEL is the most appropriate standard for HCl for the same reasons articulated in the EPA's supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking for the Lime Manufacturing source category, where the EPA proposed a mass-based HBEL for HCl in lieu of a technology-based limit (89 FR 9088, February 9, 2024). The EPA is reconsidering because the use of HCl as a surrogate for HF, as well as an HBEL for HCl, is potentially more appropriate than the AG MACT standards that were promulgated in the Coke Ovens rule.
Finally, the COETF stated in its petition for reconsideration that the EPA used a normal distribution for calculating the HCN limit for pushing emissions in the Coke Ovens rule when a lognormal distribution should have been used and that the use of the lognormal distribution would have raised the limit by a factor of three. Because of the potential magnitude of difference, the EPA is reconsidering the rule to reevaluate its calculations.
For leak limits for doors, lids, and offtakes, the EPA has identified two issues that warrant reconsideration:
• In their petition for reconsideration, the COETF pointed to text of the Coke Ovens rule where the EPA stated that it can “infer” from compliance data showing fewer leaking doors, lids, and offtakes that there are “improved work practices for observing leaks during operations, and more quickly and efficiently sealing and adjusting doors, or other practices related to door leaks.” The COETF asserts that: (1) there have been no changes or identified improvements in the leak control practices used in the industry; (2) the same leak control practices used by facilities today were in use and considered during development of the original MACT standards; and (3) there are no different or specialized work practices conducted at the one “large” coke plant that are not practiced at other coke plants. The EPA is reconsidering this aspect of the rule to evaluate these claims.
• The COETF also argued that the EPA improperly selected a 3 million tons per year (tpy) production capacity threshold to create a subcategory of one facility because there is only one such coke facility that exceeds 3 million tpy coke production, and no different or improved work practices exist that are unique to this facility. The COETF informed the EPA that the one “large” facility employs the same leak control practices used by the rest of the industry and commented that higher coke production capacity does not leads to lower leak rates. The EPA agrees that, if true, this information would impact the
For the requirements for oven doors at HNR facilities, the EPA has identified one issue that warrants reconsideration. In its petition for reconsideration, SunCoke argued that the Coke Ovens rule added redundant pressure monitoring requirements using EPA Method 303A that are unnecessary. Specifically, they raised the following concerns:
• Redundant monitoring using EPA Method 303A is not supported by the EPA's technology review;
• EPA Method 303A performance testing is unnecessary when operating coke ovens under negative pressure; and
• Redundant monitoring will not result in earlier detection of door leaks.
The items identified for reconsideration in the response letter have compliance dates of July 7, 2025, or January 6, 2026, under the Coke Ovens rule. After further consideration of all the reconsideration issues, the parties' petitions for reconsideration, and further discussions with stakeholders, the EPA has determined that compliance challenges necessitate changes to the compliance dates for fenceline monitoring; the PQBS MACT standards; the leak limits for doors, lids, and offtakes; and the requirements for oven doors at HNR facilities to July 5, 2027. Although the EPA is reconsidering the opacity limits for HNR B/W stacks, we determined that the compliance date for this standard is feasible, so we are not revising the date in this action.
In March 2025, all companies operating cokemaking facilities in the U.S. requested extensions for the compliance dates in the final rule under CAA section 112(i)(3)(B). The EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance sent letters to three companies stating that they did not provide enough information to determine whether the compliance date extensions were warranted, Those letters have since been withdrawn. The specific compliance challenges posed by each of the requirements where we are revising the compliance dates are discussed as follows:
Fenceline monitoring is used to determine the concentration of ground-level pollutants at the facility boundary. One potential source of those pollutants is leaks from doors, lids, and offtakes at COBs. The limits for these leaks were revised in the Coke Ovens rule with a compliance date of July 7, 2025. In order to ensure compliance with the revised leak limits, facilities generally need to test current controls, evaluate which additional controls or reconfigurations are needed, secure permits, procure parts and services, install additional equipment, and perform testing on the new controls. Some of these processes can overlap, but some can only be performed sequentially, which the EPA agrees impacts sources' ability to comply within the current timeframe. Therefore, the EPA is revising the deadline to July 5, 2027, to allow sufficient time for the industry to comply given the unanticipated compliance problems and additional information noted earlier in this preamble.
Petitioners indicated that 18 months is not enough time within which to comply with the PQBS MACT standards by the January 6, 2026, compliance date in the Coke Ovens rule. In their comments on the proposed rulemaking, the COETF requested a 3-year compliance schedule to “allow affected facilities the time needed to evaluate the need for additional emission controls and to assess feasibility and technical risks, design, engineer, procure and install the new equipment before compliance is required.”
• Controlling multiple pollutants and retrofitting controls into existing operations add complexity and time due to interactions in the requirements for control, including pollutant interactions, flow rates, chemistry, and temperatures;
• Control technologies for HCN are not technically feasible in the industry; and
• Extensive engineering and physical modifications will be needed for add-on controls, and additional controls would require permitting from the local permitting agency, with permitting taking 6 to 12 months after engineering is completed.
In the Coke Ovens rule, the EPA stated that “. . . based on the data submitted to the EPA by the industry, all facilities should be able to meet the MACT floor limits developed for the previously unregulated HAP and unregulated sources of HAP without the installation of additional controls” (89 FR 55710, July 5, 2024). However, the information provided after the close of comments in the Compliance Concerns White Paper and in SunCoke's petition for reconsideration—which stated that it has exceeded the limits and provided additional data and information—demonstrates that additional controls may indeed be necessary and/or that operational changes may be required if a facility exceeds the standards that have not been evaluated and that bear on sources' ability comply with the 18-month schedule in the Coke Ovens rule. This demonstrates that the original timelines in the Coke Oven rule may be infeasible for sources to adhere to, which provides compelling reason for the EPA to revise the deadlines.
Below is a list of the steps petitioners indicated are required to implement additional controls and the amount of time they assert is required for each step:
• Step 1: Test current controls—at least 1 year to complete.
• Step 2: Determine what additional controls will be needed, along with any facility re-designs, monitoring equipment, and software upgrades—at least 1 year to complete.
• Step 3: Secure vendors, as needed, for additional controls, facility re-designs, monitoring equipment, and software upgrades—at least 1 year to complete.
• Step 4: Secure a new permit—at least 6 months to complete. For Title V sources, construction and testing of new air pollution control equipment cannot start until a permit is issued.
• Step 5: Order controls and equipment; book services—at least 1 year to complete.
• Step 6: Re-design the facility (if needed) and install new controls and equipment—at least 1 year to complete.
• Step 7: Test new controls, equipment, and software—at least 6 months to complete.
For all the foregoing reasons, it is infeasible for facilities to meet the PQBS MACT standards within 18 months. Therefore, the EPA is revising the deadlines for these standards to July 5, 2027, to allow sufficient time for the industry to comply with the standards.
The COETF indicated that 1 year is not enough time within which to comply with the revised leak limits for doors, lids, and offtakes by the July 7, 2025, deadline. In the Compliance Concerns White Paper, the COETF explained why 3 years are needed to comply with the limits, including:
• The revised limits are based on limited data. In the Variability White Paper, the COETF stated that the annual average leak rate data used in the proposed rule did not reflect raw material, meteorological, and process variability. Therefore, there is uncertainty as to whether the revised limits can be achieved on a consistent basis, and whether additional investments would be needed in order to ensure compliance, which would take additional time.
• Additional time is needed to research and trial new methods and technologies for meeting the limits, and time is needed to engineer, procure, fabricate, deliver, and install any new technologies or materials that would be needed to meet the limits.
• Replacing door machines and rebuilding or replacing oven doors may be necessary to reduce door leaks. The lead time to engineer, procure, fabricate, deliver, and install 2 new door machines is 5 to 6 years, and the lead time to rebuild or replace oven doors on a typical battery with 82 doors is up to 3 years to engineer, procure, fabricate, and install.
• The only method that the COETF has identified for reducing offtake leaks is replacing or redesigning offtake components. The lead time to engineer, procure, fabricate, and install replacement offtake components on a typical battery is at least 2 to 3 years.
For all the foregoing reasons, it is infeasible for facilities to meet the revised leak limits for doors, lids, and offtakes within 1 year. Therefore, the EPA is revising the deadlines for these standards to July 5, 2027, to allow sufficient time for the industry to comply with the standards. This extension is appropriately tied to the timeline considerations above (all of which indicate two to three years is required for compliance).
SunCoke—the only coke oven facility currently operating HNR facilities—stated that it cannot comply with the revised pressure monitoring requirements for oven doors at HNR facilities until the monitoring procedures outlined in the final rule preamble and the regulatory text (89 FR 55735, July 5, 2024) are clarified. Specifically, the company needs to know who is responsible for generating the performance testing the facility must use to calculate leak averages, the methodology and frequency of monitoring, and more specific information on applicability to the facility of the requirements for certain plant components that the facility does not have. Once the procedure has been clarified, SunCoke has stated that it can comply with the requirements within 1 year. The EPA expects to take final action to clarify procedures for pressure monitoring by June 2026. Therefore, the EPA is revising the deadline for these standards to July 5, 2027, currently July 7, 2025, which is appropriately tailored to this timeline.
The regulatory revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subparts L and CCCCC in this action are amending the following sections to revise the relevant compliance deadlines associated with these standards to July 5, 2027:
• 40 CFR 63.302 by revising paragraphs (a)(4) introductory text and (d) introductory text;
• 40 CFR 63.303 by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (b)(1)(iii);
• 40 CFR 63.304 by revising paragraph (b)(8) introductory text;
• 40 CFR 63.311 by revising paragraph (h);
• 40 CFR 63.314 introductory text;
• 40 CFR 63.7283 by revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2);
• 40 CFR 63.7300 by revising paragraph (c)(4) introductory text; and
• 40 CFR 63.7341 by revising paragraph (f).
As noted in section I.C. of this preamble, the EPA's authority for the rulemaking procedures followed in this action is provided by APA section 553.
For the reasons described in detail in section II of this preamble, the EPA finds that prior notice and comment is impracticable here. The EPA has recognized that the original July 2025 and January 2026 compliance deadlines in the Coke Ovens rule are infeasible for regulated parties to meet and therefore must be extended. If the EPA were to seek, evaluate, and respond to comments before finalizing the deadline revisions, it is highly unlikely that the Agency would be able to finalize this action before the July 2025 and January 2026 compliance deadlines, thereby potentially throwing regulated parties into immediate non-compliance. Thus, there is good cause to forego notice and comment to extend the compliance deadlines to July 2027.
In addition to good cause under APA section 553(b)(B) to exempt this action from notice-and-comment requirements, there is also good cause to make this rule effective immediately under APA section 553(d)(1), which provides that the default 30-day effective date can be waived for “a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.” This action relieves restrictions by extending the Coke Ovens rule's 2025 and 2026 compliance deadlines.
As explained in section III of this preamble, the EPA finds good cause to take this interim final action on compliance deadlines without prior notice or opportunity for public comment. However, the EPA is providing an opportunity for and is requesting comment on the content of the matters described in this action that the EPA determined warrant consideration. The EPA is not reopening for comment any provisions of the Coke
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866 review. This interim final rule is expected to result in cost savings due to revised compliance deadlines associated with the PQBS MACT standards and the fenceline monitoring requirements under the July 5, 2024, final rule. The EPA prepared an Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) of the potential cost savings and other economic impacts associated with this action. This analysis,
Table 1 summarizes the estimated changes to compliance costs associated with this interim final action. Costs are measured in 2024 dollars discounted to 2025. This table presents the present values (PV) and equivalent annualized values (EAV) of these estimated impacts discounted using social discount rates of both three and seven percent, in accordance with OMB Circular A-4. The EPA estimates that the interim final rule will result in annualized compliance cost savings of $4.2 million using a 3% social discount rate and $4.4 million using a 7% social discount rate.
This action is considered an Executive order 14192 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated compliance cost savings of this final rule can be found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs associated with this action. This analysis is contained in the EIA, which is available in the dockets for this rulemaking.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection activities that apply to the coke oven facilities affected by this action and has assigned OMB control numbers 2060-0253 (COB NESHAP) and 2060-0521 (PQBS NESHAP). This action does not change the information collection requirements.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. There are no small entities in this regulated industry. Additional details of the analysis can be found in the EIA, which is available in the dockets for this rulemaking.
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or Tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule will implement revisions to the compliance dates for certain provisions. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
Executive Order 13045 directs Federal agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not involve technical standards; therefore, the NTTAA does not apply.
This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice-
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends part 63 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a) * * *
(4) On and after July 5, 2027:
(d) Emission limitations and requirements applied to each coke oven battery utilizing a new recovery technology shall be less than the following emission limitations or shall result in an overall annual emissions rate for coke oven emissions for the battery that is lower than that obtained by the following emission limitations on and after July 5, 2027:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) The date for compliance with (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section is on and after July 5, 2027.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) The date for compliance with (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section is on and after July 5, 2027, or upon initial startup, whichever is later.
(b) * * *
(8) On and after July 5, 2027:
(h)
For each by-product coke oven battery facility as defined in § 63.301 of this subpart, beginning no later than July 5, 2027, the owner or operator of a coke manufacturing facility shall conduct sampling along the facility property boundary and analyze the samples in accordance with paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section.
(d) * * *
(1) If you have an existing affected source or a new or reconstructed affected source for which construction or reconstruction commenced on or before August 16, 2023, you must be in compliance no later than July 5, 2027.
(2) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source for which construction or reconstruction commenced after August 16, 2023, you must be in compliance no later than July 5, 2027, or upon startup, whichever is later.
(c) * * *
(4) Beginning July 5, 2027, you must identify and implement a set of site-specific good combustion practices for each battery. These good combustion practices should correspond to your standard operating procedures for maintaining the proper and efficient combustion within battery waste heat flues. Good combustion practices include, but are not limited to, the elements listed in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (v) of this section.
(f)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are removing the dwarf-flowered heartleaf (
This rule is effective August 7, 2025.
This final rule is available on the internet at
Janet Mizzi, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville Ecological Services Field Office;
Under the Act, we must review the status of all listed species at least once every 5 years. We must delist a species if we determine, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial data, that the species is neither a threatened species nor an endangered species. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(e) identify four reasons why we might determine a species shall be delisted: (1) The species is extinct, (2) the species has recovered to the point at which it no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species, (3) new information that has become available since the original listing decision shows the listed entity does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species, or (4) new information that has become available since the original listing decision shows the listed entity does not meet the definition of a species. Here, we have determined that the dwarf-flowered heartleaf has recovered to the point at which it no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species; therefore, we are delisting it.
Please refer to the proposed rule to delist the dwarf-flowered heartleaf published on April 26, 2021 (86 FR 21994), for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning this species.
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf. The SSA team was composed of Service biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the species, including the impact of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting the species.
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
In this final rule, we make no substantive changes to our April 26, 2021 (86 FR 21994), proposed rule. Minor, non-substantive changes have been made throughout this final rule.
In the proposed rule published on April 26, 2021 (86 FR 21994), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by June 25, 2021. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, Tribal entities, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the Charlotte Observer and the Spartanburg Herald Journal. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. All substantive information received during the comment period has either been incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed below.
(1)
With regard to any ongoing taxonomic research, any information related to a taxonomic change is unpublished, and a new species has not yet been described. Surveys conducted and reports completed by Appalachian State University, referenced by SCDNR, were considered, and are cited in the SSA report. An update to these studies has not been provided. The Act requires the use of the best available scientific and commercial information, but if that information is not available, it cannot be incorporated into decision analyses or rules.
Our implementing regulations provide further guidance on whether a particular taxon or population is a species or subspecies for the purposes of the Act; under 50 CFR 424.11(a), the Service shall rely on standard taxonomic distinctions and the biological expertise of the Department of the Interior and the scientific community in determining whether a particular taxon or population is a species for the purpose of the Act. For our analysis, we assumed all EOs are dwarf-flowered heartleaf (
In response to the concern about potential future development in South Carolina, our level of analysis for urbanization was consistent throughout the range, and North Carolina and South Carolina were included in the same analysis using the same standard data. We used Slope, Land cover, Exclusion, Urbanization, Transportation, and Hillshade (SLEUTH) data which incorporates the most recently available information. We used three scenarios, projected out to the year 2040, to capture the uncertainty related to the potential impacts to each population's resiliency: status quo, targeted conservation, and high development. Results of future projections within each scenario are focused on current populations and potential habitat identified by the maximum entropy (Maxent) model. Based on the life span of the species, expert input, identification of development as the key risk factor brought forward, uncertainty about future conditions, and lack of knowledge about where additional populations may persist on the landscape, we chose to project populations out to the year 2040 under each scenario. We therefore thoroughly considered future threats of development in our SSA report.
We reviewed all public comments for substantive issues and new information regarding the species. Substantive comments we received during the comment period are addressed below.
(2)
In response to the commenter's concerns about development, we included our analysis of dwarf-flowered heartleaf viability from the SSA report in the proposed rule. Our analysis included habitat change related to development, and we used projections of urban development to assess this threat. Because impacts of urbanization are multi-faceted and uncertain, we used three future scenarios to capture potential impacts to species resiliency (status quo, targeted conservation, and high development). Results of future projections within each scenario were focused on current populations and potential habitat identified by a Maxent model.
We used SLEUTH models to identify areas of urbanization in 2040. Urban development was predicted to have negative impacts on several current populations under all future scenarios. However, any extirpation or loss of resiliency within individual populations was offset by populations found to persist in the status quo and targeted conservation scenarios. In the high development scenario, there was a predicted loss of 6 populations (78 populations currently compared with 72 populations in 2040), with resiliency loss in several additional populations. Regardless of scenario, the majority of the populations expected to persist on the landscape in 2040 were of at least moderate resiliency. Furthermore, given the relatively high number of
The overwhelming majority of dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations have been discovered as a direct result of surveys conducted to ensure compliance with the Act. We prepared the PDM plan, with input from the NCNHP and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), based largely on monitoring methods developed in March 2012 during a field coordination meeting (Robinson and Padgett 2016, entire). This plan is designed to detect substantial declines in dwarf-flowered heartleaf occurrences with reasonable certainty and precision. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf occurs mainly on private lands with a few populations on public lands. NCNHP and NCDOT have monitored 25 of the largest populations for at least 5 years to collect baseline data (Service 2019, entire). As staff resources and funding allow, we expect that current efforts to monitor and manage lands containing populations of dwarf-flowered heartleaf will continue. The final PDM plan for the species can be found at
(3)
(4)
(5)
Since 2012, when our Ecological Services program in the Southeast Region initiated its At-Risk Species initiative, we have placed an increased emphasis on recovering species listed as threatened and endangered under the Act and preventing the need to list at-risk species through collaborative conservation. Our goal was to conserve 30 species by implementing proactive conservation actions that result in
The determination to delist the dwarf-flowered heartleaf is based on a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial data, which indicate that the threats to the species have been eliminated or reduced to the point that the species no longer meets the definition of a threatened species or endangered species under the Act.
(6)
(7)
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and overall viability of the dwarf-flowered heartleaf is presented in the SSA report on
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is a plant species endemic to the upper Piedmont region of western North Carolina and upstate South Carolina. It is a low-growing herbaceous plant in the birthwort family (Aristolochiaceae). Although dwarf-flowered heartleaf is restricted in range, it is not as rare as once thought (Service 2010, p. 15; NCNHP 2016, p. 4). When dwarf-flowered heartleaf was federally listed in 1989, the listing rule described 24 extant populations (and 1 extirpated population) distributed across 8 counties in the upper Piedmont region of North and South Carolina. By 2018, the distribution of this species may have been as high as 119 populations distributed across 13 counties in both states. In North Carolina, it is found in Alexander, Burke, Caldwell, Catawba, Cleveland, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Polk, and Rutherford Counties. In South Carolina, it is found in Cherokee, Greenville, and Spartanburg Counties.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is historically known to have a restricted range due to its habitat requirements. The habitat where dwarf-flowered heartleaf exists is limited in size and scope due to a multitude of factors including soil type, moisture availability, and slope aspect (Padgett 2004, p. 81). This unique combination of factors limits not only the range of dwarf-flowered heartleaf, but also the size of any population.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf occurs in Piedmont uplands on acidic sandy-loam soils that are very deep and moderately permeable (Gaddy 1981, p. 7; 1987, pp. 186-196). Typical habitats for this species include mesic to dry bluffs, slopes, or ravines in deciduous forests that are frequently associated with mountain laurel (
A recovery plan for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf was not prepared; therefore, specific delisting criteria were not developed for the species. The North Carolina Plant Conservation and Protection Act (NC Gen Stat section 106-202.12 (2022)) provides limited protection from unauthorized collection and trade of plants listed under that statute. However, this statute does not protect the species or its habitat from destruction in conjunction with development projects or otherwise legal activities. In South Carolina, plants are protected only from disturbance where they occur on those properties owned by the State and specifically managed as South Carolina Heritage Preserves (SC Code section 51-17-80 (2023)). There are no other Federal or State statutes that afford significant protections to dwarf-flowered heartleaf.
The majority of sites that have the potential to afford long-term protection to the species have been protected as a direct result of the provisions of section 7 of the Act. Through section 7 and voluntary conservation actions, approximately 24 of the 78 populations are permanently protected, and another 18 populations are partially protected, greatly minimizing the likelihood of impacts due to development. Additionally, tens of thousands of dwarf-flowered heartleaf plants are conserved through a voluntary agreement with Duke Energy along the Broad River. Another population is conserved at Cowpens National Battlefield, managed by the U.S. National Park Service, in upstate South Carolina. A third population is part of the Broad River Greenway, a local park in North Carolina's Cleveland County.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and threatened species. On April 5, 2024, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the regulations in 50 CFR part 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify endangered and threatened species and what criteria we apply when designating listed species' critical habitat (89 FR 23919). This final rule is now in effect and is incorporated into the current regulations. Our analysis for this decision applied our current regulations. Given that we proposed delisting this species under our prior regulations (revised in 2019), we have also undertaken an analysis of whether the decision would be different if we had continued to apply the 2019 regulations and we concluded that the decision would be the same. The analyses under both the regulations currently in effect and the 2019 regulations are available on
The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a “threatened species” as a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects. The determination to delist a species must be based on an analysis of the same five factors.
We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively affect individuals of a species. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” In determining whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the species' expected response and the effects of the threats—in light of those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the threats—on an individual, population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species—such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species meets the definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species” only after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species.
The Act does not define the term “foreseeable future,” which appears in the statutory definition of “threatened species.” Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis which is further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-37021, January 16, 2009; “M-Opinion,” available online at
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision on whether the species should be delisted. However, it does provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve the further application of standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and policies.
To assess dwarf-flowered heartleaf viability, we used the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years); redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events), and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment (for example, climate conditions, pathogen). In general, species viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. During the first stage, we evaluated individual species' life-history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these stages, we used the best available information to characterize viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild over time, which we then used to inform our regulatory decision.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0018 on
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall viability and the risks to that viability. In addition, the SSA report (Service 2018, entire) documents our comprehensive biological status review for the species, including an assessment of the potential threats to the species.
For the dwarf-flowered heartleaf to maintain viability, its populations or some portion thereof must be resilient. Stochastic factors that have the potential to affect dwarf-flowered heartleaf include impacts to its habitat, particularly human development pressures, but also changes in soil moisture associated with potential increases in drought and presence of invasive species. Other factors that influence the resiliency of dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations include abundance within populations, and habitat factors such as soil type, aspect, elevation, and land use. Influencing those factors are elements of dwarf-flowered heartleaf ecology that determine whether populations can grow to maximize habitat occupancy, thereby increasing resiliency of populations. The following is a summary of this status review and the best available scientific and commercial information gathered since that time that have informed this decision.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) assessed threats in the populations of dwarf-flowered heartleaf they monitored from 2012 through 2016 (Robinson and Padgett 2016, pp. 7-8, 17-20). Threats that were observed, inferred, or suspected to have an impact on populations were recorded and assigned a ranking based on field observations of severity, scope, and immediacy. The rank (A through G) for each threat factor determined an overall value for each threat observed at each population. Threats observed during these years included development; incompatible forestry practices; agriculture; trampling; invasive, exotic species; sedimentation; erosion; and road construction. In this final rule, we discuss the major threats affecting the species, which include development, effects of increased drought and invasive, exotic species. For a detailed discussion of all threats affecting the species, see the SSA report available on
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations occur in rapidly growing urban areas within numerous counties in North and South Carolina. At the time of listing, the species was determined to be most threatened by habitat loss due to the conversion of land to residential, commercial, and industrial use in these areas. Populations occurring in more rural areas are also threatened by habitat alteration or loss from land conversion to pasture or other agricultural uses, cattle grazing, intensive timber harvesting, residential construction, and construction of small ponds (Robinson 2016, p. 10; Robinson and Padgett 2016, p. 5).
The recent 5-year review for the species identified the most recurrent source of habitat destruction as road and bridge improvement projects, which is also the most common trigger for consultations under section 7 of the Act involving dwarf-flowered heartleaf. Ten of the 27 largest populations (containing more than 1,000 rosettes) have been the subject of section 7 consultations. Collectively, these projects have adversely affected or were expected to affect approximately 22,135 rosettes (Service 2018, p. 31). In most cases, the section 7 process resulted in avoidance or minimization of adverse effects through relocation of plants and/or commitments of on-site protection. Significant portions of other populations are located on properties that have been purchased by NCDOT as off-site conservation measures in association with these consultations. The purpose of these purchases is to protect the dwarf-flowered heartleaf.
Other forms of economic development have also resulted in the destruction or modification of habitats occupied by dwarf-flowered heartleaf; in many cases, these activities also required section 7 consultations with the Service. Examples include the maintenance or expansion of hydroelectric and drinking water reservoirs, construction of an industrial development complex, and maintenance activities at a regional airport. Collectively, these activities involved the loss or relocation of several thousand rosettes.
Development was identified as a threat at 5 of 10 North Carolina populations monitored by NCNHP (Robinson and Padgett 2016, pp. 17-19). These 5 populations include 2 stand-alone EOs and 3 parent EOs with 18 sub-EOs. Of the 2 stand-alone EOs, 1 has a development threat rank of A (moderate to severe, imminent threat for most (more than 60 percent) of population, occurrences, or area) and 1 has a rank of B (moderate to severe, imminent threat for a significant portion (20-60 percent) of the population, occurrences, or area). Of the 18 sub-EOs, 9 have development identified as a threat. Of the nine sub-EOs, one has a development threat rank of A, one has a rank of B, one has a rank of E (moderate to severe threat for a small proportion of population, occurrences, or area), and six have a rank of F (low severity threat for most or a significant proportion of population, occurrences, or area). The two stand-alone EOs and two sub-EOs with the highest threat ranks (A and B) are located in four populations. Based on the most recent monitoring data, one is increasing, two are stable, and one is decreasing (Robinson and Padgett 2016, p. 11). Even where development is ranked as a high threat, impacts to dwarf-flowered heartleaf have not been shown to be significant.
Development was identified as a threat at one of three South Carolina populations monitored by NCNHP, and that population has a development threat rank of E (Robinson and Padgett 2016, p. 20). Based on the most recent monitoring data, this population is stable (Robinson and Padgett 2016, p. 11).
The data therefore indicate that most dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations have either remained stable or increased in the presence of development. From 2012 to 2016, there were insignificant changes in the severity of the threat of development observed in the field (NCNHP 2016, p. 8).
The North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act (NC Gen Stat section 106-202.12 (2022)) lists native
In South Carolina, plants are protected only from disturbance where they occur on those properties owned by the State and specifically managed as South Carolina Heritage Preserves (SC Code section 51-17-80 (2023)). Heritage Preserves are protected areas that play a critical role in conserving rare species and natural habitats. There is one Heritage Preserve in South Carolina, which protects one population of the dwarf-flowered heartleaf.
The overwhelming majority of dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations have been discovered as a direct result of surveys conducted to ensure compliance with the Act. The majority of sites that have the potential to afford long-term protection to the species have been protected as a result of consultations under section 7 of the Act, which directs Federal agencies to avoid and minimize adverse effects to federally listed species. Through section 7 and other voluntary conservation actions, approximately 24 (31 percent) of the 78 current populations are permanently protected, and another 18 populations (23 percent) are partially protected, greatly minimizing the likelihood of impacts due to development. Over 50 percent of dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations will therefore remain under some form of protective mechanism from the threat of development in the absence of the Act's protections.
Invasive, exotic plant species occur across the range of this species. Plants such as English ivy (
Invasive, exotic species were identified as a threat at all (three) South Carolina populations monitored by NCNHP, and all sites had an invasive threat rank of F (Robinson and Padgett 2016, p. 20). Based on the most recent monitoring data, all populations are stable (Robinson and Padgett 2016, p. 11).
In short, the data indicate that most dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations have remained stable or increased in the presence of invasive, exotic species. Despite the long-term presence of invasive, exotic plants, from 2012 to 2016, there were no changes in the severity of threats observed in the field significant enough to elevate the threat ranks of the evaluated dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations (NCNHP 2016, p. 8).
Accelerated changes in the environment is expected to increase the frequency and extent of drought conditions across the southeastern United States (Karl et al. 2009, entire). Increased frequency of severe storms could lead to impacts if flooding duration or intensity increased as a result. Increased flooding could decrease habitat suitability through scouring and changes in soil moisture or wash plants away. Warming in the Southeast is expected to be greatest in the summer (National Climate Change Viewer (NCCV) 2016, unpaginated), which is predicted to increase drought frequency, while annual mean precipitation is expected to increase slightly, leading to increased flooding events (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2013, p. 7; NCCV 2016, unpaginated). Changes in climate may affect ecosystem processes and communities by altering the abiotic conditions experienced by biotic assemblages, resulting in potential effects on community composition and individual species interactions (DeWan et al. 2010, p. 7).
In recent years, the Southeast has experienced moderate to severe droughts, which many observers have implicated in population declines and poor transplant survivorship (NCNHP 2016, entire). A wildfire burned portions of one of the largest known populations in 2009 (Foothills Landfill in Caldwell County, NC; Golder and Associates, 2009, entire). However, observation suggests that the species was not appreciably harmed by this fire (Service 2019 p. 33). Additionally, the National Park Service (NPS) uses prescribed fire as a vegetation management tool at Cowpens National Battlefield. The NPS's prescribed burning activity includes the majority of the dwarf-flowered heartleaf population on site and burning appears to have had no adverse effects upon growth or flowering (Walker et al. 2009, p. 14).
For dwarf-flowered heartleaf to maintain viability, its populations, or some portion thereof, must be resilient. Resiliency is assessed at the level of populations and reflects a species' ability to withstand stochastic events (events arising from random factors). Resilient populations are better able to withstand disturbances such as random fluctuations in reproductive rates and fecundity (demographic stochasticity), variations in rainfall (environmental stochasticity), and the effects of
The Natural Heritage Programs (NHP) collect information on occurrences of rare plants, animals, natural communities, and animal assemblages. Collectively, these are referred to as “elements of natural diversity” or simply as “elements.” In recent years, NatureServe and its member NHPs have devised mapping standards to balance the need for fine-scale, highly site-specific element occurrence (EO) records (required for monitoring and management) with the need to aggregate these records in meaningful units of conservation interest that may approximate biological populations (NatureServe 2002 unpaginated). We regard the NHP databases as the best repository for known locations of the dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Service 2010, p. 41). Populations are composed of both multiple sub-EOs and stand-alone EO records. For the purpose of assessing resiliency, 78 populations observed since 2005 were assessed due to the high confidence in their persistence. These new populations observed are the result of additional survey efforts.
To determine overall resiliency for populations, we used EO viability ranks and expert opinion to bin population size classes into corresponding resiliency categories. EO viability ranks for the species include the following categories: excellent, good, fair, poor, extant, historical, and failed to find. The primary factor in determining these ranks is EO size (as quantified by number of clumps). Condition of habitat (vegetation community and structure) and landscape context (extent of suitable habitat and physical factors) are incorporated secondarily. Recent reports (Robinson 2016, p. 7; Robinson and Padgett 2016, p. 4) focus monitoring studies on populations with greater than 1,000 individuals (assumed to be very viable). Because we do not have habitat-level information for every population we assessed, we synthesized available population size information and created four resiliency categories as follows:
• Very high—populations with more than 1,000 individuals; very high probability of persistence for 20 to 30 years at or above the current population size.
• High—populations with 500 to 1,000 individuals; moderately high probability of persistence for 20 to 30 years at or above the current population size.
• Moderate—populations with 100 to 500 individuals; low probability of persistence for 20 to 30 years at or above the current population size.
• Low—populations with fewer than 100 individuals; low probability of persistence for 20 to 30 years at or above the current population size, and moderately high probability of extirpation.
Of the 78 populations assessed, 28 have very high resiliency, 5 have high resiliency, 26 have moderate resiliency, and 19 have low resiliency.
Redundancy is also assessed at the species level and reflects a species' ability to withstand catastrophic events (such as a rare destructive natural event or episode involving many populations) by spreading the risk of such an event across multiple, resilient populations. We measured redundancy for dwarf-flowered heartleaf by the number and distribution of resilient populations across the range of the species. It is important to note that dwarf-flowered heartleaf has a naturally limited range, so measures of redundancy reflect the distribution within a relatively small area. Redundancy for dwarf-flowered heartleaf is the total number and resiliency of population segments and their distribution across the species' range.
We consider a catastrophe to be any population-level disturbance with the potential to negatively influence population resiliency outside of normal environmental and demographic stochasticity. Disturbances often act quickly and often with devastating effects; however, they can occur over long periods of time. A disturbance that occurs as a relatively discrete event in time, such as a hurricane, is referred to as a “pulse” disturbance, while more gradual or cumulative pressures on a system are referred to as “press” disturbances. Both types of disturbances are part of the natural variability of dwarf-flowered heartleaf ecological systems, and must be considered when assessing redundancy. While there is certainly a variety of potential pulse disturbances for the species (timber harvest, hydrological alterations, road and right-of-way construction), the primary potential catastrophic disturbances are press disturbances from increased drought. These press disturbances have great potential to affect ecosystem processes and communities by altering the underlying abiotic conditions such as temperature and precipitation changes (DeWan et al. 2010, pp. 7-10).
Because we lack genetic and ecological diversity data to characterize representation for dwarf-flowered heartleaf, we decided delineating representative units was not appropriate for this species. However, in the absence of species-specific genetic and ecological diversity information, we evaluated representation based on the extent and variability of habitat characteristics across the geographical range. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf occurs in two types of habitats throughout the range. Typical habitats for this species include mesic to dry bluffs, slopes, or ravines in deciduous forests that are frequently associated with mountain laurel (Padgett 2004, entire; Weakley 2015, entire; Service 2015, entire), or moist soils adjacent to creeks, streamheads, or along lakes and rivers. This variation in habitat type provides species representation in drier and wetter habitats, demonstrating the species' ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions.
Our analysis of the past, current, and future influences on dwarf-flowered heartleaf revealed that there are several influences that may pose risks to the future viability of the species. We assessed the species future viability over a timeframe of 20 to 25 years, which incorporates the relevant threats to the species and the species' likely response to those threats. The current and ongoing threats assessed in our analysis include the negative impacts of invasive species, increased drought, and habitat changes resulting from development. We selected this timeframe because it gives us the ability to reliably predict into the future and to capture the uncertainty related to the potential impacts to each population's resiliency. As also described above, the term “foreseeable future” extends only so far into the future as the Service can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' responses to those threats are likely. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the species' biological response include species-specific factors such as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and other demographic factors. Where we had data over longer time frames, we analyzed those data (
As discussed above, invasive, exotic plants were identified as a threat at the time of listing; however, this threat may not be as significant as once thought. The NCNHP monitored 13 populations of dwarf-flowered heartleaf and assessed threats at each population. Of the monitored sites, only 9 percent of populations (1 of 11) where invasive, exotic species are present are also in decline, indicating the species has at least some capacity to withstand the presence of invasive, exotic species. The number of known populations has increased dramatically since listing as a result of increased survey effort, and the invasive, exotic plant threat to many of the largest populations has been observed to be low (NCNHP 2016, pp. 8, 17-20). Additionally, and as noted above, the number of populations managed under conservation ownership has increased. Therefore, we determine that competition from invasive, exotic species will not be a significant threat to dwarf-flowered heartleaf in the foreseeable future.
Our analysis under the Act includes consideration of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The term “climate” is defined as the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area. Various types of changes in climate can have direct or indirect effects on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant considerations, such as the effects of interactions of climate with other variables (
As part of the current, worldwide collaboration in climate modelling under the IPCC, climate assessments of the full dataset of 30 climate models for historical and 21st century comparisons provide predictions at scales ranging from global to county-level in the United States (NCCV 2016 unpaginated). This global climate information has been downscaled by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to scales relevant to our region of interest, and projected into the future under two different scenarios of plausible emissions of greenhouse gases (Alder and Hostetler 2017, p. 3). Using the NCCV and assuming the representative concentration pathways (RCP) greenhouse gas emission scenario RCP 8.5, we calculated projected annual mean changes from 1981-2010 to those projected for 2025-2049 for maximum temperature (+2.9 to 3.1 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (+1.611 to 1.722 degrees Celsius (°C)) in NC and +2.9 °F +1.611 °C in SC), precipitation (+0.2 inches (in) (5.08 meters (mm)) per month for NC and SC), soil storage (−0.1 to −0.2 in (−2.54 to −5.08 mm) for NC and −0.1 in (2.54 mm) SC), and evaporative deficit (no change for NC or SC) in all counties where dwarf-flowered heartleaf occurs (Adler and Hostetler 2017, entire). We also calculated projected annual mean changes for the RCP 4.5 scenario using the same timeframes for maximum temperature (+2.5 to 2.7 °F (+1.388 to 1.5 °C) in NC and SC), precipitation (+0.01 in (0.254 mm) per month for NC and SC), soil storage (−0.1 to −0.2 in (−2.54 to −5.08 mm) for NC and −0.1 in (−2.54 mm) for SC), and evaporative deficit (no change for NC or SC) in all counties where dwarf-flowered heartleaf occurs (Adler and Hostetler 2017, entire). Based on these results, all 13 counties within the range of dwarf-flowered heartleaf will be subjected to higher temperatures (annual mean increase of 2.6 °F (1.44 °C) (RCP 4.5) or 2.9 °F (1.611 °C) (RCP 8.5)) and slightly higher precipitation (annual mean increase of 0.1 in (2.54 mm) per month (RCP 4.5) or 0.2 in (5.08 mm) per month (RCP 8.5)) in 2025-2049 relative to the period of 1981-2010. Because the average annual increase in precipitation is predicted to be only slight, the loss in soil storage is likely primarily the result of higher predicted temperatures.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is a long-lived perennial species. Several populations have been revisited after decades and the species was still stable. For example, one population in Rutherford County was first observed in 1957, and was still extant when next observed in 2001 (NCNHP 2018, unpaginated). In their analyses of life-history traits in relation to potential vulnerability to variability in demographic vital rates caused by increased variability in climatic patterns, researchers concluded that longer-lived species should be less influenced by climate-driven increases in demographic variability (Morris et al. 2008, p. 22; Dalgleish et al. 2010, p. 216).
Within the family Aristolochiaeae, more than 50 percent of the plant lineage is myrmecochorous (seed dispersal by ants) (Lengyel et al. 2010, p. 49). Likewise, dwarf-flowered heartleaf employs myrmecochory as a method for seed dispersal (Gaddy 1986, entire). While species with ant-dispersed seeds have slower migration rates than species with seeds that are adhesive or ingested (Brunet and Von Oheimb 1998, p. 429), myrmecochory provides for multiple adaptive advantages for plants. Ants can disperse seeds to sites that might be nutrient-enhanced or where plant fitness will be higher. Additionally, ants bury seeds, which may protect them from fire and drought (Boyd 2001, p. 235), two conditions exacerbated by increases drought (Karl et al. 2009, entire).
Populations of dwarf-flowered heartleaf are located within various ecological settings within the species' range. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf occurs on Piedmont uplands on acidic sandy-loam soils that are very deep and moderately permeable (Gaddy 1981, p. 7; 1987, pp. 186-196). Typical habitats for this species include mesic to dry bluffs, slopes, or ravines in deciduous forests that are frequently associated with mountain laurel (Padgett 2004, p. 114; Weakley 2015, p. 129), or moist soils adjacent to creeks or streamheads, or along lakes and rivers. This variation in habitat type provides species representation in drier and wetter habitats, demonstrating the species' ability to adapt to different environmental conditions that could be brought on by changing climate.
As discussed above, development was identified as a threat at the time of listing; however, the threat is not as significant as once thought. The NCNHP monitored 13 populations of dwarf-flowered heartleaf and assessed threats
We assessed three plausible future scenarios encompassing varying levels of threats under status quo, targeted conservation, and high development. Based on the life span of the species, expert input, and uncertainty about future conditions, we projected population conditions in 2040 under each scenario as described in the SSA report (Service 2018, p. 34). Results of future projections within each scenario are focused on current populations and potential habitat identified by the Maxent model as described below.
In constructing our scenarios, we considered two main influences by which species viability projections could be affected: location of additional populations (positive influence) and habitat loss and fragmentation due to urban development (negative influence). Habitat quantity can be negatively impacted by development or land use change (particularly on private lands) or positively impacted by land acquisition, restoration, and/or introductions into unoccupied sites with existing suitable habitat.
We use the SLEUTH model to determine areas predicted to be urbanized by 2040, a time period for which the models provide reliable data. The SLEUTH model has been successfully applied worldwide over the last 15 years to simulate land use change, including urbanization (Clarke 1995, entire). The SLEUTH model predictions are broken down by probabilities of urbanization, ranging from 0 to 100 percent. We chose 80 percent probability as our cutoff, as this cutoff has been used by the U.S. Geological Survey and by us in other SSAs, and this threshold represents a highly likely outlook for urbanization of the landscape. To forecast viability using urban development projections, we assessed the following:
• Percent increase in projected development within the range of current populations; and
• Percent increase in projected development within areas delineated as potential habitat by the Maxent habitat model.
We know that certain dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations have been extirpated as the result of urban development in the past through loss of habitat. However, there are no data available on the relationships between urbanization and indirect impacts to dwarf-flowered heartleaf. Because of this unknown, we attempted to capture potential impacts in two ways. Our scenarios reflect a range of potential impacts from nearby urban development. Also, we used two thresholds for percent increase in urban development to capture potential deleterious effects: 25 percent and 50 percent. Our assumptions were that very small increases in development are unlikely to negatively impact populations; development increase of at least 25 percent of the area of current populations was likely to have some negative impacts; and development increase of at least 50 percent was likely to have significant impacts to populations (Service 2018, p. 36).
We also assessed potential positive effects by integrating the potential identification or rediscovery of additional populations throughout the range into two of our scenarios (targeted conservation and status quo). This is appropriate for several reasons. First, discovery of new EOs is common; many of the populations we consider under Current Condition, above, include detections that have occurred within the last few years. Second, we did not include many older detections (
The first step in identifying additional areas where dwarf-flowered heartleaf is likely to be found in the future was to identify EOs from populations that were last observed prior to 2005 (
Once pre-2005 EOs were identified, we created a 1,000-m (3280.84 feet (ft)) buffer around the population and calculated a number of useful metrics, including resiliency category based on the last known abundance estimate, Maxent habitat model metrics, and the results of the SLEUTH model to further refine a list of potential sites where the species would likely occur within our 20-25-year projection window. Resiliency categories were assessed using last known abundance in the same way as populations assessed under Current Condition, above (
Under the status quo scenario, we estimate that 75 populations will persist throughout the range, and that there will be a range of impacts from urbanization that are related to the percentage increase in urban development and whether a population is protected or not. We assessed population resiliency under the following assumptions:
• Two additional populations are identified as persisting based on Maxent model metrics, last known abundance category, and total predicted urbanization from SLEUTH modelling.
• Potential impacts of urban development based on SLEUTH model projections focused on current delineated populations:
○ Protected areas:
Protected in perpetuity—no negative impacts from urbanization; and
Voluntary protection/non-perpetuity—population drops one resilience rank if percent increase in urbanization exceeds 50 percent threshold.
○ Unprotected areas—population drops one resiliency rank if percent increase in urbanization exceeds 25 percent threshold; population drops two resiliency ranks if percent increase in urbanization exceeds 50 percent threshold.
Under the high development scenario, we estimate no additional populations will persist throughout the range, and that impacts from urbanization are relatively high, and are also affected by whether a population is protected or not. We assessed population resiliency under the following assumptions:
• No additional populations are identified as persisting.
• Potential impacts of urban development based on SLEUTH model projections focused on current delineated populations:
○ Protected areas:
Protected in perpetuity—population drops one resilience rank if percent increase in urbanization exceeds 50 percent threshold; and
Voluntary protection/non-perpetuity—population drops one resiliency rank if percent increase in urbanization exceeds 25 percent threshold; population drops two resiliency ranks if percent increase in urbanization exceeds 50 percent threshold.
○ Unprotected areas—population drops one resiliency rank if percent increase in urbanization exceeds 25 percent threshold; population drops two resiliency ranks if percent increase in urbanization exceeds 50 percent threshold; extirpation of populations if percent increase in urbanization exceeds 90 percent threshold.
Under the targeted conservation scenario, we estimate it is likely that several additional populations (
• Six populations are identified as persisting based on Maxent model metrics, last known abundance category, and total predicted urbanization from SLEUTH modelling. Six additional EOs within currently delineated populations not included under Current Condition, above, are predicted to persist based on the same metrics.
• Potential impacts of urban development based on SLEUTH model projections focused on current delineated populations:
○ Protected areas:
Protected in perpetuity—no impacts from urbanization; and
Voluntary protection/non-perpetuity—population drops one resiliency rank if percent increase in urbanization exceeds 50 percent threshold.
○ Unprotected areas—population drops one resiliency rank if percent increase in urbanization exceeds 25 percent threshold; population drops two resiliency ranks if percent increase in urbanization exceeds 50 percent threshold.
In the status quo scenario, we predict 75 of the 78 populations of dwarf-flowered heartleaf will be extant in 2040. The predicted resiliency of the extant populations are as follows: very high (27); high (6); moderate (23); low (17); and 2 additional populations identified as persisting, with an unknown resiliency. Six EOs within currently delineated populations not included under Current Condition, above, are predicted to persist, but resiliency is unchanged because each of the populations are already predicted to be of very high resiliency. When comparing future population resiliency to current condition, a few populations drop in their resiliency category. One current population of very high resiliency is predicted to drop to high resiliency; two moderate resiliency populations are predicted to drop to low resiliency; and five populations (one currently moderate and four currently low) are predicted to be extirpated due to urban development.
In the high development scenario, we predict 72 of the 78 populations of dwarf-flowered heartleaf will remain extant in 2040. The predicted resiliency of the extant populations are as follows: very high (27); high (4); moderate (25); and low (16). No additional populations are identified as persisting. When comparing future population resiliency to current condition, a few populations drop in their resiliency category. One current population of very-high resiliency is predicted to drop to moderate resiliency; one high resiliency population is predicted to drop to moderate resiliency; two moderate resiliency populations are predicted to drop to low resiliency; and six populations (one currently moderate and five currently low) are predicted to be extirpated due to urban development.
In the targeted conservation scenario, we predicted 79 populations of dwarf-flowered heartleaf will be extant in 2040. The predicted resiliency of the extant populations are as follows: very high (27); high (6); moderate (23); low (17); and 6 additional populations identified as persisting, with an unknown resiliency. Six EOs within currently delineated populations not included under Current Condition, above, are predicted to persist, but resiliency is unchanged because each of the populations are already predicted to be of very high resiliency. When comparing future population resiliency to current condition a few populations drop in their resiliency category. One current population of very high resiliency is predicted to drop to high resiliency; two moderate resiliency populations are predicted to drop to low resiliency; and five populations (one currently moderate and four currently low) are predicted to be extirpated due to urban development.
Future viability of dwarf-flowered heartleaf under all three scenarios is summarized in table 1, below. Urban development is predicted to have negative impacts on several of the current populations under all of our scenarios. However, this loss of resiliency and extirpation of a few populations is offset in the status quo and targeted conservation scenarios by the persistence of several additional populations. In the high development scenario, there is a predicted loss of six populations, with loss of resiliency in
Given the relatively high number of populations across each scenario, redundancy remains similar to current conditions. We therefore conclude that there will be adequate redundancy within the range of dwarf-flowered heartleaf to withstand the impacts of localized catastrophic press disturbances; however, the species' range is relatively small, making it potentially vulnerable to long-term catastrophic events.
Because dwarf-flowered heartleaf has a very limited range, and after consulting with experts, we decided that delineating representative units was not appropriate. It is worth noting that in two of our scenarios (status quo and targeted conservation), additional populations are found to persist in South Carolina, an area where there are relatively few current populations. Based on a habitat distribution model, there is potential dwarf-flowered heartleaf habitat throughout the species range. Additional plants may be present in these areas but would need to be confirmed via surveys. Although we did not delineate representative units, our scenarios do not predict declines in species representation.
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the current and future condition of the species. Our assessment of the current and future conditions encompasses and incorporates the threats individually and cumulatively. Our current and future condition assessment is iterative because it accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the factors that may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. The Act defines an endangered species as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a threatened species as a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we find that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of dwarf-flowered heartleaf habitat (Factor A), which was the basis for listing the species, is no longer a threat. We assessed the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the dwarf-flowered heartleaf. When dwarf-flowered heartleaf was listed, the two prominent threats identified were invasive, exotic plants and habitat loss or destruction. As discussed above, invasive, exotic species are not as significant a threat to dwarf-flowered heartleaf as originally thought. Only 1 of the 11 monitored populations where invasive, exotic species occur was identified as declining. Additionally, dwarf-flowered heartleaf has the capacity to withstand habitat loss and destruction due to development. Of the 78 populations evaluated, 75 percent are characterized as being either very high, high, or moderately resilient, and many are stable or increasing.
The species currently has significant redundancy (78 populations), resilient populations (33 of 78 evaluated populations with high or very high viability), and representation in 2 different ecological settings. Even under our high development scenario, only two high or very high viability populations are predicted to have lower viability as a result of development. Therefore, we do not believe that competition from invasive, exotic species or habitat loss and destruction are significant threats to the species.
Additionally, since listing, there has been a nearly four-fold increase in the number of known populations. Of the 78 populations evaluated in the SSA report, 24 populations (31 percent) have permanent protection and 18 populations (23 percent) have partial protection through voluntary agreements or other commitments of management. We conclude that the species is currently not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
In order to more closely examine the future threat posed by habitat loss or destruction, we analyzed three different future development scenarios to the year 2040. Under all scenarios evaluated, 56 of the currently known 78
Of the 78 populations evaluated in the SSA report, 24 populations (31 percent) have permanent protection and 18 populations (23 percent) have partial protection through voluntary agreements or other commitments of management, reducing the likelihood of development impacting those populations. Recent examination of the species also identified increased drought and invasive species as potential future threats. The species' broadened range (from 8 counties to 13) and significantly increased numbers of known populations (24 to 119) since listing in 1989 indicate that the dwarf-flowered heartleaf benefits from sufficient redundancy and resiliency to withstand perturbations from increased drought as well as from invasive species. Thus, after assessing the best available scientific and commercial information, we conclude that the dwarf-flowered heartleaf is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Having determined that the dwarf-flowered heartleaf is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in a significant portion of its range—that is, whether there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) the portion is significant; and, (2) the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to address the “significance” question or the “status” question first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.
In undertaking this analysis for dwarf-flowered heartleaf, we chose to address the status question first. We began by identifying portions of the range where the biological status of the species may be different from its biological status elsewhere in its range. For this purpose, we considered information pertaining to the geographic distribution of (a) individuals of the species, (b) the threats that the species faces, and (c) the resiliency condition of populations.
We evaluated the range of the dwarf-flowered heartleaf to determine if the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so within the foreseeable future in any portion of its range. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the species' range that may meet the Act's definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. For the dwarf-flowered heartleaf, we considered whether the threats or their effects on the species are greater in any biologically meaningful portion of the species' range than in other portions such that the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so within the foreseeable future in that portion. We examined the following threats: development, invasive and exotic species, and increased drought, including cumulative effects.
The NCNHP monitored 13 populations of dwarf-flowered heartleaf throughout the species' range. Eleven of the 13 populations had invasive, exotic species identified as a threat, indicating that invasive, exotic species are found throughout the range and not concentrated in any specific location. Effects of increased drought, as discussed previously, are very uniform throughout the range (NCCV 2016 unpaginated). The opportunity for habitat loss and destruction due to development is higher on privately owned lands that could be sold for future development (Clarke 1995, entire). Of the 78 populations evaluated, we determined that 31 percent are permanently protected and another 23 percent are partially protected (
We found no biologically meaningful portion of the dwarf-flowered heartleaf range where threats are impacting individuals differently from how they are affecting the species elsewhere in its range such that the status of the species in that portion differs from its status in any other portion of the species' range.
Therefore, we find that the species is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so within the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range. This does not conflict with the courts' holdings in
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial data available indicates that the dwarf-flowered heartleaf does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. In accordance with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(e)(2) currently in effect, dwarf-flowered heartleaf has recovered to the point at which it no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. Therefore, we are removing the dwarf-flowered heartleaf from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.
This rule revises 50 CFR 17.12(h) by removing the dwarf-flowered heartleaf from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. On the effective date of this rule (see
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for all species that have been recovered. Post-delisting monitoring (PDM) refers to activities undertaken to verify that a species delisted due to recovery remains secure from the risk of extinction after the protections of the Act no longer apply. The primary goal of PDM is to monitor the species to ensure that its status does not deteriorate, and if a decline is detected, to take measures to halt the decline so that proposing it as an endangered or threatened species is not again needed. If at any time during the monitoring period, data indicate that protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing.
We have prepared a PDM plan for dwarf-flowered heartleaf. We published a notice of availability of a draft PDM plan with the proposed delisting rule (86 FR 21994). We did not receive any comments on the plan. Therefore, we consider the plan final. As discussed in the proposed rule, the PDM plan: (1) summarizes the status of dwarf-flowered heartleaf at the time of proposed delisting; (2) describes frequency and duration of monitoring; (3) discusses monitoring methods and potential sampling regimes; (4) defines what potential triggers will be evaluated to address the need for additional monitoring; (5) outlines reporting requirements and procedures; (6) proposes a schedule for implementing the PDM plan; and (7) defines responsibilities. It is our intent to work with our partners towards maintaining the recovered status of the dwarf-flowered heartleaf.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), the President's memorandum of November 30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for Tribal Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretary's Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes. We have determined that no Tribes will be affected by this final rule because no Tribal lands, sacred sites, or resources will be affected by the removal of the dwarf-flowered heartleaf from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the internet at
The primary authors of this final rule are staff members of the Service's Species Assessment Team and the Asheville Ecological Services Field Office.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Paul Souza, Regional Director, Region 8, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this action on June 13, 2025, for publication. On June 26, 2025, Paul Souza authorized the undersigned to sign the document electronically and submit it to the Office of the Federal Register for publication as an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
Federal Labor Relations Authority.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would establish procedural regulations for the Administrative False Claims Act (AFCA) at the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). The Administrative False Claims Act is at 31 U.S.C. 3801 through 3812.
Written comments must be received on or before September 8, 2025.
You may send comments, which must include the caption “Implementation of the Administrative False Claims Act,” by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Thomas Tso, Solicitor and Federal Register Liaison, (771) 444-5779,
Congress originally enacted the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (PFCRA) in 1986. The purpose of the PFCRA was twofold: (1) to provide agencies that were the victims of false claims and statements an administrative remedy; and (2) to provide due process for all parties subject to that remedy. Public Law 99-509, sec. 6102 (October 21, 1986) (findings and purposes at 31 U.S.C. 3801 note).
On December 23, 2024, the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025 amended the PFCRA. Among other things, the amendments changed the PFCRA's name to the Administrative False Claims Act (AFCA). Public Law 118-159, sec. 5203(a). In that legislation, Congress also mandated that agencies promulgate regulations and procedures to carry out the AFCA within 180 days of enactment. Public Law 118-159, sec. 5203(j). This proposed rule includes the regulations required by that provision. The intent of this proposed rule is to cite the controlling statute when possible, repeating statutory provisions in the regulation only where necessary for the convenience of the regulated public.
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 included the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act). Public Law 114-74, sec. 701 (November 2, 2015). The 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act amended a previous statutory scheme in order to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and to maintain their deterrent effect. Among other things, the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act mandated an initial catch-up inflation adjustment for certain civil penalties by August 1, 2016, to be followed by annual inflation adjustments each year thereafter. 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. The statute capped the initial inflation increase at 150% of the original penalty.
The FLRA did not have regulations for the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act, the previous name of the AFCA, in 2015. The FLRA, therefore, could not adjust penalties under the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act contemporaneously with the first adjustment period. We have determined that the FLRA can, however, adjust AFCA penalties consistent with the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act. That adjustment remains constrained by the initial inflation adjustment cap.
Accordingly, we are adjusting the penalty amount for the AFCA from the statutory $5,000 to $12,500. We arrived at this figure by determining the maximum increase permitted by the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act—150 percent of $5,000, or $7,500—and adding that amount to the base $5,000 penalty to yield a $12,500 adjusted penalty amount. This adjustment resulted in a lower increase than a full Consumer Price Index adjustment comparing October 1984 with March 2025 on the publicly available Bureau of Labor Statistics website at
This regulatory action determination is based on the limited scope of the proposed rule and the FLRA's statutory mission. The proposed regulations are required by the AFCA and would only affect an entity suspected of making a false claim or statement related to the FLRA. Furthermore, claims and statements subject to the AFCA are capped at $1 million.
Administrative practice and procedure
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the FLRA proposes to amend 5 CFR chapter XIV as set forth below:
Add part 2419 to read as follows:
31 U.S.C. 3803(g), 3809; Sec. 5203(j), Pub. L. 118-159, 138 Stat. 2440.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) When the period of time allowed is less than 7 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays observed by the Federal Government shall be excluded from the computation.
(2) Where a document has been served or issued by placing it in the mail, an additional 5 days will be added to the time permitted for any response.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(1) If the investigating official concludes that an action under the Administrative False Claims Act may be warranted, the investigating official shall submit a report containing the findings and conclusions of such investigation to the reviewing official.
(2) Nothing in this section shall preclude or limit the investigating official's discretion to refer allegations directly to the Department of Justice for suit under the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. 3729-3733) or other civil relief, or to defer or postpone a report or referral to the reviewing official to avoid interference with a criminal investigation or prosecution.
(3) Nothing in this section modifies any responsibility of the investigating official to report violations of criminal law to the Attorney General.
(b)
(1)
(2)
(i) A statement of the reviewing official's reasons for issuing a complaint;
(ii) A statement specifying the evidence that supports the allegations of liability;
(iii) A description of the claims or statements upon which the allegations of liability are based;
(iv) An estimate of the amount of money, or the value of property, services, or other benefits, requested or demanded in violation of the Administrative False Claims Act;
(v) A statement of any exculpatory or mitigating circumstances that may relate to the claims or statements known by the reviewing official or the investigating official; and
(vi) A statement that there is a reasonable prospect of collecting an appropriate amount of penalties and assessments.
(c)
(1) The Department of Justice approves the issuance of a complaint in a written statement described in 31 U.S.C. 3803(b)(1), and
(2) In the case of allegations of liability under 31 U.S.C. 3802(a)(1) with respect to a claim, the reviewing official determines that, with respect to such claim or a group of related claims submitted at the same time such claim is submitted, the amount of money, or the value of property or services, demanded or requested in violation of section 3802(a)(1) does not exceed $1,000,000.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a related group of claims submitted at the same time shall include only those claims arising from the same transaction (
(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the reviewing official's authority to join in a single complaint against a person, claims that are unrelated or were not submitted simultaneously, regardless of the amount of money, or the value of property or services, demanded or requested.
(d)
(a)
(1) The allegations of liability against the defendant, including the statutory basis for liability, an identification of the claims or statements that are the basis for the alleged liability, and the reasons why liability allegedly arises from such claims or statements;
(2) The maximum amount of penalties and assessments for which the defendant may be held liable;
(3) Instructions for filing an answer, including a specific statement of the defendant's right to request a hearing and to be represented by a representative;
(4) Identification and contact information for the governmental employee representing the reviewing official in the matter if the reviewing official is not handling the matter personally; and
(5) The fact that failure to file an answer within 30 days of service of the complaint will result in the imposition of the maximum amount of penalties and assessments without right to appeal, as provided in § 2419.4(e).
(6) At the same time the reviewing official serves the complaint, he or she shall serve the defendant with a copy of these regulations or identify a free online resource where the defendant can access these regulations.
(b)
(c)
(1) In the answer, the defendant:
(i) Shall admit or deny each of the allegations of liability made in the complaint;
(ii) Shall state any defense on which the defendant intends to rely;
(iii) May state any reasons why the defendant contends that the penalties and assessments should be less than the statutory maximum; and
(iv) Shall state the name, postal address, electronic mail address, and telephone number of the person authorized by the defendant to act as defendant's representative, if any.
(2)
(3)
(e)
(1) Upon the referral of the complaint, the presiding officer shall promptly serve on the defendant in the manner prescribed in § 2419.4(c) of this chapter, a notice that an initial decision will be issued under this section.
(2) The presiding officer shall assume the facts alleged in the complaint to be true and, if such facts establish liability under 31 U.S.C. 3802, the presiding officer shall issue an initial decision imposing the maximum amount of penalties and assessments allowed under the statute.
(3) Except as otherwise provided in this section, by failing to file a timely answer the defendant waives any right to further review of the penalties and assessments imposed under paragraph (2) of this section and the initial decision shall become final and binding upon the parties 30 days after it is issued.
(4) If, before such an initial decision becomes final, the defendant files a motion with the presiding officer seeking to reopen on the grounds that extraordinary circumstances prevented the defendant from filing an answer, the initial decision shall be stayed pending the presiding officer's decision on the motion.
(5) If, on such motion, the defendant can demonstrate extraordinary circumstances excusing the failure to file a timely answer, the presiding officer shall withdraw the initial decision in paragraph (2) of this section, if such a decision has been issued, and shall grant the defendant an opportunity to answer the complaint.
(6) A decision of the presiding officer denying a defendant's motion under paragraph (4) of this section is not subject to reconsideration under § 2419.6(d) of this chapter.
(7) The defendant may appeal to the authority head the decision denying a motion to reopen by filing a notice of appeal with the authority head within 15 days after the presiding officer denies the motion. The timely filing of a notice of appeal shall stay the initial decision until the authority head decides the issue.
(8) If the defendant files a timely notice of appeal with the authority head, the presiding officer shall forward the record of the proceeding to the authority head.
(9) The authority head shall decide expeditiously whether extraordinary circumstances excuse the defendant's failure to file a timely answer based solely on the record before the presiding officer.
(10) If the authority head decides that extraordinary circumstances excused the defendant's failure to file a timely answer, the authority head shall remand the case to the presiding officer with instructions to grant the defendant an opportunity to answer.
(11) If the authority head decides that the defendant's failure to file a timely answer is not excused, the authority head shall reinstate the initial decision of the presiding officer, which shall become final and binding upon the parties 30 days after the authority head issues such decision.
(f)
(1)
(i) Such motion and affidavit shall be filed promptly upon the party's discovery of reasons requiring disqualification, or such objections shall be deemed waived.
(ii) Such affidavit shall state specific facts that support the party's belief that personal bias or other reason for disqualification exists and the time and circumstances of the party's discovery of such facts. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of the representative of record that it is made in good faith.
(iii) Upon the filing of such a motion and affidavit, the presiding officer shall proceed no further in the case until he or she resolves the matter of disqualification in accordance with this section.
(2)
(i) Set and change the date, time, and place of the hearing upon reasonable notice to the parties;
(ii) Continue or recess the hearing in whole or in part for a reasonable period of time;
(iii) Hold conferences to identify or simplify the issues, or to consider other matters that may aid in the expeditious disposition of the proceeding;
(iv) Administer oaths and affirmations;
(v) For the purpose of conducting a hearing, the presiding officer may issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses as well as the production of information as set forth in 31 U.S.C. 3804(b)(2);
(vi) Rule on motions and other procedural matters;
(vii) Regulate the requirements regarding motions including requiring any oral motion to be reduced to writing and establishing the time within which a response to any written motion will be due if the motion will not be due within 15 days after the written motion is served;
(viii) Regulate the scope and timing of discovery;
(ix) Regulate the course of the hearing and the conduct of representatives and parties to include imposing sanctions such as drawing adverse inferences, striking pleadings, deeming items admitted, restricting use of evidence, dismissing an action, or issuing an initial decision—that reasonably relate to the severity and nature of the failure or misconduct;
(x) Examine witnesses;
(xi) Receive, rule on, exclude, or limit evidence;
(xii) Upon motion of a party, take official notice of facts;
(xiii) Upon motion of a party, decide cases, in whole or in part, by summary judgment where there is no disputed issue of material fact;
(xiv) Conduct any conference, argument, or hearing on motions in person or by telephone, videoconference, or other virtual method; and
(xv) Exercise such other authority as is necessary to carry out the responsibilities of the presiding officer under this part.
(xvi) Irrespective of any implications of the above, the presiding officer does not have the authority to find Federal statutes or regulations invalid.
(xvii) Additionally, the presiding officer shall not, except to the extent
(A) Consult a person or party on a fact in issue, unless on notice and opportunity for all parties to the hearing to participate; or
(B) Be responsible to or subject to the supervision or direction of the investigating official or the reviewing official.
(g)
(1)
(2)
(i) The presiding officer may order the following types of discovery:
(A) Requests for production of documents for inspection and copying;
(B) Requests for admissions of the authenticity of any relevant document or of the truth of any relevant fact;
(C) Written interrogatories; and
(D) Depositions.
(ii) A party seeking discovery must file a motion with the presiding officer. Such a motion shall be accompanied by a copy of the requested discovery, or in the case of depositions, a summary of the scope of the proposed deposition. Within 10 days of service, a party may file an opposition to the motion and/or a motion for protective order as provided in § 2419.4(g)(3) of this chapter. The presiding officer may grant a motion for discovery only if he or she finds that the discovery sought:
(A) Is necessary for the expeditious, fair, and reasonable consideration of the issues;
(B) Is not unduly costly or burdensome;
(C) Will not unduly delay the proceeding; and
(D) Does not seek privileged information.
(iii) The burden of showing that discovery should be allowed is on the party seeking discovery.
(iv) The presiding officer shall regulate the timing of discovery.
(3)
(i) That the discovery not be had;
(ii) That the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place;
(iii) That the discovery may be had only through a method of discovery other than that requested;
(iv) That certain matters not be the subject of inquiry, or that the scope of discovery be limited to certain matters;
(v) That discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the presiding officer;
(vi) That the contents of discovery or evidence be sealed;
(vii) That a sealed deposition be opened only by order of the presiding officer;
(viii) That a trade secret or other confidential research, development, commercial information, or facts pertaining to any criminal investigation, proceeding, or other administrative investigation not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way; or
(ix) That the parties simultaneously file specified documents.
(4)
(i) Sets the hearing in a location permissible under 31 U.S.C. 3803(g)(4);
(ii) Provides the written notice required by 31 U.S.C. 3803(g)(2)(A);
(iii) Governs the exchange of witness lists, statements, and exhibits;
(iv) Ensures the defendant has an opportunity to present their case, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts; and
(v) Includes in any written notice of a hearing to a defendant a description of the procedures for the conduct of the hearing.
(a)
(b)
(1) The number of false, fictitious or fraudulent claims or statements;
(2) The time period over which such claims or statements were made;
(3) The degree of the defendant's culpability with respect to the misconduct;
(4) The amount of money or the value of the property, services, or benefit falsely claimed;
(5) The cost of the Government's actual loss as a result of the misconduct, including foreseeable consequential damages and the costs of investigation;
(6) The relationship of the amount imposed as civil penalties to the amount of the Government's loss;
(7) The potential or actual impact of the misconduct upon public confidence in the management of Government programs and operations;
(8) Whether the defendant has engaged in a pattern of the same or similar misconduct;
(9) Whether the defendant attempted to conceal the misconduct;
(10) The degree to which the defendant has involved others in the misconduct or in concealing it;
(11) Where the misconduct of employees or agents is imputed to the defendant, the extent to which the defendant's practices fostered or attempted to preclude such misconduct;
(12) Whether the defendant cooperated in or obstructed an investigation of the misconduct;
(13) Whether the defendant assisted in identifying and prosecuting other wrongdoers;
(14) The complexity of the program or transaction, and the degree of the defendant's sophistication with respect to it, including the extent of the defendant's prior participation in the program or in similar transactions;
(15) Whether the defendant has been found, in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding to have engaged in similar misconduct or to have dealt dishonestly with the Government of the United States or of a state, directly or indirectly;
(16) The need to deter the defendant and others from engaging in the same or similar misconduct; and
(17) The potential impact of the misconduct on the rights of others.
(c)
(d)
(1) Transcripts shall be available following the hearing at a cost not to exceed the actual cost of duplication and any court reporter's reasonable fee.
(2) The transcript of testimony, exhibits and other evidence admitted at the hearing, and all documents filed in the proceeding constitute the record for the decision by the presiding officer and the authority head.
(3) The record may be inspected and copied by anyone upon payment of a reasonable fee, unless otherwise ordered by the presiding officer.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) Except in case of default, if the defendant is determined in the decision to be liable for a civil penalty or assessment, the defendant may appeal such decision to the authority head by filing a notice of appeal with the authority head in accordance with this section. A notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a written brief specifying exceptions to the decision and reasons supporting the exceptions.
(i) A notice of appeal may be filed at any time within 30 days after the presiding officer issues the decision.
(ii) The authority head may extend the initial 30-day period for an additional 30 days if the defendant files with the authority head a request for an extension within the initial 30-day period and shows good cause.
(2) The reviewing official's representative or other designated agency official may file a brief in opposition to the notice of appeal within 30 days of receiving the notice of appeal and accompanying brief.
(3) The authority head's review will occur within the limitations noted in 31 U.S.C. 3803(i)(2)(B) and (C). There is no right to appear personally before the authority head.
(e)
(f)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2024-25-06, which applies to all Airbus SAS Model A318-series airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, -153N, and -171N airplanes; Model A320-series airplanes; and Model A321-series airplanes. AD 2024-25-06 requires repetitive inspection of the main landing gear (MLG) doors, and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective actions, and prohibits the installation of affected parts. The FAA has determined that replacing the MLG door is necessary to address the unsafe condition. This proposed AD would continue to require the actions in AD 2024-25-06 and would require replacing affected parts with serviceable parts. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 22, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this proposed AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Dan Rodina, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3225; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Dan Rodina, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3225; email:
The FAA issued AD 2024-25-06, Amendment 39-22908 (89 FR 100734, December 13, 2024) (AD 2024-25-06), for all Airbus SAS Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, -153N, and -171N airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, -251NX, -252NX, -253NX, -253NY, -271NX, and -272NX airplanes. AD 2024-25-06 was prompted by an MCAI originated by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued AD 2024-0216, dated November 15, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0216), to correct an unsafe condition identified as incorrectly assembled MLG door actuators.
AD 2024-25-06 requires repetitive inspection of the MLG doors and replacing the door if it fails an inspection. The FAA issued AD 2024-25-06 to address incorrectly assembled MLG door actuators, which, if not detected and corrected, could prevent the extension of the MLG, possibly resulting in significant damage to the airplane and potentially causing a fire that would involve emergency evacuation of the passengers.
The FAA issued AD 2024-25-06 as a final rule; request for comment. AD 2024-25-06 did not include the requirement in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2024-0216 to replace each affected part with a serviceable part within 12 months, if not already done as a result of the inspections. In the preamble to AD 2024-25-06, the FAA explained that the FAA had determined this replacement is necessary to address the unsafe condition, however, the compliance time would allow enough time to provide notice and opportunity for prior public comment. Accordingly, this NPRM would retain the requirements of AD 2024-25-06 but would also require replacing the MLG door with a serviceable MLG door within 12 months, if not already replaced as a result of the inspections.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2024-25-06, this proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2024-25-06. Those requirements are referenced in EASA AD 2024-0216, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD.
EASA AD 2024-0216 specifies procedures for repetitive inspections for any discrepancy of each affected MLG door, replacing affected parts, and eventual replacement of all affected parts. The discrepancy is defined as any MLG door actuator that does not meet all the results specified in the table in paragraph 5.6.2.2 in the material referenced in EASA AD 2024-0216. EASA AD 2024-0216 also prohibits the installation of affected parts. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2024-0216 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2024-0216 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2024-0216 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 1,933 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any on-condition replacements that would be required based on the results of any required or optional actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need this on-condition replacement:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by August 22, 2025.
This AD replaces AD 2024-25-06, Amendment 39-22908 (89 FR 100734, December 13, 2024) (AD 2024-25-06).
This AD applies to all Airbus SAS airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD.
(1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, -153N, and -171N airplanes.
(3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes.
(4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, -251NX, -252NX, -253NX, -253NY, -271NX, and -272NX airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by reports of jamming of, or inability to open, the main landing gear (MLG) door during maintenance operations. Investigations identified that certain MLG door actuators may not have been assembled correctly. The FAA is issuing this AD to address this condition, which, if not detected and corrected, could prevent the extension of the MLG, possibly resulting in significant damage to the airplane, and
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2024-0216, dated November 15, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0216).
(1) Where paragraphs (1) and (5) of EASA AD 2024-0216 refer to its effective date, this AD requires using December 30, 2024 (the effective date of AD 2024-25-06).
(2) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2024-0216.
(3) Where EASA AD 2024-0216 defines a serviceable part as an “MLG actuator, eligible for installation in accordance with Airbus instructions, which is not an affected part,” this AD requires replacing that text with “MLG actuator, eligible for installation, which is not an affected part.”
(4) Where paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2024-0216 specifies to accomplish an inspection “in accordance with the instructions of the AOT,” this AD requires replacing that text with “in accordance with step 5.6.2 of the instructions of the AOT.”
(5) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2024-0216 states “any discrepancy on an affected MLG door is detected, as defined in the AOT,” this AD requires replacing that text with “any MLG door actuator that does not meet all the results specified in the table in paragraph 5.6.2.2 in the referenced AOT is detected.”
(6) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2024-0216 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
Although the material referenced in EASA AD 2024-0216 specifies to submit certain information and send removed parts to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3225; 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.
(3) The following material was approved for IBR on December 30, 2024 (89 FR 100734, December 13, 2024).
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2024-0216, dated November 15, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; 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
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company (Boeing) Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of improper grinding of the inner diameter of the main landing gear (MLG) outer cylinders, resulting in possible heat damage to the outer cylinders. This proposed AD would require a records check or inspection to determine if an affected outer cylinder is installed and replacing all affected outer cylinders. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 22, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Boeing material identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
• 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
Stefanie Roesli, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3964; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Stefanie Roesli, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3964; email:
The FAA has received a report of an MLG collapse on a Boeing Model 767 airplane that was last overhauled at a maintenance, repair, and operations (MRO) facility. An investigation by the MRO facility indicated that a grinder used to machine the inner diameter of the MLG outer cylinders was operating outside of its input parameters, which may have caused heat damage to the outer cylinders. The MRO facility identified 166 Boeing Model 737 MLG outer cylinders that had inner diameter machining performed with the suspect grinder. This condition, if not addressed, could cause failure of a principal structural element to sustain its limit load, which could also result in loss of control of the airplane. Heat damage could also lead to collapse of the MLG, which could result in a runway departure, or to fracture of an outer cylinder, which could deviate from the intended breakaway sequence, impact the fuel tank and spill fuel, consequently creating a fire hazard.
The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-32A1585 RB, dated January 15, 2024. This material specifies procedures for performing a maintenance records check or an inspection of the left and right MLG outer cylinders to determine if any affected part numbers and serial numbers are installed and replacing affected outer cylinders. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information already described, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this material at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 1,833 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any replacement that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection or maintenance records check. The agency has no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need this replacement:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by August 22, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by a report of improper grinding of the inner diameter of the main landing gear (MLG) outer cylinders, resulting in possible heat damage to the outer cylinder. The FAA is issuing this AD to address heat damage to the MLG outer cylinders. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could cause failure of a principal structural element to sustain its limit load or collapse of the MLG, which could result in loss of control of the airplane or runway departure.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-32A1585 RB, dated January 15, 2024, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-32A1585 RB, dated January 15, 2024.
Where the “Boeing Recommended Compliance Time” column in the table under the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-32A1585 RB, dated January 15, 2024, refers to the original issue date of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-32A1585 RB, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(1) The Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Stefanie Roesli, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3964; email:
(2) Material identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the address specified in paragraph (k)(3) this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-32A1585 RB, dated January 15, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company (Boeing) Model 757-200, -200PF, and -200CB series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of improper grinding of the inner diameter of the main landing gear (MLG) outer cylinders, resulting in possible heat damage to the outer cylinders. This proposed AD would require a records check or inspection to determine if an affected outer cylinder is installed and replacing all affected outer cylinders. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 22, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Boeing material identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
• 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
Stefanie Roesli, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3964; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Stefanie Roesli, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3964; email:
The FAA has received a report of an MLG collapse on a Boeing Model 767 airplane that was last overhauled at a maintenance, repair, and operations (MRO) facility. An investigation by the MRO facility indicated that a grinder used to machine the inner diameter of the MLG outer cylinders was operating outside of its input parameters, which may have caused heat damage to the outer cylinders. The MRO facility identified 20 Boeing Model 757 MLG outer cylinders that had inner diameter machining performed with the suspect grinder. This condition, if not addressed, could cause failure of a principal structural element to sustain its limit load, which could result in loss of control of the airplane. Heat damage could also lead to collapse of the MLG, which could result in a runway departure, or to fracture of an outer cylinder, which could deviate from the intended breakaway sequence, impact the fuel tank, and spill fuel, consequently creating a fire hazard.
The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-32A0216 RB, dated January 26, 2024. This material specifies procedures for performing a maintenance records check or an inspection of the left and right MLG outer cylinders to determine if any affected part numbers and serial numbers are installed and replacing any affected outer cylinder. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information already described, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this material at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 399 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any replacement that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection or maintenance records check. The agency has no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need this replacement:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by August 22, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, and -200CB series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by a report of improper grinding of the inner diameter of the main landing gear (MLG) outer cylinders, resulting in possible heat damage to the outer cylinders. The FAA is issuing this AD to address heat damage to the MLG outer cylinders. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could cause failure of a principal structural element to sustain its limit load or collapse of the MLG, which could result in loss of control of the airplane or runway departure.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-32A0216 RB, dated January 26, 2024, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-32A0216 RB, dated January 26, 2024.
Where the “Boeing Recommended Compliance Time” column in the table under the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-32A0216 RB, dated January 26, 2024, refers to the original issue date of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-32A0216 RB, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(1) The Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Stefanie Roesli, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3964; email:
(2) Material identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the address specified in paragraph (k)(3) this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-32A0216 RB, dated January 26, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
In this document, the Media Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission seeks to update the record in the National Television Multiple Ownership Rule proceeding, in which the Commission has sought comment whether to modify, retain, or eliminate the 39% national audience reach cap and/or the UHF discount.
The comment period for the proposed rule published January 26, 2018 (83 FR 3661), is reopened. Comments are due: August 4, 2025. Reply comments are due: August 22, 2025.
All filings must be submitted in MB Docket No. 17-318. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
•
•
○ Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
○ Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
○ Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
○ Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Ty Bream,
This is a summary of the Media Bureau's Public Notice in MB Docket No. 17-318, DA 25-530, that was released June 18, 2025. The full text of this document is available for public inspection online at
With this Public Notice, the Media Bureau seeks to refresh the record in the National Television Multiple Ownership Rule proceeding. The prior comment and reply comment period in this proceeding closed over seven years ago. Given the passage of time, we now seek further comment to refresh the record in this proceeding.
First, we seek comment on materials filed since the comment period ended in April 2018. We invite commenters to review these materials and comment on whether they highlight any issues that warrant further comment and consideration. Are there issues raised in the
Second, we seek comment on new or additional information regarding the television and video programming marketplace that is relevant to this proceeding. Are there changes in the video programming marketplace that would affect the Commission's prior conclusions about the national audience reach cap? For example, in the
We also seek comment on any other relevant trends observed within the television and video programming industry or in related markets that are now relevant to the Commission's review of the cap. For example, how has the national audience reach cap affected broadcast television's market position in relation to other video distributors, such as online video providers, that are not restricted by ownership limits? Do the current relationships and business dealings between broadcast television and other video distributors support modification or elimination of the national audience reach cap?
Finally, we seek comment on whether there are any other legal or economic developments that the Commission should consider in the context of the national television audience cap. For example, how, if at all, have legal developments affected the Commission's past conclusions about its authority to implement changes to the national audience reach cap and the UHF discount?
•
•
○ Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
○ Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
○ Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
○ Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Television.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of availability.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has received a petition from Bayer CropScience seeking a determination of nonregulated status for MON 95275 maize (corn) which has been developed using genetic engineering to produce two insecticidal proteins and a double-stranded RNA transcript to provide protection from feeding damage caused by targeted coleopteran (corn rootworm) insect pests. We are making the petition and draft plant pest risk assessment available for public review and comment.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before September 8, 2025.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
The petition, draft plant pest risk assessment, and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
The petition and draft plant pest risk assessment are also available on the APHIS website at:
Mr. Alan Pearson, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, USDA, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, AP100-3-1151, Beltsville, MD 20705; (301) 851-3944; email:
Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701
The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the petition.
APHIS has received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 25-083-01p) from Bayer CropScience seeking a determination of nonregulated status for MON 95275 maize (corn) which has been developed using genetic engineering for resistance to feeding damage caused by targeted coleopteran (corn rootworm) insect pests. The petition states that the information provided indicates that MON 95275 corn is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and therefore should not be regulated under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.
As part of our decision-making process regarding the organism's regulatory status, APHIS prepared a draft plant pest risk assessment (PPRA) to assess the plant pest risk of the organism. APHIS' draft PPRA compared the pest risk posed by the MON 95275 corn with that of the unmodified variety from which it was derived. The draft PPRA concluded that MON 95275 corn is unlikely to pose an increased plant pest risk compared to the unmodified corn.
Paragraph (d) of § 340.6 provides that APHIS will publish a notice in the
After the comment period closes, APHIS will review and evaluate any information received during the comment period and any other relevant information. Based upon available information, APHIS will respond to the petitioner either approving or denying the petition. APHIS will post its regulatory determination on its website and publish a notice of availability in the
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, this notice announces the National Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA) intention to extend and revise a previously approved information collection, entitled
Written comments on this notice must be received by September 5, 2025 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
You may submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Laura Givens, 816-527-5379,
The forms and narrative information are mainly used for application evaluation and administration purposes. While some of the information is used to respond to inquiries from Congress and other government agencies, the forms are not designed to be statistical surveys.
NIFA is proposing to revise the collection by adding the “NIFA Disclosure of Foreign Relationships” form. This form will allow NIFA to perform legislatively mandated Due Diligence of Foreign Influence review of USDA's SBIR and STTR applicants. NIFA also proposes to add new general support templates that address confidentiality, conflict of interest, and summaries germane to the application submission. NIFA is also requesting approval to use additional OMB Research and Related (R&R) Common forms as part of this collection.
NIFA is seeking to make minor revisions to previously approved forms for purposes of making the forms easier to understand and use.
Finally, NIFA proposes to retire the “NIFA Entry/Exit Fellowship Form,” which is used to document demographic data, program progress, and performance outcomes of fellow/scholar recipients.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request to OMB for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations this notice announces the National Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA) intention to extend and revise a previously approved information collection, entitled
Written comments on this notice must be received by September 8, 2025 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
You may submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Laura Givens, 816-527-5379,
NIFA is requesting a three-year extension for the current collection entitled “NIFA Proposal Review Process.”
NIFA is also proposing to update the collection so that the previously approved Reviewer Questionnaire, as well as the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Certification Form are both available on NIFA's Peer Review System (PRS) web-based portal. Additionally, NIFA is proposing some minor updates to the wording of questions in the Reviewer Questionnaire to ensure that peer review panels have the required scientific and technical expertise while remaining in compliance with statistical directives from OMB.
Proposals submitted to NIFA undergo a programmatic evaluation to determine justification of Federal support. The evaluations consist of a peer panel review and may also entail an assessment by Federal employees and electronically submitted (ad-hoc) reviews in the Peer Review System.
The information collected from the evaluations is used to support NIFA grant programs. NIFA uses the results of the proposal evaluation to determine whether a proposal should be declined or recommended for award. When NIFA has rendered a decision, copies of reviews (excluding the names of the reviewers) and summaries of review panel deliberations, if any, are provided to the submitting Project Director.
Given the highly technical nature of many of these proposals, the quality of the peer review greatly depends on the appropriate matching of the subject matter of the proposal with the scientific and technical expertise of the potential reviewer. To obtain this information, an electronic questionnaire is used to collect information about potential panel and ad-hoc reviewers. If the reviewer is already in the NIFA database, the questionnaire asks potential reviewers to update their basic biographical information including address, contact information, professional expertise, and their availability to review for NIFA in the future. If the reviewer is new, they are prompted to complete the questionnaire. This information has been invaluable in the NIFA review process, which has been recognized by the grantee and grantor community for its quality.
The applications and associated materials made available to reviewers, as well as the discussions that take place during panel review meetings, are strictly confidential and are not to be disclosed to or discussed with anyone who has not been officially designated to participate in the review process. While each panelist certifies at the time of preparing a review they do not have a conflict-of-interest with a particular application and will maintain its confidentiality in the Peer Review System, a certification of their intent at the time of the panel review proceedings is collected to emphasize and reinforce confidentiality not only of applications and reviews but also panel discussions. On the Conflict-of-Interest and Confidentiality Certification form, the panelist affirms they understand the conflict-of-interest guidelines and will not be involved in the review of the application(s) where a conflict exists. The panelist also affirms their intent to maintain the confidentiality of the panel process and not disclose to another individual any information related to the peer review or use any information for personal benefit.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request to OMB for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Rural Housing Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Rural Housing Service (RHS or the Agency), a Rural Development (RD) agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), announces the acceptance of applications under the Rural Community Development Initiative (RCDI) program for fiscal year (FY) 2025. Approximately $5 million in funding is available for FY 2025. These grants will be made to qualified Intermediary organizations that will provide financial and Technical assistance to Recipients to develop their capacity and ability to undertake projects related to housing, community facilities, or community and economic development that will support the community. Applicants are responsible for any expenses incurred in developing their applications.
Completed applications must be submitted using one of the following methods:
•
•
Prior to official submission of applications, applicants may request Technical assistance or other application guidance from the Agency, if such requests are made prior to the application deadline. Technical assistance is not meant to be an analysis or assessment of the quality of the materials submitted, a substitute for agency review of completed applications, nor a determination of eligibility, if such determination requires in-depth analysis. The Agency reserves the right to contact applicants to seek clarification on materials contained in the submitted application.
This funding announcement will be announced on
Application information for electronic submissions may be found at
Janelle Gustafson, Rural Development, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: (406) 585-2508, Email:
•
•
• The Agency recommends not filing electronic submissions too close to the submission deadline in the event there is a problem with the system.
• The application dates and times are firm. The Agency will not consider any application received after the deadline.
• Prior to official submission of applications, applicants may request Technical assistance or other application guidance from the Agency, if such requests are made prior to August 7, 2025. Technical assistance is not meant to be an analysis or assessment of the quality of the materials submitted, a substitute for agency review of completed applications, nor a determination of eligibility, if such determination requires in-depth analysis. The Agency reserves the right to contact applicants to seek clarification on materials contained in the submitted application.
1.
2.
3.
4.
This exception is applicable for up to 90 days prior to grant closing and only applies to grantees that have received written approval but have not executed the RCDI Grant Agreement.
The Agency cannot retroactively approve reimbursement for expenditure prior to execution of the RCDI Grant Agreement.
The Intermediary must provide a program of financial and Technical assistance to one or more of the following: a private, nonprofit community-based housing and development organization, a Low-income rural community or a Federally recognized Tribe. A non-Tribal Intermediary proposing to serve one or more Federally recognized Tribe(s) must include a resolution of support with its application from the respective Tribe(s) it proposes to serve. If the resolution of support is not submitted for each respective Tribe, the Tribe will be considered ineligible as a Recipient. This requirement is being added to ensure collaboration during the application process between intermediaries and all Tribes that they propose to serve.
1.
(a) The applicant and its principals must not be debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from participation in USDA programs, in accordance with 2 CFR parts 180 and 417. The applicant must not be delinquent on any federal debt, nor have any outstanding judgment obtained by the U.S. in a Federal court. Upon receipt of application, prior to award, and prior to disbursement of federal funds, the agency will screen the applicant and its principals through the Do Not Pay System, as required by 31 U.S.C. 3354, to verify eligibility with respect to debarment, suspension, and any unresolved federal debts. Applicants are responsible for resolving any issues identified in the Do Not Pay System; if such issues are not resolved by the deadlines specified in this notice, the agency may proceed to award funds to other eligible applicants. Applicants are responsible for compliance with all applicable regulations, including 2 CFR parts 180 and 417.
(b) Qualified private organizations, nonprofit organizations (including faith-based organizations in accordance with 7 CFR part 16, community organizations and philanthropic foundations), and public (including Tribal) Intermediary organizations are eligible applicants. Definitions that describe eligible organizations and other key terms are listed above.
(c) The Recipient must be a nonprofit community-based housing and development organization, Low-income rural community, or Federally recognized Tribe based on the RCDI definitions of these groups.
(d) Private nonprofit, faith, or community-based organizations must provide a certificate of incorporation and a certificate of good standing from the Secretary of State of the State of incorporation, or other similar and valid documentation of current nonprofit status. For Low-income rural community Recipients, the Agency requires evidence that the entity is a public body and census data verifying that the median household income of the community where the office receiving the financial and Technical assistance is located at, or below, 80 percent of the state or national median household income, whichever is higher. For Federally recognized Tribes the Agency needs the page listing their name from the current
(e) Any corporation that has been convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the past 24 months; or has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, where the awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, unless the Agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government, is not eligible for Financial assistance in accordance with restrictions in Sections 744 and 745 outlined in Division B, Title VII, “General Provisions—Government-Wide” of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Pub. L. 118-47), as extended and made applicable by the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (Pub. L. 119-4).
2.
(a) Matching funds must be in the form of cash or confirmed funding commitments that, at a minimum, are equal to the grant amount. Matching funds must also be committed for a period of not less than the grant performance period. These Funds can only be used for eligible RCDI activities and must be used to support the overall purpose of the RCDI program.
(b) In-kind contributions such as salaries, donated time and effort, real and nonexpendable personal property, and goods and services cannot be used as Matching funds.
(c) Grant Funds and Matching funds must be used in equal proportions. This does not mean Funds have to be used equally by line item.
(d) Grant Funds will be disbursed pursuant to relevant provisions of 2 CFR parts 200 and 400 (
(e) The Intermediary is responsible for demonstrating that Matching funds are available and committed for a period of not less than the grant performance period to the RCDI proposal. Matching funds may be provided by the Intermediary or a third party. Other Federal Funds may be used as Matching funds if authorized by statute and the purpose of the Funds is an eligible RCDI purpose.
(f) RCDI Funds will be disbursed on an advance or reimbursement basis. Matching funds cannot be expended prior to the execution of the RCDI Grant Agreement. The request for advance or reimbursement and supporting documentation must show that RCDI fund usage does not exceed the cumulative amount of Matching funds used.
(g) Applicants must provide Matching funds in an amount at least equal to the amount of the Federal grant. Successful applications will be selected by the Agency for funding and will be awarded from Funds appropriated for the RCDI program.
3.
(a) RCDI grantees that have an outstanding grant over 3 years old, as of the application due date in this Notice, are not eligible to apply for this round of funding. Grant and Matching funds must be utilized in a timely manner to ensure that the goals and objectives of the program are met.
(b) Individuals cannot be Recipients.
(c) The Intermediary must provide a program of financial and Technical assistance to the Recipient.
(d) The Intermediary organization must be legally organized for a minimum of three years and have at least three years prior experience working with private nonprofit community-based housing and development organizations, low-income rural communities, or Tribal organizations in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development. The Intermediary organization may contract with a nonaffiliated organization for not more than 49 percent of the awarded grant to provide the proposed Technical assistance.
(e) Proposals must be structured to utilize the grant Funds within 3 years from the date of the award.
(f) Each applicant, whether individually or jointly, may only submit one application for RCDI Funds under this Notice. This restriction does not preclude the applicant from providing Matching funds for other applications.
(g) Recipients can benefit from more than one RCDI application; however, after grant selections are made, the Recipient can only benefit from multiple RCDI grants if the type of financial and Technical assistance the Recipient will receive is not duplicative. The services described in multiple RCDI grant applications must have separate and identifiable accounts for compliance purposes.
(h) The Intermediary and the Recipient cannot be the same entity. The Recipient can be a related entity to the Intermediary, if it meets the definition of a Recipient, provided the relationship does not create a Conflict of interest that cannot be resolved to Rural Development's satisfaction.
(i) If the Recipient is a Low-income rural community, identify the unit of government to which the financial and Technical assistance will be provided (
(j) A non-Tribal Intermediary proposing to serve one or more Federally recognized Tribes must include a resolution of support with its application from the Tribes it proposes to serve. If the resolution of support is not submitted for each Tribe, the Tribe will be considered ineligible as a Recipient. This requirement is being added to ensure collaboration during the application process between intermediaries and all Tribes that they propose to serve.
1.
Applicants may also request paper application packages from the Rural Development office in their state. A list of Rural Development State Office contacts can be found via
2.
An application for RCDI Funds must include the following:
(a) A summary page, double-spaced between items, listing the following:
(This information should not be presented in narrative form.)
• Applicant's name,
• Applicant's address,
• Applicant's telephone number,
• Name of applicant's contact person, email address and telephone number,
• County where applicant is located,
• Congressional district number where applicant is located,
• Amount of grant request, and
• Number of Recipients.
(b) A detailed Table of Contents containing page numbers for each component of the application.
(c) A project overview, no longer than one page, to include the following:
• The type of Technical assistance to be provided to the Recipients and how it will be implemented,
• How the Capacity and ability of the Recipients will be improved,
• The overall goals to be accomplished,
• The benchmarks to be used to measure the success of the program that are specific and quantifiable.
(d) Organizational documents, such as a certificate of incorporation and a current (within 12 months) good standing certification from the Secretary of State where the applicant is incorporated and other similar and valid documentation of current status, from the Intermediary that confirms it has been legally organized for a minimum of three years as the applicant entity.
(e) Verification of source and amount of Matching funds, (
If the applicant is unable to provide the verification within that timeframe, the application will be considered ineligible. The applicant must maintain bank statements on file or other documentation for a period of at least three years after grant closing and the records shall be retained beyond the three-year period if audit findings have not been resolved.
(f) The following information for each Recipient:
• Recipient's entity name,
• Complete address (mailing and physical location, if different),
• County where located,
• Number for Congressional district where Recipient is located,
• Contact person's name, email address and telephone number, and
• Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.” If the Form RD 400-4 is not submitted for each Recipient, the Recipient will be considered ineligible. No information pertaining to that Recipient will be included in the income or population scoring criteria and the requested funding may be adjusted due to the deletion of the Recipient.
(g) Submit evidence that each Recipient entity is eligible. Documentation must be submitted to verify Recipient eligibility. Links to websites are not acceptable. Acceptable documentation varies depending on the type of Recipient:
(1)
A nonprofit Recipient must provide evidence that it is a valid nonprofit when the Intermediary applies for the RCDI grant. Organizations with pending requests for nonprofit designations are not eligible.
(2)
(3)
A non-Tribal Intermediary proposing to serve one or more Federally recognized Tribes must include a resolution of support with its application from the Tribes it proposes to serve. If the resolution of support is not submitted for each Tribe, the Tribe will be considered ineligible as a Recipient. This requirement is being added to ensure collaboration during the application process between intermediaries and all Tribes that they propose to serve.
(h) Each of the scoring criteria in the “Application Review Information” section `must be addressed specifically
(i) A timeline identifying specific activities and proposed dates for completion.
(j) A detailed project budget that includes the RCDI grant amount and Matching funds. This should be a line-item budget with clearly defined categories such as salaries, administrative, other, and indirect costs pertaining to the proposed project. Supporting documentation listing the components of these categories must be included. The budget should be dated: year 1, year 2, and year 3, corresponding to the duration of the project.
(k) The indirect cost category in the project budget should be used only when a grant applicant has a Federally negotiated indirect cost rate, and it must be provided with the application. Non-federal entities without a negotiated indirect cost rate may use the de minimis rate of up to 15 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC) as described in 2 CFR part 200.414 (f).
(l) Form SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance”
(Do not complete Form SF-424A, “Budget Information.” A separate line-item budget should be presented as described in letter (j) of this section.
(m) Certification Regarding Lobbying, RD Instruction 1940-Q Exhibit A-1, “Certification for Contracts, Grants and Loans” or equivalent (for grants exceeding $100,000).
(n) Standard Form LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” if applicable.
Applicants must collect and maintain data provided by recipients on race, sex, and national origin and ensure Ultimate Recipients collect and maintain this data. Race and ethnicity data will be collected in accordance with OMB
All awards of Federal financial assistance made under this NOFO are subject to applicable civil rights laws, which may include Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1973, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974.
(o) Identify and report any association or relationship with Rural Development employees. (A statement acknowledging whether or not a relationship exists is required).
3.
(a) Applicants must maintain an active SAM registration, with current, accurate and complete information, at all times during which there is an active Federal award or an application under consideration by a Federal awarding Agency.
(b) Applicants must ensure they complete the Financial Assistance General Certifications and Representations in SAM.
(c) Applicants must provide a valid UEI in its application, unless determined exempt under 2 CFR 25.110 (
(d) Each applicant must be registered in SAM and in have a UEI number.
(e) The Agency will not make an award until the applicant has complied with all SAM requirements. If an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the Agency is ready to make an award, the Agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant.
4.
•
To submit a paper application, the original application package must be submitted to the Rural Development State Office where the applicant's headquarters is located. The address for the headquarters of each USDA Rural Development State Office can be accessed at
Technical difficulties applying through
The application dates and times are firm. If the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the application is due the next business day. The Agency will not consider any application received after the deadline.
5.
6.
(a) The Intermediary provides training to the Recipient on how to conduct homeownership education classes. The Recipient then provides ongoing homeownership education to the residents of the community, the ultimate beneficiaries. This “train the trainer” concept fully meets the intent of this initiative. The Intermediary is providing Technical assistance that will build the Recipient's Capacity by enabling it to conduct homeownership education classes for the public.
This is an eligible purpose. However, if the Intermediary directly provided homeownership education classes to individuals in the Recipient's service area, this would not be an eligible purpose because the Recipient would be bypassed.
(b) If the Intermediary is working with a low-income community as the Recipient, the Intermediary must provide Technical assistance to the entity that represents the low-income community and is identified in the application. Examples of entities representing a low-income community are a village board or a town council.
If the Intermediary provides Technical assistance to the Board of the low-income community on how to establish a cooperative, this would be an eligible purpose. However, if the Intermediary works directly with individuals from the community to establish the cooperative, this is not an eligible purpose.
The Recipient's Capacity is built by learning skills that will enable it to support sustainable economic development in its community on an ongoing basis.
(c) The Intermediary may provide Technical assistance to the Recipient on how to create and operate a revolving loan fund. The Intermediary may not monitor or operate the revolving loan fund. RCDI Funds, including Matching funds, cannot be used to fund a revolving loan fund.
(d) The Intermediary may work with Recipients to build their Capacity to provide planning and leadership development training. The Recipients of this training would be expected to assume leadership roles in the development and execution of regional strategic plans. The Intermediary would work with multiple Recipients in helping communities recognize their connections to the greater regional and national economies.
(e) The Intermediary could provide training and Technical assistance to the Recipients on developing emergency shelter and feeding, short-term housing, search and rescue, and environmental accident, prevention, and cleanup program plans. For longer term disaster and economic crisis responses, the Intermediary could work with the Recipients to develop job placement and training programs and develop coordinated transit systems for displaced workers.
7.
(a)
(1) Provide Technical assistance to develop Recipients' Capacity and ability to undertake projects related to housing, community facilities, or community and economic development (
(2) Develop the Capacity of Recipients to conduct community development programs, (
(3) Develop the Capacity of Recipients to conduct developmental initiatives (
(4) Develop the Capacity of Recipients to increase their leveraging ability and access to alternative funding sources by providing training and staffing.
(5) Develop the Capacity of Recipients to provide the Technical assistance component for essential community facilities projects.
(6) Assist Recipients in completing pre-development requirements for housing, community facilities, or community and economic development projects by providing resources for professional services,
(7) Improve Recipient's organizational Capacity by providing training and resource material on developing strategic plans, board operations, management, financial systems, and information technology.
(8) Purchase of computers, software, printers and other equipment is limited to $10,000 per award at the Recipient level when directly related to the Technical assistance program being undertaken by the Intermediary.
(9) Provide Funds to Recipients for training-related travel costs and training expenses related to RCDI.
(10) RCDI Funds may be used to pay for a speaker as part of a program, equipment to facilitate the program, and the actual room that will house the meeting.
(b) The following is a list of
(1) Pass-through grants, and any Funds provided to the Recipient in a lump sum that are not reimbursements.
(2) Funding a revolving loan fund.
(3) Construction (in any form).
(4) Salaries for positions involved in construction, renovations, rehabilitation, and any oversight of these types of activities.
(5) Intermediary preparation of strategic plans for Recipients.
(6) Funding prostitution, gambling, or any illegal activities.
(7) Grants to individuals.
(8) Funding a grant where there may be a Conflict of interest, or an appearance of a Conflict of interest, involving any action by the Agency.
(9) Paying obligations incurred before the grant period without prior Agency approval or after the ending date of the grant agreement.
(10) Purchasing real estate.
(11) Improvement or renovation of the Intermediary or Recipient's office space or for the repair or maintenance of vehicles.
(12) Any purpose prohibited in 2 CFR part 200 or 400.
(13) Using grant or Matching funds for Individual Development Accounts.
(14) In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 1345, “Expenses of Meetings,” appropriations may not be used for
(15) RCDI Funds cannot be used for meetings; they can, however, be used for travel, transportation, or subsistence expenses for program-related training and Technical assistance purposes. Any training not delineated in the application must be approved by the Agency to verify compliance with 31 U.S.C. 1345. Travel and per diem expenses (including meals and incidental expenses) will be allowed in accordance with 2 CFR parts 200 and 400.
1.
All applications that are complete and eligible will be scored and ranked competitively. The categories for scoring criteria used are the following:
(a)
The applicant must demonstrate how it will improve the Recipients' Capacity, through a program of financial and Technical assistance, as it relates to the RCDI purposes. Capacity building financial and Technical assistance should provide new functions to the Recipient(s) or expand existing functions that will enable the Recipient(s) to undertake projects in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development that will benefit the community. Capacity-building financial and Technical assistance may include, but is not limited to: training to conduct community development programs (
The program of financial and Technical assistance that is to be provided, its delivery, and the measurability of the program's effectiveness will determine the merit of the application.
All applications will be competitively ranked and the applications providing the most improvement in Capacity development and measurable activities being ranked the highest.
The narrative response must contain the following items. This list also contains the points for each item.
(1) Describe the nature of financial and Technical assistance to be provided to the Recipient(s) and the activities that will be conducted to deliver Technical assistance (10 Points).
(2) Explain how financial and Technical assistance will develop or increase the Recipient's Capacity. Indicate whether a new function is being developed or if existing functions are being expanded or performed more effectively (7 Points).
(3) Identify which RCDI purpose areas will be addressed with this assistance: Housing, community facilities, or community and economic development (3 Points).
(4) Describe how the results of the Technical assistance will be measured and describe the benchmarks to be used to measure effectiveness. Benchmarks should be specific and quantifiable (5 Points).
(5) Demonstrate that the Intermediary has conducted programs of financial and Technical assistance and achieved measurable results in the areas of housing, community facilities, or community and economic development in rural areas (10 Points).
(6) Provide in a chart or excel spreadsheet, the organization name, point of contact, address, phone number, email address, and the type and amount of the financial and Technical assistance the Intermediary has provided to the following for the last 3 years (5 Points).
• Nonprofit organizations in rural areas.
• Low-income communities in rural areas (also identify the type of entity,
• Federally recognized Tribes
(b) Soundness of Approach—Maximum 15 Points
The applicant can receive up to 15 points for soundness of approach. The overall proposal will be considered under this criterion.
The maximum of 15 points for this criterion will be based on the following:
(1) The proposal fits the objectives for which applications were invited, is clearly stated, and the applicant has defined how this proposal will be implemented (7 Points).
(2) The ability to provide the proposed financial and Technical assistance based on prior accomplishments (6 Points).
(3) Cost effectiveness will be evaluated based on the budget in the application. The proposed grant amount and Matching funds should be utilized to maximize Capacity building at the Recipient level (2 Points).
(c) Population and Income—Maximum 15 Points
Population is based on the average population from the 2020 census data for the communities in which the Recipient is located. The physical address, not mailing address, for each Recipient must be used for this criterion. Community is defined for scoring purposes as a city, town, village, county, parish, borough, Indian reservation or census-designated place where the Recipient's office is physically located.
The applicant must submit the census data from the following website in the form of a printout to verify the population figures used for each Recipient. The data can be accessed at
The average population of the Recipient locations will be used and will be scored as follows in the table illustrated below:
The average of the median household income for the communities where the Recipients are physically located will determine the points awarded. The physical address, not mailing address, for each Recipient must be used for this criterion. Applicants may compare the average Recipient median household income to the State median household income or the national median household income, whichever yields the most points. The national median household income to be used is $69,021.
The applicant must submit the income data in the form of a printout of
(d) State Director's Points Based on Project Merit—Maximum 10 Points
(1) This criterion will be addressed by the Agency, not the applicant.
(2) The State Director may award up to 10 discretionary points for the highest priority project in each state, up to 7 points for the second highest priority project in each state and up to 5 points for the third highest priority project.
(3) Additional information:
• These points may be awarded by the Rural Development State Director to any application(s) that benefit their State regardless of whether the applicant is headquartered in their State.
• When an Intermediary submits an application that will benefit a State that is not the same as the State in which the Intermediary is headquartered, it is the Intermediary's responsibility to notify the State Director of the State which is receiving the benefit of its application. In such cases, State Directors awarding points to applications benefiting their state must notify the reviewing State in writing.
• Assignment of any points under this criterion requires written justification and must be tied to and awarded based on how closely the application aligns with the Rural Development State Office's strategic goals.
(e) Administrator Discretionary Points—Maximum 20 Points
The Administrator may award up to 20 discretionary points for projects to address geographic distribution of Funds, emergency conditions caused by economic problems, natural disasters and other initiatives identified by the Secretary.
2.
(a) If there is a tied score after the applications have been rated and ranked, the tie will be resolved by reviewing the scores for “Building Capacity and Expertise” and the applicant with the highest score in that category will receive a higher ranking. If the scores for “Building Capacity and Expertise” are the same, the scores will be compared for the next criterion, in sequential order, until the highest score can be determined.
(b) Initial screening: The Agency will screen each application to determine eligibility during the period immediately following the application deadline. Listed below are examples of reasons for rejection from previous funding rounds. The following reasons for rejection are not all inclusive; however, they represent most of the previously rejected applications:
• Recipients were not located in eligible rural areas based on the definition in the Notice.
• Applicants failed to provide evidence of Recipient's status,
• Applicants failed to provide evidence of committed Matching funds or Matching funds were not committed for a period at least equal to the grant performance period.
• Application did not follow the RCDI structure with an Intermediary and Recipient.
• Recipients were not identified in the application.
• Intermediary did not provide evidence it had been incorporated for at least three years as the applicant entity.
• Applicants failed to address the “Application Review Information” in this Notice.
• The purpose of the proposal did not qualify as an eligible RCDI purpose.
• Inappropriate use of Funds (
• The applicant proposed providing financial and Technical assistance directly to individuals.
• The application package was not received by the closing date and time.
1.
Successful applicants will receive a selection letter by email containing instructions on the requirements necessary to proceed with execution and performance of the award. In addition, selected applicants will be requested to verify that components of the application have not changed at the time of selection and on the award obligation date, if requested by the Agency. This letter is not an authorization to begin performance.
The award is not approved until all information has been verified, and the awarding official of the Agency has signed Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds” and the grant agreement.
Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification, including notification of appeal rights, by email.
2.
Grantees will be required to do the following:
(i) Execute a Rural Community Development Initiative Grant Agreement.
(ii) Execute Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”
(iii) Use Form SF 270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement,” to request reimbursements. Provide receipts for expenditures, timesheets and any other documentation to support the request for reimbursement.
(iv) Provide financial status and project performance reports on a quarterly basis starting with the first full quarter after the grant award.
(v) Maintain a financial management system that is acceptable to the Agency.
(vi) Ensure that records are maintained to document all activities and expenditures utilizing RCDI grant Funds and Matching funds. Receipts for
(vii) Provide annual audited financial statements in accordance with 2 CFR part 200, subpart F, or management reports on Form RD 442-2, “Statement of Budget, Income and Equity,” and Form RD 442-3, “Balance Sheet,” depending on the amount of Federal Funds expended and the outstanding balance.
(viii) Collect and maintain data provided by recipients on race, sex, and national origin and ensure recipients collect and maintain the same data on beneficiaries. Race and ethnicity data will be collected in accordance with OMB
(ix) Provide a final project performance report.
(x) Identify and report any association or relationship with Rural Development employees.
(xi) All awards of Federal financial assistance made under this NOFO are subject to applicable civil rights laws, which may include Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1973, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974.
(xii) The grantee must comply with policies, guidance, and requirements as described in the following applicable Code of Federal Regulations, and any successor regulations:
(A) 2 CFR parts 200 and 400 (Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards).
(B) 2 CFR parts 417 and 180 (Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement)).
3.
(a) SF-425, “Federal Financial Report” and SF-PPR, “Performance Progress Report” will be required on a quarterly basis (due 30 working days after each calendar quarter). The Performance Progress Report shall include the elements described in the grant agreement.
(b) Final financial and performance reports will be due 120 calendar days after the period of performance end date.
(c) A summary at the end of the final report with elements as described in the grant agreement to assist in documenting the annual performance goals of the RCDI program for Congress.
Contact the Rural Development State Office where the applicant's headquarters is located. A list of Rural Development State Offices contacts can be found at:
1.
2.
3. Equal Opportunity for Religious Organizations.
(a) Faith-based organizations may apply for this award on the same basis as any other organization, as set forth at, and subject to the protections and requirements of, this part and any applicable constitutional and statutory requirements, including 42 U.S.C. 2000bb
(b) A faith-based organization that participates in this program will retain its independence from the Government and may continue to carry out its mission consistent with religious freedom and conscience protections in Federal law. Religious accommodations may also be sought under many of these religious freedom and conscience protection laws.
(c) A faith-based organization may not use direct Federal financial assistance from USDA to support or engage in any explicitly religious activities except when consistent with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and any other applicable requirements. An organization receiving Federal financial assistance also may not, in providing services funded by USDA, or in their outreach activities related to such services, discriminate against a program beneficiary or prospective program beneficiary on the basis of religion, a religious belief, a refusal to hold a religious belief, or a refusal to attend or participate in a religious practice.
4.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at
(1)
(2)
(3)
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
GE Gas Turbines (Greenville) LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Greenville, South Carolina within FTZ 38. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on June 30, 2025.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished products include: gas turbines; fuel nozzles; power nozzles; turbine blades (nickel alloy; ceramic composite); rotor assemblies (titanium alloy; nickel-based alloy; steel); shrouds (stainless steel; ceramic composite); casings (alloy steel; stainless steel; iron); combustion chamber liners of steel; hydraulic engines; centrifuges; and, switchgear assemblies (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 2.7%).
The proposed foreign-status materials/components include: plastic tubing; adhesive decals of polyester; washers (plastic; copper; nickel); plastic o-rings; gaskets (plastic; carbon fiber; graphite; stainless steel); rubber protective dust covers; pipe fittings (rubber; cast of stainless steel; stainless steel; alloy steel; buttwelded steel; aluminum); flange connectors made of rubber; insulating material made of mineral wool fiber; braided seals made of mineral filled aramid-reinforced composite; glass fiber reinforced fasteners (fiber; woven); steel alloy powders; fittings (iron; steel; nickel; buttwelded of stainless steel); piping components (iron; steel); bars (carbon steel; stainless steel); rods (carbon steel; stainless steel); steel angles; plates (nickel alloy; copper); shims (nickel alloy; copper); hot-rolled structural sections; tubes (non-alloy iron; non-alloy steel; stainless steel; nickel); pipes (stainless steel; stainless steel welded); stainless steel hollow bars; stainless steel hollow pipes; stainless steel pipes for high temperature use; stainless steel tubes for high temperature use; circular welded stainless steel pipe for gas turbine heat exchangers and refining applications; circular welded carbon steel pipe for gas turbine condensers and superheaters; circular seamless iron pipe for gas turbine condensers and superheaters; circular welded stainless steel pipe for gas turbine gas processing; threaded gray cast iron conduit sealer female fittings for use in gas turbine conduit systems; flanges (stainless steel; steel; iron); stainless steel threaded couplings; stainless steel threaded elbows and bends; iron pipe 45 degree fittings; threaded pipe schedule 080S of iron; clamps (iron; steel); structural steel gratings for repair and maintenance access; steel cables; self-tapping screws made of stainless steel; threaded fasteners (nonstainless alloy; base metal; carbon steel; stainless steel); nuts (iron; steel; nickel); threaded hardware (iron; steel); locking washers (iron; steel); plain washers (iron; steel); rivets (iron; steel; nickel); pins (iron; steel; nickel; aluminum); support clips (iron; steel); springs (iron; nickel); cast iron mounting brackets; stamped fasteners (iron; steel); forged fasteners (iron; steel); wire holding devices (iron; steel); general-purpose mounting shims made of carbon steel; stranded wire (copper; nickel); copper stators; rings (copper; nickel); nickel alloy sheets; nickel alloy foil; nickel alloy strip; screws (nickel; aluminum); nickel bolts; conduits (iron; steel; nickel); nickel couplings; nickel enclosures; nickel seals; nickel connectors; nickel gears; nickel lockwire; nickel lugs; nickel joints; nickel rotors; nickel spacers; nickel studs; nickel clips; nickel thermocouples; nickel inserts; nickel vanes; aluminum tube fittings; aluminum bearing assemblies; aluminum caps; aluminum fasteners; mounting harnesses; bellows (iron; steel); compensators (iron; steel); expansions (iron; steel); hoses (iron; steel); elbow tubing of noncast stainless steel; self-winding sleeves made of base metal; wear plates of stainless steel with alloy facing; turbine diaphragms made of stainless steel; base plates used for mounting components; anchor bolts for mounting components of stainless steel; alignment shims; vibration dampers of rubber; compressor gas turbine casings; combustor housings; turbine shells of machined steel; exhaust frames of machined metal; rod bearings; friction reducing thrust bearings; fuel nozzles of machined metal nozzle assemblies; flow meters used to measure the flow of liquid; pressure transducers of stainless steel; electrical gas analyzers; control valves; fluid control devices; fuel injection systems; combustion chamber liners of chromium-molybdenum stainless steel; insulation casings; igniters used in gas turbines; power nozzles; rotating wheels of forged nickel alloy; rotating shafts (carbon steel; stainless steel); stators/stator vanes of steel; temperature sensors; shrouds (stainless steel; ceramic composite); casings (alloy steel; stainless steel; iron); chamber pressure sensors; exhaust gas pressure sensors; fuel flow regulators; hydraulic motors; pump diaphragms; hydraulic pumps; submersible pumps; compressor housings; heat exchangers; oil filters; fuel filters; oil separators; fuel separators; engine fluid filters; catalytic converters; air filters; air dryers; pressure valves; flow valves; check valves; stainless steel taps; solenoid valves; compressor vanes of stainless steel; ball bearings; thrust bearings; spherical bearings; bearing shims; transmission shafts; housed bearings; shaft bearings; housings for bearings; parts of bearing assemblies; transmission spacers; transmission rings; transmission mounting parts; machine shims of carbon steel; machine shafts of stainless steel; machine seals of stainless steel; machine joints of stainless steel; mechanical seals of graphite and steel; electric motors; stator vane rings of stainless steel; electronic actuators; spark plugs; heating elements; electric terminals; electric switches; lamp sockets; junction boxes; terminal blocks; connection terminals; cable connectors; cable fittings; cable clamps; cable holders; electrical clips; electrical grounding apparatus; electronic boards; parts of electrical switching devices; electronic measuring devices and parts; electronic instrument parts; electronic conductors; electronic cables of stainless steel; electrical insulators; electrical isolators; insulating fittings; resistance temperature detectors; barometric sensors; temperature sensor protective enclosures; pressure sensors; pressure meters; chemical sensors; vibration sensors; and, measuring devices (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 9.9%). The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under section 1702(a)(1)(B) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (section 1702) or section 301 of the
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Luke Engan at
Avant Technology, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Pharr, Texas within FTZ 12. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on July 2, 2025.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished products include memory modules and solid-state drives (SSD)/universal serial bus (USB) drives (duty-free).
The proposed foreign-status materials/components include: controller electronic integrated circuits; inductors for power management devices; multilayer ceramic dielectric capacitators; carbon resistors; fuses; unmounted semiconductor chips; mounted piezoelectric crystals; printed circuit boards; memory integrated circuits; and, solder paste (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 5.8%). The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under section 1702(a)(1)(B) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (section 1702), section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (section 232) and section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 1702, section 232 and section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Christopher Wedderburn at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this sunset review, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that termination of the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Duty Investigation on Sugar from Mexico, as amended (Agreement), and the suspended antidumping duty (AD) investigation would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
Applicable July 8, 2025.
Sally C. Gannon or Samantha Fino, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0162 or (202) 482-2861, respectively.
On March 3, 2025, Commerce initiated the second sunset review of the Agreement
The merchandise subject to the Agreement is raw and refined sugar of all polarimeter readings derived from sugar cane or sugar beets. For a complete description of the
All issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail if the Agreement and suspended AD investigation were terminated, are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 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
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that termination of the Agreement and suspended AD investigation on sugar from Mexico is likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail would be weighted-average dumping margins up to 42.14.
This notice also serves as the only 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. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of an open meeting of a Federal Advisory Committee.
The Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee (ETTAC) will hold a virtual meeting on Friday, July 25, 2025. The meeting is open to the public with registration instructions provided below. This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed topics for the meeting.
The meeting is scheduled for Friday, July 25, 2025 from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET). The deadline for members of the public to register to participate, including requests to make comments during the meeting and for auxiliary aids, or to submit written comments for dissemination prior to the meeting, is 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, July 18, 2025. Members of the public must register by that date to participate.
The meeting will be held virtually. Members of the public who wish to participate should register through the registration portal:
Ms. Megan Hyndman, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, International Trade Administration (Phone: 202-482-1297; email:
The ETTAC is mandated by Section 2313(c) of the Export Enhancement Act of 1988, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 4728(c), to advise the Environmental Trade Promotion Working Group of the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee on the development and administration of programs to expand U.S. exports of environmental technologies, goods, services, and products. The ETTAC was most recently re-chartered through August 6, 2026.
On Friday, July 25, 2025 from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. ET, the ETTAC will hold the fifth meeting of its current charter term. During the meeting, committee members will deliberate on proposed recommendation letters. An agenda will be made available one week prior to the meeting upon request to Megan Hyndman.
The meeting will be open to the public and time will be permitted for public comment before the close of the meeting. Members of the public seeking to attend the meeting are required to register by Friday, July 18, at 5:00 p.m. EDT, via the registration portal at
Written comments concerning ETTAC affairs are welcome any time before or after the meeting. To be considered during the meeting, written comments must be received by Friday, July 18, at 5:00 p.m. EDT to ensure transmission to the members before the meeting. Draft minutes will be available within 30 days of this meeting.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes (HWRPT) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) were not sold at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) September 1, 2022, through August 31, 2023.
Applicable July 8, 2025.
Sofia Pedrelli, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4301.
On October 8, 2024, Commerce published in the
The review covers one company: HiSteel Co., Ltd. (HiSteel).
We invited parties to comment on the
The products covered by the
All issues raised in the case briefs filed by interested parties in this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum and are listed in an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding the
On June 13 and June 16, 2025, respectively, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) issued mandates based on the Federal Circuit's opinions in
As a result of this review, we determine that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period September 1, 2022, through August 31, 2023:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these final results of review to interested parties within five days after public announcement of the final results or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), because HiSteel reported the entered value of their U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific
For entries of subject merchandise during the POI produced by each individually examined respondent for which the producer did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation (
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
Upon publication of this notice in the
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 review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition 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 return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this sunset review, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that termination of the Agreement Suspending the Countervailing Duty Investigation on Sugar from Mexico, as amended (Agreement), and the suspended countervailing duty (CVD) investigation would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
Applicable July 8, 2025.
Sally C. Gannon or Samantha Fino, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0162 or (202) 482-2861, respectively.
On March 3, 2025, Commerce initiated the second sunset review of the Agreement
The merchandise subject to the
A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies and the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the Agreement and suspended CVD investigation were terminated, are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 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
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(b) of the Act, Commerce determines that termination of the Agreement and suspended CVD investigation on sugar from Mexico is likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rates listed below:
This notice also serves as the only 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. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
Commerce is issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of a permit amendment.
Notice is hereby given that a minor amendment has been issued to Scientific Research Permit No. 23802 for the University of Florida, Aquatic Animal Health Program, College of Veterinary Medicine, 2015 SW 16th Avenue, Gainesville, FL 32608 (Responsible Party: Michael Walsh, D.V.M.).
The amendment and related documents are available for review upon written request via email to
Shasta McClenahan, Ph.D., or Jennifer Skidmore, (301) 427-8401.
The requested amendment has been granted under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
The original permit issued on November 16, 2020 (85 FR 79169, December 9, 2020) is valid through November 30, 2025 and authorizes the applicant to receive, import, and export marine mammal parts to (1) analyze diagnostic samples; and (2) discover, investigate, and determine baseline levels for marine mammal health, infectious disease, microbiome, genetics, toxins, contaminants, nutrition, and reproduction. The minor amendment extends the duration of the permit through November 30, 2026, but
Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting; opportunity to comment.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office for Coastal Management will hold a virtual public meeting to solicit input on the performance evaluation of the North Inlet-Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. NOAA also invites the public to submit written comments.
NOAA will hold a virtual public meeting on Tuesday, August 19, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET). NOAA may close the meeting 10 minutes after the conclusion of public testimony and after responding to any clarifying questions from meeting participants. NOAA will consider all relevant written comments received by Friday, August 29, 2025.
Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
Pam Kylstra, Evaluator, NOAA Office for Coastal Management, by email at
Section 315(f) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires NOAA to conduct periodic evaluations of federally approved national estuarine research reserves. The evaluation process includes holding one or more public meetings, consideration of written public comments, and consultations with interested federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. During the evaluation, NOAA will consider the extent to which the state of South Carolina has met the national objectives and adhered to the management program approved by the Secretary of Commerce, the requirements of Section 315(b)(2) of the CZMA, and the terms of financial assistance under the CZMA. When the evaluation is complete, NOAA's Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites comments on the extension of an existing information collection: 0651-0046 (Legal Processes). The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comments preceding submission of the information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
To ensure consideration, you must submit comments regarding this information collection on or before September 8, 2025.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by any of the following methods. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to Kyu Lee, Office of General Law at: United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; 571-272-3000; or
This collection covers information requirements related to civil actions and claims involving current and former employees of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The rules for these legal processes may be found under 37 CFR part 104, which outlines procedures for service of process, demands for employee testimony and production of documents in legal proceedings, reports of unauthorized testimony, employee indemnification, and filing claims against the USPTO under the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. 2672) and the corresponding Department of Justice regulations (28 CFR part 14). The public may also petition the USPTO Office of General Counsel under 37 CFR 104.3 to waive or suspend these rules in extraordinary cases.
The procedures under 37 CFR part 104 ensure that service of process intended for current and former employees of the USPTO is handled properly. The USPTO will only accept service of process for an employee acting in an official capacity. This collection is necessary so that respondents or their representatives can serve a summons or complaint on the USPTO, demand employee testimony and documents related to a legal proceeding, or file a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Respondents may also petition the USPTO to waive or suspend these rules for legal processes. This collection is also necessary so that current and former USPTO employees may properly forward service and demands to the Office of General Counsel, report unauthorized testimony, and request indemnification. The USPTO covers current employees as respondents under this information collection even though their responses do not require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. In those instances where both current and former employees may respond to the USPTO, the agency estimates that the number of respondents will be small.
For filing claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the public may use Standard Form 95 “Claim for Damage, Injury, or Death,” which is provided by the Department of Justice.
Items in this information collection must be submitted by mail.
• Standard Form 95 (Claim for Damage, Injury, or Death).
2025 OPM Salary Table for the Washington Locality Pay Area:
This collection has a filing fee associated with the petition to waive or suspend the legal process rules under 37 CFR 104.3. The fee is listed in Table 2 below.
The USPTO estimates that all submissions in this collection will be submitted by mail. The USPTO estimates that 308 items will be submitted by mail in a large envelope. The average first-class postage for a four-ounce mailed submission in a large envelope is $2.31, resulting in a total of $711 for submissions other than a Service of Process. The USPTO estimates that 1 Service of Process will be submitted by certified mail in a Priority Mail flat-rate envelope with a return receipt. The USPTO estimates that the average cost for a certified Priority mail flat-rate envelope with a return receipt is $17.87, resulting in $18 for Service of Process submissions. Therefore, the USPTO estimates the total combined postage cost for this collection is $729.
The USPTO is soliciting public comments to:
(a) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
All comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. The USPTO will include or summarize each comment in the request to OMB to approve this information collection. Before including an address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information (PII) in a comment, be aware that the entire comment—including PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask in your comment to withhold PII from public view, the USPTO cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed renewal of a collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before September 8, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by “Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants—Cross-Border Application of the Margin Requirements,” Collection Number 3038-0111, by any of the following methods:
• The Agency's website, at
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method. All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
Dina Moussa, Special Counsel, Market Participants Division, at (202) 418-5696, or
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
With regard to the cross-border application of the Commission's margin rules, Section 2(i)
On May 31, 2016, the Commission published the Final Rule addressing the cross-border application of its margin requirements for uncleared swaps applicable to CSEs.
Under Commission Regulation 23.160(c)(1),
Commission Regulation 23.160(c)(2)
Commission Regulation 23.160(d)
Commission Regulation 23.160(e)
With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burdens of the proposed collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burdens of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
•
The Commission estimates that 50 CSEs may request a comparability determination pursuant to Commission Regulation 23.160(c).
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
•
The Commission is revising its estimate of the burden for this collection to reflect the current number of registrants subject to the Commission's margin requirements for uncleared swaps. Specifically, the Commission estimates that approximately 50 CSEs may rely on Commission Regulation 23.160(d).
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
•
The Commission estimates that there are eight jurisdictions for which the first two conditions specified above for non-segregation jurisdictions are satisfied and where FCSs and foreign branches of U.S. CSEs that are subject to the Commission's margin rules may engage in swaps. The Commission estimates that approximately 12 FCSs or foreign branches of U.S. CSEs may rely on Commission Regulation 23.160(e) in some or all of these jurisdictions. The Commission estimates that each FCS or foreign branch of a U.S. CSE relying on this provision would incur an average of 20 annual burden hours to maintain books and records properly documenting that all of the requirements of this provision are satisfied (including policies and procedures for ensuring compliance) with respect to each jurisdiction as to which they rely on the special provision. Thus, based on the estimate of eight non-segregation jurisdictions, the Commission estimates that each of the approximately 12 FCSs and foreign branches of U.S. CSEs that may rely on this provision will incur an estimated 160 average burden hours per year (
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy (BoV AFA), Department of the Air Force.
Notice of Federal advisory committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy (BoV AFA) will take place.
Open to the public Thursday, August 7, 2025 from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. (mountain time).
The meeting will occur in-person with virtual option. Members of the public will only be allowed to attend the meeting virtually. The link for the virtual meeting can be found at:
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. 1001
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice of request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE) invites public comments on a proposed collection of information that DOE is developing for submission to the Office of Management and Budget
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before August 7, 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, please advise the DOE Desk Officer at OMB of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at (202) 395-4718.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Kara Podkaminer, Senior Adviser, Transportation and Fuels, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585;
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 3, 2025, by Louis Hrkman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
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 organization, 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 during the month of June 2025, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2024).
On April 30, 2025, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) filed an application in Docket No. CP25-379-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to excavate, elevate, replace, reroute, construct, and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Longwall Mining Panel M1 Project (Project) and would allow for the safe and efficient operation of Texas Eastern's natural gas transportation system in Greene County, Pennsylvania during sub-surface longwall mining activities.
On May 14, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's environmental document for the Project.
This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) for the Project and the planned schedule for the completion of the environmental review.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
Texas Eastern proposes to excavate, elevate, replace, and reroute segments of its existing pipelines ranging in length between approximately 4,000 feet and 8,500 feet in Greene County, Richhill and Center Townships, Pennsylvania. Texas Eastern would also abandon by removal two segments of non-operational pipeline. Upon completion of the sub-surface mining activities, Texas Eastern would return two of the four pipelines to their original locations and easements. One pipeline would be partially rerouted into a new easement, and another would be rerouted into the existing easement of an abandoned pipeline just north of its original location. Texas Eastern anticipates these activities would occur between 2026 and 2028.
On May 30, 2025, the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This service provides automatic notification of filings made to subscribed dockets, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (
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
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 organization, 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.
l. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests is August 1, 2025.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations 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.
m.
n.
o. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
p.
q.
r. 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.
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, 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 application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, protests, and motions to intervene using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to investigate and determine if the project would affect the interests of interstate or foreign commerce. The Commission also determines whether or not the project: (1) would be located on a navigable waterway; (2) would occupy public lands or reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or (4) would be located on a non-navigable stream over which Congress has Commerce Clause jurisdiction and would be constructed or enlarged after 1935.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
p.
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate 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
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) staff has released for public comment an exposure draft of a proposed Technical Bulletin titled
Responses are requested by July 18, 2025.
The exposure draft is available on the FASAB website at
Ms. Monica R. Valentine, Executive
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) announces guidelines for disposition of un-reimbursable Reassigned Numbers Database (RND) creation costs. Specifically, the Bureau establishes the methodology for disposition of RND creation costs that cannot be reimbursed to the contributing providers in the small number of circumstances where those providers have gone out of business or otherwise cannot be located.
July 8, 2025.
Rebecca Maccaroni, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, email at
This is a summary of the CGB's Public Notice, in CG Docket No. 17-59, DA 25-537, released on June 23, 2025. The full text of this document is available online at
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Notice and request for comment.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as part of its obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the request to renew the existing information collections described below (OMB Control No. 3064-0152; -0190 and -0207). The notices of proposed renewal for these information collections were previously published in the
Comments must be submitted on or before August 7, 2025.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Robert Meiers, Regulatory Attorney,
Proposal to renew the following currently approved collection of information:
1.
2.
3.
Comments are invited on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c)
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS).
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), invites the public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection request, Notification of intention to strike or picket at any health care institution Form. This information collection request will be submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The Notification of intention to strike or picket at any health care institution Form was developed pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act and The Health Care Amendments Act of 1974 which labor organizations must notify FMCS before engaging in any strike, picketing, or other concerted refusal to work at any health care institution.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 8, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by the Notification of intention to strike or picket at any health care institution Form, through one of the following methods:
•
•
Beth Schindler, National Representative, (206) 553-5801,
Copies of the agency form are available here.
FMCS solicits comments to:
i. Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
ii. Enhance the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information.
iii. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
iv. Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic collection technologies or other forms of information technology.
The official records are electronic records.
1 p.m., Thursday, July 31, 2025.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 504 North, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).
Open.
The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:
Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).
Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free. Phone Number for Listening to Meeting: 1 (866) 236-7472. Passcode: 678-100.
10 a.m., Thursday, July 31, 2025.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 504 North, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).
Open.
The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter
Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).
Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free. Phone Number for Listening to Meeting: 1 (866) 236-7472. Passcode: 678-100.
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice and request for comment.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information through voluntary surveys for studies conducted by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be filed by September 8, 2025.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Eric Spurlino, Economist, Division of Consumer Protection, Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission, (202) 326-2516,
The Federal Trade Commission Act (the Act), 15 U.S.C. 41 through 58, authorizes the agency to conduct research and gather information on issues related to consumer protection and competition. Specifically, section 6(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(a) provides the Commission shall have power “to gather and compile information concerning, and to investigate from time to time the organization, business, conduct, practices, and management of any person, partnership, or corporation engaged in or whose business affects commerce.” Accordingly, this generic clearance seeks to cover research consisting of voluntary focus groups, interviews, surveys, and experiments relating to consumers' perceptions of industry and business practices, and their behavior as it pertains to their relationship with these practices.
The information will be collected from voluntary participants through one-on-one telephone, internet, or in-person interviews, online focus groups, self-administered (online) surveys, or (online or in-person) economics experiments, depending upon the target audience, expectations about whether the information will be evaluated in an individual or group context, and the need to present educational or interventional materials. The methods to be used serve the narrowly defined need for direct and informal opinion on a specific topic and as qualitative and quantitative research tools, and have two major purposes:
1. Increase understanding of consumers' perceptions and behavioral responses to potentially harmful business practices.
2. To stay current on the latest trends in consumer experience with deceptive, unfair, or anticompetitive practices in the marketplace.
The FTC will use this information to better understand where to dedicate resources in investigation and enforcement, as well as to improve methods for assessing consumer harm and demand estimation. The research conducted under this voluntary information collection falls primarily under the Bureau of Economics within the FTC. However, other Bureaus or Offices within the FTC may offer advice and input into the research conducted. The research would not be used specifically for the purposes of making policy or regulatory decisions. Rather, the findings would help expand the agency's knowledge and understanding of consumer perception issues prevalent in its law-enforcement investigations. The FTC's Bureau of Economics will use this voluntary information collection to test communications and social and behavioral methods about consumer behavior and beliefs in ways that increase our understanding of consumer experiences as well as ways in which business practices may be or have the potential to be, inflicting harm on consumers. For one example, the FTC intends to use this information collection to conduct a voluntary survey of American consumers about their experiences of fraud in the marketplace.
As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment.
The FTC estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Staff believes there are no current start-up costs or other capital costs associated with this collection of information.
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC invites comments on: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will be practically useful; (2) the accuracy of our burden estimates, including whether the methodology and assumptions used are valid; (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.
For the FTC to consider a comment, we must receive it on or before September 8, 2025. Your comment, including your name and your State, will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including the
You can file a comment online or on paper. Due to heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. We encourage you to submit your comments online through the
Because your comment will become publicly available at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must (1) be filed in paper form, (2) be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and (3) comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before September 8, 2025. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
By direction of the Commission.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Institutes of Health Office of the Director (OD) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Julia Slutsman, Ph.D., Director, Data Sharing Policies Implementation, Office of Extramural Research, NIH, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 800-C, Bethesda, MD 20892, or call non-toll-
Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires: written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimizes the burden of the collection of information from those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Under the NIH GDS Policy, all investigators who receive NIH funding to conduct large-scale genomic research are expected to register studies with human genomic data in dbGaP. As part of the study registration process, investigators must provide basic study information, such as the types of data that will be submitted to dbGaP and a description of the study, via a form provided by the funding NIH institute. While individual NIH institutes currently use different forms, NIH seeks to harmonize the current forms into a single Study Registration Information Form. In addition, to keep pace with changes in genomics research, NIH has developed a Data Agnostic Submission Form to accept submission of non-genomic data generated with genomic data.
Requesters interested in using controlled-access human data for secondary research must apply through the dbGaP Authorized Access System and be granted permission from the relevant NIH Data Access Committee (DAC). As part of the application process, requesters and their institutions provide basic information, such as the proposed research use of the data, and agree to the terms of access delineated in the Data Use Certification agreement. Beginning on January 25, 2025, requesters and their institutions are expected to attest that their systems or, if applicable, their third-party IT system or Cloud Service Provider secure the data according to standards set for in the NIH Security Best Practices for Users of Controlled-Access Data (
NIH has developed online forms and digital interfaces, available either as PDF files or through dbGaP, to minimize burden for researchers and their institutional officials completing the study registration (
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours for all respondents across all forms is 25,950 hours.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Announcement of decision.
The Coast Guard announces the cancellation of three obsolete Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circulars (NVICs). NVICs are guidance documents issued by the Coast Guard that do not have the force of law. However, NVICs ensure Coast Guard inspections and other regulatory actions conducted by field personnel are complete and consistent. Similarly, the marine industry and the general public rely on NVICs as a way to assess how the Coast Guard will enforce certain regulations or conduct various marine safety programs. Thus, it is important that the public is made aware when NVICs are cancelled so as to avoid confusion.
The NVICs were cancelled on July 2, 2025.
For information about this document call or email CDR Jake Lobb, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1410, email
A Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) provides detailed guidance about the enforcement or compliance with a certain Federal marine safety regulations and Coast Guard marine safety programs. While NVIC's are non-directive, meaning that they do not have the force of law, they are important “tools” for helping the public comply with the law. To best serve the public and maritime industry, the Coast Guard is reviewing and actively managing its inspections policy to ensure that all published NVICs are consistent with current practices.
The Coast Guard is issuing this document under 5 U.S.C. 552. This document serves to inform the public about the cancellation and removal of certain obsolete and outdated Coast Guard NVICs. The Coast Guard wishes to reduce confusion to the public by removing NVICs that do not reflect current practices and that potentially conflict with more modern guidance.
1. NVIC 11-91 OCEAN TOW OF JACKUP DRILLING UNITS called attention to the International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC) booklet entitled “General Ocean Tow recommendations for Jackup Drilling Units” dated February 13, 1991. The only purpose of the NVIC was to call attention to this publication. It has no additional guidance, and the guidance referenced in the NVIC is now dated and no longer needed.
2. NVIC 10-97 GUIDELINES FOR CARGO SECURING MANUAL APPROVAL provided guidance on the applicability, preparation, and approval of Cargo Securing Manuals (CSM). The NVIC discussed the initiation of a rulemaking that would specify U.S. flag vessel CSM responsibilities, establish U.S. CSM Approval Authority responsibilities, and identify application and selection procedures for organizations seeking U.S. CSM Approval Authority delegation. This rulemaking is complete, and the regulations can be found in 33 CFR part 97. The NVIC is no longer needed.
3. NVIC 8-00 GUIDANCE REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR SAFE CONTAINERS (CSC), 1972, FOR FREIGHT CONTAINERS WITH ONE DOOR REMOVED provided guidance regarding the transportation of commodities in freight containers meeting the International Convention for Safe Containers (CSC) construction and inspection requirements, where one door has been removed to provide extra ventilation for cargoes being transported. Guidance includes marking of the Safety Approval Plate and testing requirements. CSC was updated in 2010 and 2013 to include standards specific to the marking and structural testing requirements for one door off operation. The NVIC is no longer needed.
Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Agreement and Amendment.
The Department of Homeland Security is publishing the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Honduras for Cooperation in the Examination of Protection Requests, signed at Washington on March 10, 2025 (the “Agreement”). DHS is also publishing an Amendment to the Agreement, which consists of diplomatic notes exchanged at Tegucigalpa on June 25, 2025. The text of the Agreement and the Amendment are set out below.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notice.
Through this notice, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announces that the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) is terminating the designation of Nicaragua for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The designation of Nicaragua is set to expire on July 5, 2025. After reviewing country conditions and consulting with appropriate U.S. Government agencies,
The designation of Nicaragua for TPS is terminated, effective at 11:59 p.m., local time, on September 8, 2025.
Humanitarian Affairs Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, (240) 721-3000 (not a toll-free call).
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation with appropriate agencies of the U.S. Government, to designate a foreign state (or part thereof) for TPS if the Secretary determines that certain country conditions exist.
At least 60 days before the expiration of a foreign state's TPS designation or extension, the Secretary—after consultation with appropriate U.S. Government agencies—must review the conditions in the foreign state designated for TPS to determine whether they continue to meet the conditions required for the TPS designation.
TPS is a temporary immigration benefit granted to eligible nationals of a country designated for TPS under the INA, or to eligible aliens without nationality who last habitually resided in the designated country. During the TPS designation period, TPS beneficiaries are eligible to remain in the United States, may not be removed, and are authorized to work and obtain an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) so long as they continue to meet the requirements of TPS. TPS beneficiaries may also apply for and be granted travel authorization as a matter of discretion. The granting of TPS does not result in or lead to lawful permanent resident status or any other immigration status. To qualify for TPS, beneficiaries must meet the eligibility standards at INA section 244(c)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(2). When the Secretary terminates a country's TPS designation, beneficiaries return to the same immigration status or category that they maintained before TPS, if any (unless that status or category has since expired or been terminated), or any other lawfully obtained immigration status or category they received while registered for TPS, as long as it is still valid on the date TPS terminates.
Nicaragua was initially designated for TPS over 25 years ago based on a determination that an environmental disaster resulted in a substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions in the area affected. The Nicaraguan government officially requested the designation, and Nicaragua was unable, temporarily, to handle adequately the return of its nationals.
Following the statutorily required review of the country conditions, former Acting Secretary Elaine C. Duke announced the termination of TPS for Nicaragua, with an effective date of January 5, 2019.
Finally, on June 21, 2023, DHS published a FRN reconsidering and rescinding the prior administration's termination of Nicaragua TPS. The rescission was effective June 9, 2023, and the new 18-month extension of TPS for Nicaragua began on January 6, 2024, and will remain in effect through July 5, 2025.
At least 60 days before the expiration of a foreign state's TPS designation or extension, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, must review the conditions in the foreign state designated for TPS to determine whether the country continues to meet the conditions required for the TPS designation.
Consistent with INA section 244(b)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(A), after consulting with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, the Secretary reviewed country conditions in Nicaragua and considered whether Nicaragua no longer continues to meet the conditions for designation, including whether there is “substantial, but temporary, disruption in living conditions in the area affected” by the environmental disaster and whether Nicaragua continues to be “unable, temporarily, to handle adequately the return” of its nationals, INA 244(b)(1)(B), 1254a(b)(1)(B).
Based on the Department's review, the Secretary has determined the conditions supporting Nicaragua's January 5, 1999 designation for TPS on the basis of environmental disaster due to Hurricane Mitch are no longer met. While Hurricane Mitch was a sudden catastrophe that caused severe flooding and associated damage
Since the original 1999 TPS designation, Nicaragua has seen improvements in its infrastructure with projects focusing on road construction, school infrastructure, and health access. Nicaragua has successfully completed projects on roads (U.S. $131.8 million), education (U.S. $69 million), and land administration (U.S. $50 million).
Nicaragua has become a worldwide tourist destination, while also promoting sustainability and revitalizing local communities.
Additionally, Nicaragua has been regularly accepting the return of its nationals with final removal orders over the last five years.
DHS estimates that there are approximately 4,000 nationals of Nicaragua (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Nicaragua) who hold TPS under Nicaragua's designation.
The TPS statute provides that the termination of a country's TPS designation may not be effective earlier than 60 days after the FRN is published or, if later, the expiration of the most recent previous extension.
Although the statute authorizes the Secretary, at her discretionary option, to allow for an extended “orderly transition” period with respect to the expiration of any TPS-related documentation, such as EADs, the Secretary has determined a 60-day transition period is sufficient. A sixty-day orderly period of transition is consistent with the precedent of previous TPS country terminations and makes clear that the United States is committed to clarity and consistency.
However, DHS recognizes that Nicaragua TPS beneficiaries continue to be employment authorized during the 60-day transition period.
The Secretary has considered putative reliance interests in the Nicaragua TPS designation, especially when considering whether to allow for an additional transition period similar to that allowed under certain previous TPS terminations. Temporary Protected Status, as the name itself makes clear, is an inherently temporary status. TPS designations are time-limited and must be periodically reviewed.
By the authority vested in me as Secretary under INA section 244(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3), I have reviewed, in consultation with the appropriate U.S. Government agencies, conditions in Nicaragua, in particular (a) whether there continues to be a substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions in the area affected resulting from the environmental disaster; and (b) whether Nicaragua continues to be “unable, temporarily, to handle adequately the return of its nationals. Based on my review, I have determined that Nicaragua no longer continues to meet the conditions for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) under INA section 244(b)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(B).
Accordingly, I order as follows:
(1) Pursuant to INA section 244(b)(3)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(B), and considering INA section 244(d)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(d)(3), the designation of Nicaragua for TPS is terminated effective at 11:59 p.m., local time, on September 8, 2025.
(2) Information concerning the termination of TPS for nationals of Nicaragua (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Nicaragua) will be available at local USCIS office upon publication of this notice and through the USCIS Contact Center at 1-800-375-5283. This information will be published on the USCIS website at
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notice.
Through this notice, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announces that the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) is terminating the designation of Honduras for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The designation of Honduras is set to expire on July 5, 2025. After reviewing country conditions and consulting with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, the Secretary has determined that conditions in Honduras no longer support its designation for TPS. The Secretary, therefore, is terminating the TPS designation of Honduras as required by statute. This termination is effective September 8, 2025. After September 8, 2025, nationals of Honduras (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Honduras) who have been granted TPS under Honduras' designation will no longer have TPS.
The designation of Honduras for TPS is terminated effective at 11:59 p.m., local time, on September 8, 2025.
Humanitarian Affairs Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, (240) 721-3000.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation with appropriate agencies of the U.S. Government, to designate a foreign state (or part thereof) for TPS if the Secretary determines that certain country conditions exist.
At least 60 days before the expiration of a foreign state's TPS designation or extension, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, must review the conditions in the foreign state designated for TPS to determine whether they continue to meet the conditions required for the TPS designation.
TPS is a temporary immigration benefit granted to eligible nationals of a country designated for TPS under the INA, or to eligible aliens without nationality who last habitually resided in the designated country. During the TPS designation period, TPS beneficiaries are eligible to remain in the United States, may not be removed, and are authorized to work and obtain an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) so long as they continue to meet the requirements of TPS. TPS beneficiaries may also apply for and be granted travel authorization as a matter of discretion. The granting of TPS does not result in or lead to lawful permanent resident status or any other immigration status. To qualify for TPS, beneficiaries must meet the eligibility standards at INA section 244(c)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(2). When the Secretary terminates a country's TPS designation, beneficiaries return to the same immigration status or category that they maintained before TPS, if any (unless that status or category has since expired or been terminated), or any other lawfully obtained immigration status or category they received while registered for TPS, as long as it is still valid on the date TPS terminates.
Honduras was initially designated on January 5, 1999, on the basis of an environmental disaster that resulted in substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions, at the request of the Honduran government, and because Honduras was unable, temporarily, to handle adequately the return of its nationals.
In 2018, DHS announced the termination of TPS for Honduras
While litigation continued, DHS published three additional
Finally, on June 21, 2023, DHS published a FRN reconsidering and rescinding the prior administration's termination of Honduras TPS. The rescission was effective June 9, 2023, and the new 18-month extension of TPS for Honduras began on January 6, 2024, and will remain in effect through July 5, 2025.
At least 60 days before the expiration of a foreign state's TPS designation or extension, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, must review the conditions in the foreign state designated for TPS to determine whether the country continues to meet the conditions required for the TPS designation.
Consistent with INA section 244(b)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(A), after consulting with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, the Secretary reviewed country conditions in Honduras and considered whether the conditions for the designation of Honduras continue, including whether there is “substantial, but temporary, disruption in living conditions in the area affected” by the environmental disaster and whether Honduras continues to be “unable, temporarily, to handle adequately the return” of its nationals.
Based on her review and consultation with the Department of State, the Secretary has determined the conditions supporting Honduras' January 5, 1999 designation for TPS on the basis of environmental disaster due to Hurricane Mitch are no longer met. While Hurricane Mitch was a sudden catastrophe that caused severe flooding and associated damage,
Honduras has witnessed significant changes in the 26 years since Hurricane Mitch's destruction. Reports indicate that 95.7% of Hondurans have access to a basic water source, 83.8% can access basic sanitation, and 93.2% have access to electricity.
Further, new infrastructure projects are set to transform Honduras and create jobs. Foreign direct investment in Honduras has jumped to 1.8 billion USD in 2023, a notable rise from the previous year.
As evidence of Honduras' readiness to welcome back its nationals, in January 2025, the Honduran government enacted a plan called “Brother, Come Home,” an initiative to support Hondurans deported from the United States that reportedly includes providing monetary and food support, along with access to employment programs.”
Additionally, Honduras has been regularly accepting the return of its nationals with final removal orders over the last five years.
DHS estimates that there are approximately 72,000 nationals of Honduras (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Honduras) who hold TPS under Honduras' designation.
The TPS statute provides that the termination of a country's TPS designation may not be effective earlier than 60 days after the FRN is published or, if later, the expiration of the most recent previous extension.
Although the statute authorizes the Secretary, at her discretionary option, to allow for an extended “orderly transition” period with respect to the expiration of any TPS-related documentation, such as EADs, the Secretary has determined in her discretion that a 60-day transition period is sufficient. A sixty-day orderly period of transition is consistent with the precedent of previous TPS country terminations and makes clear that the United States is committed to clarity and consistency.
However, DHS recognizes that Honduran TPS beneficiaries continue to be employment authorized during the 60-day transition period.
The Secretary has considered putative reliance interests in the Honduras TPS designation, especially when considering whether to allow for an additional transition period similar to that allowed under certain previous TPS terminations. Temporary Protected Status, as the name itself makes clear, is an inherently temporary status. TPS designations are time-limited and must be periodically reviewed.
By the authority vested in me as Secretary under INA section 244(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3), I have reviewed, in consultation with the appropriate U.S. Government agencies, (a) conditions in Honduras, (b) whether there continues to be a substantial disruption of living conditions in the areas affected in Honduras; and (c) whether Honduras can handle adequately the return of its nationals. Based on my review, I have determined that Honduras no longer continues to meet the conditions for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) under INA section 244(b)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(B).
Accordingly, I order as follows:
(1) Pursuant to INA section 244(b)(3)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(B), and considering INA section 244(d)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(d)(3), the designation of Honduras for TPS is terminated effective at 11:59 p.m., local time, on September 8, 2025.
(2) Information concerning the termination of TPS for nationals of Honduras (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Honduras) will be available at local USCIS office upon publication of this notice and through the USCIS Contact Center at 1-800-375-5283. This information will be published on the USCIS website at
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Montana/Dakotas State Director intends to prepare a resource management plan (RMP) amendment with an associated environmental assessment (EA) for the Miles City Field Office. This notice announces the beginning of the scoping period to solicit public comments, identify issues, provide the planning criteria for public review, and solicit coal resource and development potential data.
To be considered, your comments concerning the scope of the analysis, potential alternatives, and identification of relevant information and studies must be received by August 7, 2025.
You may submit comments on issues, coal data, and planning criteria related to the Miles City Field Office RMP amendment and associated EA by any of the following methods:
•
•
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined online at
Irma Nansel, Planning and Environmental Coordinator, telephone: 406-233-3653; email:
The BLM Montana/Dakotas State Director intends to prepare an RMP amendment with an associated EA for the Miles City Field Office RMP. This notice announces the beginning of the scoping process and seeks public input on issues and planning criteria and on coal resource and development potential. The RMP amendment may change the existing Miles City Field Office RMP. The planning area is located in Carter, Custer, Daniels, Dawson, Fallon, Garfield, McCone, Powder River, Prairie, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sheridan, Treasure, Wibaux, and portions of Big Horn and Valley Counties, Montana, and encompasses approximately 2.7 million surface acres and 11.7 million acres of Federal coal mineral estate.
The purpose and need of this RMP amendment and EA is to evaluate coal allocations in the planning area and to determine the availability of lands acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing in accordance with Executive Order (“E.O.”) 14154, “Unleashing American Energy” (90 FR 8353, Jan. 29, 2025); E.O. 14156, “Declaring a National Energy Emergency” (90 FR 8433, Jan. 29, 2025); E.O. 14148, “Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions” (90 FR 8237, Jan. 28, 2025); and
The RMP amendment/EA will include two alternatives varying the amount of BLM-administered Federal coal authorized to be available for leasing. The preliminary alternatives are the coal allocation decisions from: (1) The 2024 approved RMP amendment/record of decision making zero acres of BLM-administered Federal coal within the planning area available for further consideration for coal leasing (No Action/current decision); and (2) the 2021 approved RMP amendment/record of decision making 1,214,380 acres of BLM-administered Federal coal within the planning area available for further consideration for coal leasing (Proposed Action). The BLM welcomes comments on all preliminary alternatives as well as suggestions for additional alternatives.
The planning criteria guide the planning effort and lay the groundwork for effects analysis by identifying the preliminary issues and their analytical frameworks. Preliminary issues for the planning area were consistent in the 2021 and 2024 RMP amendments and are being considered as preliminary issues for this RMP amendment/EA. The BLM requests that industry, State, Tribal, and local governments, and the public interested in coal management in the planning areas provide the BLM relevant coal resource data that can help inform this project. Specifically, the BLM requests information on the development potential (
We will use this information to complete the RMP amendment and EA consistent with 43 CFR 3420.1-4 and to formulate alternatives that identify areas acceptable for further leasing consideration. We are requesting these data to ensure that these planning efforts have sufficient information and data to consider a reasonable range of resource uses, management options, and alternatives for managing BLM-administered Federal coal mineral estate. Proprietary data marked as confidential may be submitted in response to this call for coal and other resource information. Please submit all proprietary information to the appropriate Field Manager listed in
This notice of intent initiates the scoping period, call for coal data, and public review of the planning criteria, which guide the development and analysis of the RMP amendment and EA.
The BLM does not intend to hold any public meetings, in-person or virtual, during the public scoping period. Should the BLM later determine to hold public meetings, the specific date(s) and location(s) of any meeting will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local media, newspapers, ePlanning, and the BLM website.
The BLM will use an interdisciplinary approach to develop the plan in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Specialists with expertise in the following disciplines will be involved in this planning effort: air resources, planning, rangeland management, minerals and geology, outdoor recreation, archaeology, paleontology, wildlife and fisheries, lands and realty, hydrology, soils, and economics.
The BLM will utilize and coordinate the NEPA and land use planning processes for this planning effort to help support compliance with applicable procedural requirements under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536) and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108). The information about historic and cultural resources and threatened and endangered species within the area potentially affected by the proposed plan will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources.
The BLM will consult with federally recognized Tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with E.O. 13175, BLM MS 1780, and other Departmental policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with federally recognized Tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed Miles City RMP amendment that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wyoming State Director intends to prepare a resource management plan (RMP) amendment with an associated environmental assessment (EA) for the Buffalo Field Office. This notice announces the beginning of the scoping period to solicit public comments, identify issues, provide the planning criteria for public review, and solicit coal resource and development potential data.
To be considered, your comments concerning the scope of the analysis, potential alternatives, and identification of relevant information and studies must be received by August 7, 2025.
You may submit comments on issues, coal data, and planning criteria related to the Buffalo Field Office RMP amendment and associated EA by any of the following methods:
•
•
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined online at
Thomas Bills, Planning and Environmental Coordinator, telephone: (307) 684-1133; email:
The BLM Wyoming State Director intends to prepare an RMP amendment with an associated EA for the Buffalo Field Office RMP. This notice announces the beginning of the scoping process and seeks public input on issues and planning criteria and on coal resource and development potential. The RMP amendment may change the existing Buffalo Field Office RMP. The planning area is located within Campbell County, Wyoming, and encompasses approximately 496,314 surface acres and 481,000 acres of Federal coal mineral estate.
The purpose and need of this RMP amendment and EA is to evaluate coal allocations in the planning area and to determine the availability of lands acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing in accordance with Executive Order (“E.O.”) 14154, “Unleashing American Energy” (90 FR 8353, Jan. 29, 2025); E.O. 14156, “Declaring a National Energy Emergency” (90 FR 8433, Jan. 29, 2025); E.O. 14148, “Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions” (90 FR 8237, Jan. 28, 2025); and Secretary's Order 3418, which implements E.O. 14154.
The RMP amendment/EA will include two alternatives varying the amount of BLM-administered Federal coal authorized to be available for leasing. The preliminary alternatives are the coal allocation decisions from: (1) The 2024 approved RMP amendment/record of decision making zero acres of BLM-administered Federal coal within the planning area available for further consideration for coal leasing (No Action/current decision); and (2) The 2019 approved RMP amendment/record of decision making 481,000 acres of BLM-administered Federal coal within the planning area available for further consideration of leasing (Proposed Action). The BLM welcomes comments on all preliminary alternatives as well as suggestions for additional alternatives.
The planning criteria guide the planning effort and lay the groundwork for effects analysis by identifying the preliminary issues and their analytical frameworks. Preliminary issues for the planning area were consistent in the 2019 and 2024 RMP amendments and are being considered as preliminary issues for this RMP amendment/EA. The BLM requests that industry, State, Tribal, and local governments, and the public interested in coal management in the planning areas provide the BLM relevant coal resource data that can help inform this project. Specifically, the BLM requests information on the development potential (
We will use this information to complete the RMP amendment and EA consistent with 43 CFR 3420.1-4 and to formulate alternatives that identify areas acceptable for further leasing consideration. We are requesting these data to ensure that these planning efforts have sufficient information and data to consider a reasonable range of resource uses, management options, and alternatives for managing BLM-administered Federal coal mineral estate. Proprietary data marked as confidential may be submitted in response to this call for coal and other resource information. Please submit all proprietary information to the appropriate Field Manager listed in
This notice of intent initiates the scoping period, call for coal data, and public review of the planning criteria, which guide the development and analysis of the RMP amendment and EA.
The BLM does not intend to hold any public meetings, in-person or virtual, during the public scoping period. Should the BLM later determine to hold public meetings, the specific date(s) and location(s) of any meeting will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local media, newspapers, ePlanning project page, and the BLM website.
The BLM will use an interdisciplinary approach to develop the plan in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Specialists with expertise in the following disciplines will be involved in this planning effort: air resources, planning, rangeland management, minerals and geology, outdoor recreation, archaeology, paleontology, wildlife and fisheries, lands and realty, hydrology, soils, and economics.
The BLM will utilize and coordinate the NEPA and land use planning processes for this planning effort to help support compliance with applicable procedural requirements under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536) and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3), including public involvement requirements of section 106. The information about historic and cultural resources and threatened and endangered species within the area potentially affected by the proposed plan will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources.
The BLM will consult with federally recognized Tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with E.O. 13175, BLM MS 1780, and other Departmental policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with federally recognized Tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed Buffalo RMP amendment that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Pantech Corporation on July 3, 2025. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain mobile cellular communications devices. The complaint names as respondents: OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. of China; OnePlus USA Corp. of Irving, TX; Lenovo Group Ltd. of China; Lenovo (United States) Inc. of Morrisville, NC; Motorola Mobility LLC of Libertyville, IL; TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. of China; TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. of Hong Kong; TCL Communication Ltd. of Hong Kong; TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. of China; TCL Mobile International Ltd. of Hong Kong; Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. of China; TCL Mobile Communication (HK) Company Ltd. of Hong Kong; Tinno USA, Inc. of Plano, TX; Shenzhen Tinno Mobile Technology Corp. of China; HMD Global of Finland; HMD Global OY of Finland; and HMD America, Inc. of Miami, FL. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, members of the public, and interested government agencies are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3835”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted this review on February 3, 2025 (90 FR 8812, February 3, 2025) and determined on May 9, 2025, that it would conduct an expedited review (90 FR 22113, May 23, 2025).
The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on July 3, 2025. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5645 (July 2025), entitled
By order of the Commission.
On January 22, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to William Washington, M.D., of Bellevue, Washington (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) A, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. FW5625213, alleging that Registrant is “currently without authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Washington, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.”
The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file a written request for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default.
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] 1316.67.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC, on November 26, 2024, the Washington Medical Commission permanently revoked Registrant's Washington medical license. RFAAX A, at 1. According to Washington online records, of which the Agency takes official notice,
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General may suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.”
With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
According to Washington statute, “[a] practitioner may dispense or deliver a controlled substance to or for an individual or animal only for medical treatment or authorized research in the ordinary course of that practitioner's profession.” Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.308(j) (2022). Further, a “prescription” means “an order for controlled substances issued by a practitioner duly authorized by law or rule in the state of Washington to prescribe controlled substances within the scope of his or her professional practice for a legitimate medical purpose.”
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant currently lacks authority to practice medicine in Washington. As already discussed, a physician must be a licensed practitioner to dispense or prescribe a controlled substance in Washington. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to practice medicine in Washington and, therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in Washington, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration in Washington. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. FW5625213 issued to William Washington, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of William Washington, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of William Washington, M.D., for additional registration in Washington. This Order is effective August 7, 2025.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on July 1, 2025, by Acting Administrator Robert J. Murphy. 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
On February 18, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Tanya Newlove, N.P., of Peoria, Illinois (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration (COR) No. MD3642077, alleging that Registrant is “currently without authority to . . . handle controlled substances in the State of Illinois, the state in which [she is] registered with DEA.”
The OSC notified Registrant of her right to file a written request for hearing, and that if she failed to file such a request, she would be deemed to have waived her right to a hearing and be in default.
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] 1316.67.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are deemed admitted. According to the OSC, Registrant's Illinois registered professional nurse license, advanced practice registered nurse license, and advanced practice nurse controlled substance license expired on June 30, 2024. RFAAX 1, at 2. According to Illinois online records, of which the Agency takes official notice,
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General may suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.”
With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
According to Illinois statute, “dispense” means “to deliver a controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or pursuant to the lawful order of a prescriber, including the prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery.” 720 ILCS 570/102(p) (West 2025). Further, a “practitioner” means an “advanced practice registered nurse, . . . registered nurse, . . . or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise lawfully permitted by . . . [Illinois] to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research.”
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant is not a currently licensed practitioner in Illinois. As discussed above, a nurse must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled substance in Illinois. Thus, because Registrant's nursing licenses are expired in Illinois and, therefore, she is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in Illinois, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration in Illinois. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. MD3642077 issued to Tanya Newlove, 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 any pending applications of Tanya Newlove, N.P., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Tanya Newlove, N.P., for additional registration in Illinois.
This Order is effective August 6, 2025.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on July 1, 2025, by Acting Administrator Robert J. Murphy. 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
On November 29, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Mark Agresti, M.D., of Palm Beach, Florida (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration No. BA2032441, alleging that Registrant has “been mandatorily excluded from Federal health care programs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(a).”
The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file a written request for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default.
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are deemed admitted. 21 CFR 1301.43(e). Accordingly, Registrant admits that in 2022, he was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, and 11 counts of health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349, 1347. RFAAX 2, at 2. As a result of Registrant's conviction,
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(5), the Attorney General may suspend or revoke a registration upon finding that the registrant “has been excluded (or directed to be excluded) from participation in a program pursuant to section 1320a-7(a) of Title 42.”
The OSC solely alleges that Registrant's registration should be revoked as a result of his mandatory exclusion “from participation in Medicare, Medicaid, and all Federal health care programs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(a).” RFAAX 2, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(5)). Above, the Agency found that HHS/OIG mandatorily excluded Registrant from participation in Medicare, Medicaid, and all Federal health care programs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(a), for a minimum of 47 years.
Where, as here, the Government has presented a
Here, Registrant failed to answer the allegations contained in the OSC, submit a corrective action plan, or otherwise avail himself of the opportunity to refute the Government's case. As such, Registrant has made no representations as to his future compliance with the CSA nor demonstrated that he can be entrusted with registration. Moreover, the evidence presented by the Government shows that Registrant was convicted of charges related to health care fraud, further indicating that Registrant cannot be entrusted with registration.
Accordingly, the Agency will order the revocation of Registrant's registration.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. BA2032441, issued to Mark Agresti, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Mark Agresti, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Mark Agresti, M.D., for additional registration in Florida. This Order is effective August 6, 2025.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on July 1, 2025, by Acting Administrator Robert J. Murphy. 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
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice.
60 Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Antitrust Division, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until September 8, 2025.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
If additional information is required contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, Washington, DC 20530.
U.S. Marshals Service, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until August 7, 2025.
The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as the obligation to respond:
The obligation to respond is voluntary.
5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:
6. An estimate of the total annual burden (in hours) associated with the collection:
a. USM-522A—Physician Evaluation Report for USMS Operational Employees
i. There are an estimated 139 annual total burden hours associated with this collection.
b. USM-522P—Physician Evaluation Report for USMS Operational Employees (Pregnancy Only)
i. There are an estimated 4 annual total burden hours associated with this collection.
c. USM-602—Contract Guard Physical Examination Report (superseding USM-600—Physical Requirements of USMS District Security Officers)
i. There are an estimated 667 annual total burden hours associated with this collection.
d. CSO-012—Request to Reevaluate Court Security Officer's Medical Qualification
i. There are an estimated 150 annual total burden hours associated with this collection.
e. SSO-012—Request to Reevaluate Special Security Officer's Medical Qualification
i. There are an estimated 14 annual total burden hours associated with this collection.
7. An estimate of the total annual cost burden associated with the collection, if applicable:
If additional information is required contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC.
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.
Notice of exemption.
This document provides notice of an individual exemption from certain prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The exemption permits Prudential Life Insurance Company of America (Prudential) to reinsure the Meta Platforms Inc. Health and Welfare Benefit Plan (Plan)'s group term life insurance benefits, accidental death and dismemberment benefits, survivor income benefits, supplemental employee term coverage, dependent term life insurance (spouse or domestic partner), dependent term life insurance (children) (the Reinsured Benefits), by entering into a reinsurance contract with Ekahi Insurance Company, LLC (Ekahi), an insurance company that is owned by Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta or the Applicant). This arrangement is hereinafter referred to as the “Reinsurance Arrangement.”
This final exemption will be in effect as of July 8, 2025.
Nicholas Schroth, Office of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, (202) 693-8571 (this is not a toll-free number).
Meta requested an exemption pursuant to ERISA section 408(a) in accordance with the Department's exemption procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B.
Based on the record and representations made by the Applicant, the Department has determined to grant the Proposed Exemption. This exemption provides only the relief specified herein and does not provide relief from violations of any law other than the prohibited transaction provisions of ERISA.
As discussed below, the Department makes the requisite findings under ERISA section 408(a) that the exemption is: (1) administratively feasible for the Department, (2) in the interest of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries, and (3) protective of the rights of the participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, based on the Applicant's adherence to all the conditions and definitions of the exemption at all times. Accordingly, affected parties should be aware that the inclusion of the conditions and definitions incorporated in this exemption was necessary for the Department to make its findings to grant the relief requested by the Applicant.
1. Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta) is a multinational technology company headquartered in Menlo Park, California. Meta sponsors the Plan.
2. Meta Platforms Inc. Health and Welfare Benefit Plan (Plan) provides the following health and welfare benefits to its employees and their beneficiaries: health, dental, vision, temporary disability insurance for accidents and sickness, prepaid legal services, long-term disability, death benefits, basic employee term life coverage, basic AD&D coverage, employee survivor benefits life coverage, supplemental employee term coverage, dependent term life insurance (spouse or domestic partner), and dependent term life insurance (children). As of December 31, 2023, the Plan covered 56,511 participants.
3. As of January 1, 2021, Prudential insured a subset of the Plan's group term life insurance benefits, basic accidental death and dismemberment benefits, survivor income benefits, supplemental employee term coverage, dependent term life insurance (spouse
4. Prudential Life Insurance Company of America (Prudential) will, at least initially, operate as the Plan's Fronting Insurer for the Plan's Reinsured Benefits. Prudential received an “A+” financial strength rating from A. M. Best Company (A. M. Best) as of February 4, 2025. Prudential is unrelated to Meta, and the conditions of the exemption require it to remain so throughout the duration of the Reinsurance Arrangement. The conditions for relief prescribe several requirements that any future Fronting Insurer must adhere to for the parties to continue to rely on the exemption.
5. Meta organized Honu Insurance Company, LLC (Honu) on December 1, 2020, as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Meta. Honu has authority to transact business as a pure captive insurance company, which means it only insures or reinsures risks of Meta and affiliated entities or of a controlled unaffiliated business.
6. Ekahi is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Meta. Presently, Ekahi reinsures employee benefits for Meta's international benefit plans, and Meta intends to expand its global benefits program by using Ekahi as its reinsurer for its domestic benefits as well. The Applicant states that, as a protected cell of a captive insurance company, Ekahi is a separate juridical entity (
7. Milliman, Inc. (the Independent Fiduciary or Milliman) will serve as the Plan's Independent Fiduciary with respect to the Reinsurance Arrangement and Kathleen E. Ely, FSA, MAAA, of Milliman will perform the functions required of the Independent Fiduciary on behalf of Milliman with respect to the requirements of this exemption.
8. For the duration of the Reinsurance Arrangement, the Independent Fiduciary must perform the following duties: (a) monitor, enforce and ensure compliance with all conditions of the exemption, including all conditions and obligations imposed on any party dealing with the Plan, throughout the period during which Ekahi's assets are directly or indirectly used in connection with a transaction covered by the exemption; (b) report any instance of non-compliance immediately to the Department's Office of Exemption Determinations; (c) monitor the transactions covered by the exemption on a continuing basis to ensure the transactions remain in the interest of the Plan; (d) take all appropriate actions to safeguard the interests of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries; (e) review all contracts pertaining to the Reinsurance Arrangement, and any renewals of such contracts, to determine whether the requirements of this exemption continue to be satisfied; and (f) determine that the Reinsurance Transaction is not detrimental to the interest of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries and take immediate corrective action if it is.
9. Additionally, Milliman must file annual certified reports with the Department, under penalty of perjury, confirming that the terms and conditions of the exemption have been met (including that Meta has not reduced or offset any participant benefits in relation to its implementation and maintenance of the Reinsurance Arrangement), and explaining Milliman's bases for that conclusion.
10. Meta intends to utilize Ekahi to reinsure the following Plan benefits: basic employee term life coverage, basic accidental death and dismemberment coverage, employee survivor benefits coverage, supplemental employee term coverage, dependent term life insurance (spouse or domestic partner), dependent term life insurance (children) (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Reinsured Benefits).
11. In general terms, the Plan will make premium payments with respect to certain insurance coverages to Prudential, known as the Fronting Insurer, and Prudential will make corresponding payments for those coverages to Ekahi, also known as the Captive Insurer, in an amount less than the premiums it is paid by the Plan. The amount Prudential retains from the Plan's premium payment is a negotiated fee between Prudential and Ekahi; while the amount Prudential pays to Ekahi is Ekahi's premium for reinsuring the Plan's risks. The reinsurance agreement between Prudential and Ekahi is “indemnity only,” which means that Prudential retains the responsibility to pay benefit claims to participants and beneficiaries if Ekahi does not satisfy any of its contractual obligations to Prudential under the Reinsurance Arrangement.
12. Administration of the claims under the Plan will be performed by Prudential as the direct insurer of the Plan. Ekahi will be bound by Prudential's claims handling decisions under the Plan and will not have direct contact with participants, make direct payments to participants, or have responsibility for their benefit determinations. Under the terms of the
13. Under the exemption, Meta must satisfy the exemption's “Primary Benefit Test.” This means the Plan must benefit from the Reinsurance Arrangement by an amount that exceeds 50% of the net financial benefit that Meta and its related parties receive from the Reinsurance Arrangement. Initially, with respect to the first year of the Reinsurance Arrangement, Ekahi expects to realize a net financial benefit increase of $5,775,000 from the Reinsurance Arrangement; and Meta will pay an estimated $3,854,000 to improve the Plan with the new benefit enhancements. If these estimates prove accurate, and if Meta does not receive any other direct or indirect benefit from the arrangement other than the net financial benefit increase of $5,775,000, the Primary Benefit Test will be met ($3,854,000/5,775,000 × 100 = 66.7%). This exemption allows for certain adjustments, described below, to ensure the Primary Benefits Test remains satisfied over time.
The Independent Fiduciary must diligently and proactively explore the scope of each prong of the Primary Benefits Test, to ensure the test has been properly met. For example, the amount that Meta pays in premiums for benefit enhancements may not accurately reflect (and may not, in some instances, overstate) the ultimate benefit the Plan receives from the Reinsurance Arrangement. Failure of the Independent Fiduciary to perform a prudent, robust review of all data relevant to the Primary Benefits Test may result in loss of the exemption.
14. The benefit enhancements are:
15. Removal of the age reduction clauses for the Plan's basic life insurance benefits, optional life insurance coverages and AD&D benefits at no additional cost. Additionally, under this enhancement, the insured will no longer incur reductions to the policy's insurance amount when they reach the ages of 65 and 70.
16. Increase in the percentage allowed for an accelerated insurance payout from 90 percent to 100 percent of the total amount of coverage up to $1,000,000 for the basic life insurance benefit. Additionally, if a participant is enrolled in the supplemental employee term coverage and the accelerated payment from the basic life insurance does not amount to at least $1,000,000, 100 percent of the supplemental employee term coverage will be accelerated until both the basic life insurance and the supplemental life insurance accumulate to $1,000,000.
17. New Plan portability option to participants under basic life insurance that will allow participants to retain coverage without regard to their medical conditions when they leave Meta's employment.
18. New Plan portability option to AD&D insurance benefits. The insurance will be issued without regard to participants' medical conditions but may be offered at higher rates.
19. New Plan benefit permitting qualifying disabled former employee participants to cease premium payments and continue AD&D death benefit coverage for one year. This enhancement may be renewed on an annual basis up to age 65 if the disabled individual is determined to continue to be Totally Disabled (as defined in the Plan).
20. New Plan-paid AD&D benefit of 52 sessions of bereavement and trauma counselling relating to AD&D claims up to $150 per session that are held within a year of the loss.
21. New Plan-paid AD&D benefit covering dependent children's tuition upon the death of a participant in an annual amount equal to the lesser of (1) the actual annual amount of the dependent child's tuition (exclusive of room and board); (2) 10 percent of the participant's AD&D death benefit;
22. New Plan-paid AD&D benefit covering childcare expenses for qualifying dependent children of a qualifying deceased participant in an annual amount equal to the lesser of: (1) the actual cost charged by the relevant Child Care Center
23. New Plan-paid AD&D benefit coverage for funeral expenses in an amount equal to the lesser of: (1) the actual amount of the Funeral Expenses; (2) 10 percent of the amount of the deceased participant's AD&D death benefit; or (3) $20,000.
24. New Plan-paid AD&D benefit coverage for monthly rehabilitation payments. The Plan will make a monthly payment equal to the lesser of (1) five percent of the amount of the participant's relevant AD&D benefit
25. New Plan-paid AD&D benefit covering a higher monthly mortgage payment of $2,000 per month. The benefit will be paid until the first of the following events occur: (1) the spouse or domestic partner dies; (2) the mortgage is paid in full; (3) the house subject to the mortgage is sold; or (4) the benefit has been paid for 12 consecutive months.
26. New Plan AD&D benefit increases the monthly survivor income benefit to an employee's spouse or domestic partner to 60 percent of the employee's monthly earnings for a monthly maximum of $15,000 if certain conditions are met.
27. New Plan benefits education program offering the following Life@Benefits concierge services for Plan benefits and well-being resources.
• EstateGuidance—estate planning concierge services.
• ComPsych—funeral concierge services.
• GuidanceResources—employee assistance program (EAP) services, financial information resources, legal resources, and online informational resources.
• International Medical Group Travel Assistance Services—travel support services,
28. The value of the Benefit Enhancements determined at the outset of the Reinsurance Arrangement is based on projections performed by an actuary on behalf of Meta. Therefore, the exemption requires the Independent Fiduciary to look back over successive five-year periods to determine whether the Primary Benefit Test has been met based on the actual value the Benefit Enhancements provided to the Plan participants during that period.
29. If the Independent Fiduciary finds that the Primary Benefit Test has not been met during a prior five-year period, Meta must immediately implement a prospective reduction to the participants' portion of the Plan premiums in an amount that is sufficient to make up for the shortfall.
30. Further, Meta is prohibited from reducing any benefits provided to Plan participants and beneficiaries in connection with its implementation of the Reinsurance Arrangement. Finally, if the Plan's total annual participant premiums for all Plan benefits are insufficient to make up the shortfall, Meta must make up the remaining shortfall by increasing the value of enhanced benefits to all participants in a monetary value equal to the remaining shortfall. These additional enhanced benefits must be valued by an actuary and approved in writing by the Independent Fiduciary.
31. In the Proposed Exemption, the Department invited all interested persons to submit written comments and/or requests for a public hearing. The Department received no comments or public hearing requests during the proposal's comment period from November 21, 2024, to January 21, 2025.
For the purposes of clarification and as an outgrowth of condition (a)(1), the Department added that the phrase “the benefits to the Plan and” to the last sentence of condition (a)(2) to clarify that the Independent Fiduciary has the option of reviewing each prong of the Primary Benefit Test with respect to years two through five of the arrangement. Further, the revisions to the Plan document and Summary Plan Description described in condition (r) must now include the
The Department made several minor, non-substantive revisions to the operative language of the Proposed Exemption that are intended to clarify the exemption and/or correct scrivener's errors.
32. The complete application file (L-12066) is available for public inspection in the Public Disclosure Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-1515, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210 reachable by telephone at (202) 693-8571. For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, please refer to the notice of proposed exemption published on November 21, 2024 (89 FR 92162).
33. In making its findings to grant this exemption, the Department relied on the Applicant's representations. If any material statement in the Application, proposed exemption, or final exemption, is or may no longer be completely and factually accurate, the Applicant and recipients of the exemptive relief provided herein must immediately alert the Department.
The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under ERISA section 408(a) does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest from certain other provisions of ERISA, including any prohibited transaction provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of ERISA section 404, which, among other things, require fiduciaries to discharge their duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in accordance with ERISA section 404(a)(1)(B);
(2) As required by ERISA section 408(a), the Department hereby finds that the exemption is (1) administratively feasible for the Department, (2) in the interests of affected plans and of their participants and beneficiaries, and (3) protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of such plans;
(3) The exemption is supplemental to, and not in derogation of, any other ERISA provisions, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transitional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of determining whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction; and
(4) The availability of this exemption is subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in the application accurately describe all material terms of the transactions that are the subject of the exemption and are true at all times.
Accordingly, after considering the entire record developed in connection with the Applicant's exemption application, the Department has determined to grant the following exemption under the authority of ERISA section 408(a) in accordance with the Department's exemption procedures regulation.
(a) An “affiliate” of Meta, Honu, or Ekahi includes: (1) Any person or entity who controls Meta, Honu, or Ekahi or is controlled by or under common control
(b) “Benefit Enhancements” means the following Plan benefit enhancements, unless adjusted consistent with the terms of the exemption:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i) The first Enhanced AD&D Benefit will add a portability enhancement to the Plan that will allow participants to pay for a new AD&D policy after their employment with Meta ends. The insurance will be issued without regard to participants' medical conditions but may be offered at higher rates.
(ii) The second Enhanced AD&D Benefit will add a new waiver of premium enhancement allowing qualified disabled former employees a waiver of premiums and a continuation of death benefit coverage for their AD&D coverage while such benefit is extended as a result of their total disability (as defined in the Plan).
(iii) The third Enhanced AD&D Benefit provides for bereavement and trauma counseling sessions after a participant experiences a qualifying loss. The benefit will pay 100% of the cost up to $150 per session for 52 counseling sessions that are held within a year of the loss.
(iv) The fourth Enhanced AD&D Benefit will pay a qualifying dependent's tuition upon the death of a participant. This enhancement will require the Plan to pay an annual amount equal to the lesser of (1) the actual annual amount of the dependent child's tuition (exclusive of room and board); (2) 10% of the participant's AD&D death benefit; or (3) $25,000. This benefit is payable annually for up to 4 consecutive years, but not beyond the date the child reaches age 26.
(v) The fifth Enhanced AD&D Benefit will pay the childcare expenses of a deceased participant. The Plan will pay an annual amount equal to the lesser of: (1) the actual cost charged by the relevant Child Care Center per year; (2) 10% of the deceased participant's AD&D death benefit; or (3) $24,000. The benefit is payable annually for a maximum of 4 consecutive years, but not beyond the date the child reaches age 13. If there is no dependent child eligible for this benefit, a benefit of $1,000 will be paid.
(vi) The sixth Enhanced AD&D Benefit will pay for qualifying deceased persons' funeral expenses in an amount equal to the lesser of: (1) the amount of the Funeral Expenses, (2) 10% of the amount of the deceased participant's AD&D death benefit, or (3) $20,000.
(vii) The seventh Enhanced AD&D Benefit will pay a monthly amount equal to the lesser of (1) five percent of the amount of the participant's relevant AD&D benefit and (2) $500 for rehabilitation expenses for a maximum of 12 consecutive months.
(viii) The eighth Enhanced AD&D Benefit will pay a $2,000 per month supplemental monthly mortgage payment to the spouse or domestic partner of a deceased participant's mortgage until the first of the following occurs: (1) the spouse or domestic partner dies; (2) the mortgage is paid in full; (3) the house subject to the mortgage is sold; or (4) the benefit has been paid for 12 consecutive months.
(5)
(6)
• Life@Benefits service through PartnerComm, Inc.;
• EstateGuidance Program;
• ComPsych Final Arrangements Service;
• GuidanceResources Program; and
• International Medical Group Travel Assistance Services (IMG Travel).
(c) The term “control” means the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a person other than an individual.
(d) “Ekahi” means Ekahi Insurance Company, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Meta certified by the State of Hawaii to operate as a captive insurance cell company sponsored by Honu.
(e) “Fronting Insurer” means Prudential or the successor third-party insurance company that insures certain of the Plan's risks, and then enters into a reinsurance agreement with Ekahi for such risks.
(f) “Honu” means Honu Insurance Company, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Meta certified by the State of Hawaii to transact business as a sponsor captive insurance company.
(g) “Independent Fiduciary” means Kathleen Ely, FSA, MAAA, a Consulting Actuary with Milliman of Windsor, Connecticut or a successor Independent Fiduciary that is appointed to represent the interests of the Plan with respect to the subject transaction, provided that such person:
(1) Is not Meta or an affiliate of Meta, Honu or Ekahi and does not hold an ownership interest in Meta, Honu, Ekahi or their affiliates;
(2) Was not a fiduciary with respect to the Plan before its appointment to serve as the Independent Fiduciary;
(3) Has acknowledged in writing that:
(i) It is a fiduciary and has agreed not to participate in any decision with respect to any transaction in which it has an interest that might affect its best judgment as a fiduciary; and
(ii) Has appropriate technical training or experience to perform the services contemplated by the exemption;
(4) For purposes of this definition, no organization or individual may serve as Independent Fiduciary for any fiscal year if the gross income received by such organization or individual from
(5) No organization or individual that is an Independent Fiduciary and no partnership or corporation of which such organization or individual is an officer, director or ten percent or more partner or shareholder may acquire any property from, sell any property to, or borrow any funds from Meta, Honu, or Ekahi, or their affiliates while the individual serves as an Independent Fiduciary. This prohibition must continue for a period of six months after either (1) the party ceases to be an Independent Fiduciary or (2) the Independent Fiduciary negotiates on behalf of the Plan during the period that such organization or the individual serves as an Independent Fiduciary; and
(6) In the event a successor Independent Fiduciary is appointed to represent the interests of the Plan with respect to the subject transaction, no time should elapse between the resignation or termination of the former Independent Fiduciary and the appointment of the successor Independent Fiduciary.
(h) “Meta” means Meta Platforms, Inc.
(i) “Plan” means the Meta Platforms Inc. Health and Welfare Benefit Plan.
(j) “Prudential” means the Prudential Life Insurance Company of America.
The exemption will provide relief from the prohibited transactions provisions of ERISA sections 406(a)(1)(D), and 406(b)(1) and (b)(3), with respect to: (1) the reinsurance of risks; and (2) the receipt of premiums, by Ekahi, in connection with insurance contracts sold by Prudential (or any successor Fronting Insurer) to provide basic life insurance benefits, AD&D benefits, and survivor income benefits to Plan participants and beneficiaries (the “Reinsurance Arrangement”). In order to receive such relief, the conditions in Section III must be met in conformance with the definitions set forth in Section I.
(a) Meta must improve the Plan with Benefit Enhancements that are funded solely by Meta in accordance with (1) through (5) below:
(1) For every dollar of net financial benefits that the Reinsurance Arrangement is expected to generate, the Plan, its participants and beneficiaries must receive at least 51 cents on the dollar and, Ekahi and related parties must not receive more than 49 cents (the Primary Benefit Test);
(2) The Independent Fiduciary must determine whether the Primary Benefit Test has been met with respect to each successive five-year period covered by the exemption. The Independent Fiduciary must report its determinations as part of the Independent Fiduciary's next annual report. For purposes of the initial five-year period, the Independent Fiduciary may test only the benefits to the Plan and the costs and benefits that inure to Meta and/or parties directly or indirectly related to Meta during years two through five of the initial five-year period;
(3)(A) If the Primary Benefit Test has not been met with respect to a five-year period, Meta must reduce the participants' portion of the Plan's premium in the next consecutive year by an amount that is at least equal to the amount by which the prior five-year Primary Benefit Test was not met, plus an additional payment of interest on the shortfall at the Code's federal underpayment rate set forth in Code section 6621(b) (such amount, as increased by interest, is referred to as the “Shortfall”). The reduction in participants' premiums must be allocated equally across all Plan participant contributions toward premiums for Plan benefits (
(B) If the Plan's total annual participant premiums for all Plan benefits are less than the Shortfall in the year following the aforementioned five-year period, Meta must eliminate all annual participant contribution premiums toward all Plan benefits to cover as much of the Shortfall as possible. Meta must then make up the remaining Shortfall by increasing the value of enhanced benefits to all participants in a monetary value equal to the remaining Shortfall. These additional enhanced benefits must be valued by an actuary and approved in writing by the Independent Fiduciary;
(4) If the Reinsurance Arrangement is terminated, the Independent Fiduciary must determine whether the Primary Benefit Test was met during the period of time between (A) the end of the last five-year period for which a Primary Benefit Test determination was made by the Independent Fiduciary, or if no Primary Benefit Test determination has yet been made, the beginning of the Reinsurance Arrangement, and (B) the termination date of the Reinsurance Arrangement (the Final Term). If the Primary Benefit Test was not met during the Final Term, Meta must address the Shortfall in accordance with Section III(a)(3)(A) and (B) above. Relief in the exemption does not extend to prohibited transactions described in the exemption that occur during the Final Term unless the requirements in Section III(a)(1) through (3) have been met with respect to such Final Term. Furthermore, the Independent Fiduciary must ensure Meta's obligations under Section III(a)(3)(A) and (B) were properly implemented to address the Shortfall, notwithstanding that the Reinsurance Arrangement has already been terminated; and
(5) If the Shortfall is not corrected pursuant to the terms of this exemption, then this exemption's relief will lapse as of the first day of the five-year period to which the Shortfall relates.
(b) The Plan must pay no commissions with respect to its purchase of insurance contracts to provide the benefits that are reinsured under the exemption, or with respect to the reinsurance of such contracts;
(c) In each year of coverage provided by a Fronting Insurer, the formulae used by the Fronting Insurer to calculate premiums will be similar to formulae used by other insurers providing comparable life insurance coverage under similar programs. Furthermore, the premium charges calculated in accordance with the formulae will be reasonable and comparable to the premiums charged by the Fronting Insurer and its competitors with the same or a better financial strength rating providing the same coverage under comparable programs that are not captive reinsured;
(d) No amount of Ekahi's reserves that are attributable to premiums paid for Plan benefits may be transferred to Meta or a related party;
(e) Ekahi, the captive reinsurer, must:
(1) Be a party in interest with respect to the Plan based on its affiliation with Meta that is described in ERISA section 3(14)(G);
(2) Be licensed to sell insurance or conduct reinsurance operations, or be a cell corporation that is legally allowed
(3) Have obtained a Certificate of Authority from the state of Hawaii authorizing Ekahi to transact the business of a captive insurance company in Hawaii or legally rely on a sponsoring captive insurance company's valid Certificate of Authority from the state of Hawaii authorizing Ekahi to transact the business of a captive insurance company in Hawaii. Such certificate must not have been revoked or suspended;
(4)(A) Undergo and pass a financial examination (within the meaning of the law of its domiciliary state, Hawaii) by the Insurance Division of Hawaii within five years of the year in which the reinsurance transaction occurred; and
(B) Have undergone, and continue to undergo, an examination by an independent certified public accountant for its last completed taxable year immediately before the taxable year of the Reinsurance Arrangement covered by the exemption; and
(5) Be licensed to conduct reinsurance transactions or legally rely on a sponsoring captive insurance company's license to conduct reinsurance transactions by a state whose law requires that an actuarial review of reserves be conducted annually by an independent firm of actuaries and reported to the appropriate regulatory authority;
(f) The Plan retained and will continue to retain an independent, qualified fiduciary or successor to such fiduciary, as defined in Section I(d), (the Independent Fiduciary) to analyze the transactions covered by the exemption, and render an opinion that the requirements of the exemption have been satisfied;
(g) The Independent Fiduciary must:
(1) In compliance with the fiduciary obligations of prudence and loyalty under ERISA Sections 404(a)(1)(A) and (B), review the terms of the exemption, engage in a prudent and loyal analysis of the covered transactions, and verify that based on its review of all relevant documents and evidence, it has concluded that all of the exemption's terms and conditions have been met (or, due to timing requirements, can reasonably be expected to be met consistent with the terms of this proposed exemption). This conclusion must be documented in a written report submitted to the Department's Office of Exemption Determinations at least 30 days before the Plan engages in a transaction covered by the exemption. The report must include copies of each document relied on by the Independent Fiduciary and discuss the bases for its conclusion;
(2) Monitor, enforce and ensure compliance with all conditions of the exemption including all conditions and obligations imposed on any party dealing with the Plan, throughout the period during which Ekahi's assets are directly or indirectly used in connection with a transaction covered by the exemption;
(3) Report any instance of non-compliance immediately to the Department's Office of Exemption Determinations;
(4) Monitor the transactions described in the exemption on a continuing basis, to ensure the transactions remain in the interest of the Plan;
(5) Take all appropriate actions to safeguard the interests of the Plan, its participants and beneficiaries;
(6) Review all contracts pertaining to the Reinsurance Arrangement, and any renewals of such contracts, to determine whether the requirements of this proposed exemption and the terms of Benefit Enhancements continue to be satisfied;
(7) Determine that the Reinsurance Arrangement is in no way detrimental to the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries;
(8) Provide an annual report to the Department, under penalty of perjury, certifying that each term and condition of the exemption is satisfied and setting forth the bases for the certification. Each report must be completed within six months after the end of the twelve-month period to which it relates (the first twelve-month period begins on the first day of the implementation of the Reinsurance Arrangement covered by the exemption) and submitted to the Department within 60 days thereafter. The relevant report must include the objective data necessary to demonstrate that the Primary Benefit Test has been met; and
(9) Confirm in its annual report (and describe the steps taken to confirm) that Meta has not reduced or offset any participant benefits in relation to its implementation and maintenance of the Reinsurance Arrangement as required by paragraph (k) below;
(h) The Independent Fiduciary must not (1) enter into any agreement or instrument that violates ERISA section 410 or section 2509.75-4 of the Department's regulations, or (2) enter into any agreement, arrangement, or understanding that includes any provision that provides for the direct, or indirect, indemnification or reimbursement of the Independent Fiduciary by the Plan or other party for any failure to adhere to its contractual obligations or to state or Federal laws applicable to the Independent Fiduciary's work, or waives any rights, claims, or remedies of the Plan under ERISA, state, or Federal law against the Independent Fiduciary with respect to the transaction(s) that are the subject of the exemption;
(i) Neither Meta nor any affiliate may use participant-related data or information generated by, or derived from, the Reinsurance Arrangement in a manner that benefits Meta or any affiliated entity;
(j) All the facts and representations set forth in the Summary of Facts and Representation must be true and accurate at all times;
(k) Meta will not offset or reduce any benefits provided to Plan participants and beneficiaries in connection with its implementation of the Reinsurance Arrangement in order to defray the costs, expenses, or obligations of complying with the exemption conditions;
(l) The Plan will only contract with a Fronting Insurer that is unrelated to Meta or any of its affiliates, and that has a financial strength rating of “A” or better from A.M. Best. For purposes of this provision, the term “unrelated” means that the Fronting Insurer is not owned or controlled by Meta or any of its affiliates in whole or in part;
(m) The Plan pays no more than adequate consideration with respect to insurance that is part of the Reinsurance Arrangement covered by the proposed exemption;
(n) In the event a successor Independent Fiduciary is appointed to represent the interests of the Plan with respect to the subject transaction, no time shall elapse between the resignation or termination of the former Independent Fiduciary and the appointment of the successor Independent Fiduciary;
(o) All expenses associated with the exemption and the exemption application, including any payment to the Independent Fiduciary, must be paid solely by Meta and not the Plan;
(p) Meta may adjust the Benefit Enhancements to the Plan at any time if such adjustment is approved in advance by the Independent Fiduciary after the Independent Fiduciary first determines that each adjusted Benefit Enhancement is in the interest of the Plan's participants and beneficiaries and available to them on an equal basis. The cost incurred by Meta to fund the Benefit Enhancement may be used to determine whether the Primary Benefit Test has been met but may not be considered to address a Shortfall if the
(q) The Reinsurance Arrangement between Ekahi and Prudential or any successor Fronting Insurer must be indemnity insurance only. The arrangement must not relieve a Fronting Insurer from any responsibility or liability to the Plan, including liability that would result if Ekahi fails to meet any of its contractual obligations to Prudential or any successor Fronting Insurer under the Reinsurance Arrangement. Further, the executed reinsurance contract between the Fronting Insurer and Ekahi will expressly state (by rider, addendum, amendment, etc.) that, in the event that Ekahi is insolvent, unable or unwilling to pay any claims, or otherwise prevented from paying any claims, the Fronting Insurer remains solely obligated to pay any claim properly incurred by the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries;
(r) The Plan document and Summary Plan Description (SPD) will be revised within 90 days after the final exemption is published in the
(s) If the Reinsurance Arrangement is terminated, the Plan Administrator will revise and update the SPD accordingly. The Plan Administrator will then distribute the updated SPD to all Plan participants within six months after the termination of the Reinsurance Arrangement.
(t) Meta, and its affiliates, must maintain all the records necessary to demonstrate the conditions of the exemption have been met with respect to all the prohibited transactions described in this exemption for a period of six years from the date of any prohibited transaction for which the exemption provides relief. Meta must provide these records to the Department within 30 days after the date the Department requests these records.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of Intent to Grant exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive patent license.
NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive patent license to practice the inventions described and claimed in the patents and/or patent applications listed in
The prospective exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive license may be granted unless NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument, no later than July 23, 2025 that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements regarding the licensing of federally owned inventions as set forth in the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations. Competing applications completed and received by NASA no later than July 23, 2025 will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive license. Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act.
NASA intends to grant an exclusive, co-exclusive, or partially exclusive patent license in the United States to practice the inventions described and claimed in: U.S. Patent Application No. 17/999,875 entitled “Human-Powered Ventilator” to Kinnor Technologies LLC having its principal place of business in Orange Beach, Alabama. The fields of use may be limited. NASA has not yet made a final determination to grant the requested license and may deny the requested license even if no objections are submitted within the comment period.
This notice of intent to grant an exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive patent license is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective license will comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of Intent to Grant exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive patent license.
NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive patent license to practice the inventions described and claimed in the patents and/or patent applications listed in
The prospective exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive license may be granted unless NASA receives
Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act.
NASA intends to grant an exclusive, co-exclusive, or partially exclusive patent license in the United States to practice the inventions described and claimed in: U.S. Patent No. 12,209,980 B2 for an invention titled “Adsorbate Analysis Using Optically Stimulated Electron Emission,” to Analytical Mechanics Associates having its principal place of business in 21 Enterprise Parkway, Hampton, VA 23666. The fields of use may be limited. NASA has not yet made a final determination to grant the requested license and may deny the requested license even if no objections are submitted within the comment period.
This notice of intent to grant an exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive patent license is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective license will comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Monthly notice.
Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular monthly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration (NSHC), notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
Comments must be filed by August 7, 2025. A request for a hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed by September 8, 2025. This monthly notice includes all amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from May 23, 2025, to June 18, 2025. The last monthly notice was published on June 10, 2025.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website.
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Kathleen Entz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2464; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC 2025-0214, facility name, unit number(s), docket number(s), application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
For the facility-specific amendment requests shown in this notice, the Commission finds that the licensees' analyses provided, consistent with section 50.91 of title 10 of
The Commission is seeking public comments on these proposed determinations. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determinations.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendments until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue any of these license amendments before the expiration of the 60-day period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves NSHC. In addition, the Commission may issue any of these amendments prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action on any of these amendments prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by any of these actions may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to that action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. If a petition is filed, the Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained, absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii).
If a hearing is requested and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards considerations, which will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h) no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
For information about filing a petition and about participation by a person, not a party, under 10 CFR 2.315, see ADAMS Accession No. ML20340A053 (
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including documents filed by an interested State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof that requests to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases, to mail copies on electronic storage media, unless an exemption permitting an alternative filing method, as further discussed, is granted. Detailed guidance on electronic submissions is located in the “Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC” (ADAMS Accession No. ML13031A056) and on the NRC's public website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b)-(d). Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving their documents on all other participants. Participants granted an exemption under 10 CFR 2.302(g)(2) must still meet the electronic formatting requirement in 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1), unless the participant also seeks and is granted an exemption from 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is publicly available at
The following table provides the plant name, docket number, date of application, ADAMS accession number, and location in the application of the licensees' proposed NSHC determinations. For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the applications for amendment, which are available for public inspection in ADAMS. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
During the period since publication of the last monthly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed NSHC determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, were published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated in the safety evaluation for the amendment.
For further details with respect to each action, see the amendment and associated documents such as the Commission's letter and safety evaluation, which may be obtained using the ADAMS accession numbers indicated in the following table. The safety evaluation will provide the ADAMS accession numbers for the application for amendment and the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
None. See Section II for public proceedings.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is providing notice that the Complainants and the Postal Service have jointly moved to stay the instant proceedings pending final decision of a United States Court of Appeals case. This document grants the joint motion.
Documents can be accessed electronically through the Commission's website at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On June 26, 2025, Copper Beech Townhome Communities Twenty One, LLC and Copper Beach Townhome Communities Thirty Six, LLC (Complainants) and the Postal Service jointly moved to stay the current proceedings pending the final decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in
For the reasons given by the parties in their joint motion, the Commission will stay the proceedings pending the final decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the
1. The Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings, filed June 26, 2025, is granted.
2. The Commission shall stay Docket No. C2025-7 pending the final decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in
3. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order, or abstract thereof, in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
None. See Section II for public proceedings.
This Notice will be published in the
On December 26, 2024, 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 issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Under Section 15C(a)(1)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) and regulations adopted by the Department of the Treasury, certain financial institutions that are government securities brokers or government securities dealers submit information regarding their government securities activities to their appropriate regulatory authority (“ARA”) on the Form G-FIN, 17 CFR 499.1, Form G-FINW, 17 CFR 449.2, Form G-FIN-4, 17 CFR 449.3, and Form G-FIN-5, 17 CFR 449.4. The Commission is designated as the ARA for certain of these financial institutions.
The information collections in the forms are mandatory and, if any financial institutions are required to file the forms with the Commission, the Commission would use the information to ensure that financial institutions and persons who are or are seeking to be associated persons of financial institutions are in compliance with Section 15C(a)(1)(B) of the Act and with the rules of the Department of the Treasury. As a placeholder, the Commission staff estimates that there would be one respondent per year for each form, and that the estimated annual burden for filing the Form G-FIN is 1.25 hours, the Form G-FINW is .5 hours, the Form G-FIN-4 is 2.25 hours, and the Form G-FIN-5 is 1.25 hours. Information filed on Form G-FIN and Form G-FINW is available to the public, while the information provided by each respondent on Form G-FIN-4 and G-FIN-5 is regarded as confidential.
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.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the SEC, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the SEC's estimate of the burden imposed by the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated, electronic collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
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.
Star Mountain Lower Middle-Market Capital Corp., and Star Mountain Fund Management, LLC.
The application was filed on June 13, 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 July 28, 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:
Trace W. Rakestraw, Senior 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 June 13, 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 6897 (Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees) to establish fees for Industry Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On July 11, 2012, the Commission adopted Rule 613 of Regulation NMS, which required the self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) to submit a national market system (“NMS”) plan to create, implement and maintain a consolidated audit trail that would capture customer and order event information for orders in NMS securities across all markets, from the time of order inception through routing, cancellation, modification or execution.
The CAT Funding Model provides a framework for the recovery of the costs
Under the CAT Funding Model, Participants, CEBBs and CEBSs are subject to fees designed to cover the ongoing budgeted costs of the CAT, as determined by the Operating Committee. “The Operating Committee will establish fees (`CAT Fees') to be payable by Participants and Industry Members with regard to CAT costs not previously paid by the Participants (`Prospective CAT Costs').”
The CAT Fees to be paid by CEBBs and CEBSs are designed to contribute toward the recovery of two-thirds of the budgeted CAT costs for the relevant period.
CAT LLC proposes to charge CEBBs and CEBSs (as described in more detail below) CAT Fee 2025-2 to recover the reasonably budgeted CAT costs for the period from July 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025 in accordance with the CAT Funding Model. To implement this fee on behalf of CAT LLC, the CAT NMS Plan requires the Participants to “file with the SEC under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act any such fees on Industry Members that the Operating Committee approves, and such fees shall be labeled as `Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees.' ”
CAT Fee 2025-2 will be charged to each CEBB and CEBS for each applicable transaction in Eligible Securities.
(a) with respect to a transaction in an Eligible Security that is executed on an exchange, the Industry Member identified as the Industry Member responsible for the order on the buy-side of the transaction and the Industry Member responsible for the sell-side of the transaction in the equity order trade event and option trade event in the CAT Data submitted to the CAT by the relevant exchange pursuant to the Participant Technical Specifications; and (b) with respect to a transaction in an Eligible Security that is executed otherwise than on an exchange and required to be reported to an equity trade reporting facility of a registered national securities association, the Industry Member identified as the executing broker and the Industry Member identified as the contra-side executing broker in the TRF/ORF/ADF transaction data event in the CAT Data submitted to the CAT by FINRA pursuant to the Participant Technical Specifications; provided, however, in those circumstances where there is a non-Industry Member identified as the contra-side executing broker in the TRF/ORF/ADF transaction data event or no contra-side executing broker is identified in the TRF/ORF/ADF transaction data event, then the Industry Member identified as the executing broker in the TRF/ORF/ADF transaction data event would be treated as CAT Executing Broker for the Buyer and for the Seller.
Fields Nos. 26 and 28 of the Participant Technical Specifications, listed below, indicate the CAT Executing Brokers for transactions executed otherwise than on an exchange.
The Operating Committee determined the Fee Rate to be used in calculating CAT Fee 2025-2 (“Fee Rate 2025-2”) by dividing the reasonably budgeted CAT costs (“Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2”) for the period from July 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025 (“CAT Fee 2025-2 Period”) by the reasonably projected total executed share volume of all transactions in Eligible Securities for the six-month recovery period, as discussed in detail below.
CAT LLC proposes to implement CAT Fee 2025-2 as the third CAT Fee related to Prospective CAT Costs. CAT LLC proposes to commence CAT Fee 2025-2 during the year, rather than at the beginning of the year. Accordingly, CAT Fee 2025-2 “would be calculated as described in paragraph (II)” of Section 11.3(a)(i)(A) of the CAT NMS Plan,
Under the CAT NMS Plan, for purposes of calculating CAT Fees, executed equivalent shares in a transaction in Eligible Securities will be reasonably counted as follows: (1) each executed share for a transaction in NMS Stocks will be counted as one executed equivalent share; (2) each executed contract for a transaction in Listed Options will be counted based on the multiplier applicable to the specific Listed Options (
The CAT NMS Plan states that “[t]he budgeted CAT costs for the year shall be comprised of all reasonable fees, costs and expenses reasonably budgeted to be incurred by or for the Company in connection with the development, implementation and operation of the CAT as set forth in the annual operating budget approved by the Operating Committee pursuant to Section 11.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan, or as adjusted during the year by the Operating Committee.”
[w]ithout limiting the foregoing, the reasonably budgeted CAT costs shall include technology (including cloud hosting services, operating fees, CAIS operating fees, change request fees and capitalized developed technology costs), legal, consulting, insurance, professional and administration, and public relations costs, a reserve and such other cost categories as reasonably determined by the Operating Committee to be included in the budget.
In accordance with the requirements under the CAT NMS Plan, the Operating Committee approved an annual budget for 2025 for CAT LLC (“Original 2025 CAT Budget”) in November 2024.
The following describes in detail the Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2 for CAT Fee 2025-2. The following cost details are provided in accordance with the requirement in the CAT NMS Plan to provide in the fee filing the following:
The following table breaks down the Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2 into the categories set forth in Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan.
To the extent that CAT LLC enters into notes with Participants or others to pay costs incurred during the period in which CAT Fee 2025-2 is in effect, CAT LLC will use the proceeds from CAT Fee 2025-2 and the related Participant CAT fees to repay such notes.
The following table compares the annual budgeted CAT costs as set forth in the updated annual CAT budget for 2024 approved by the Operating Committee in July 2024 (“Updated 2024 CAT Budget”),
In addition, the following table compares the first quarter of the Original 2025 CAT Budget with the first quarter of the Updated 2025 CAT Budget. The Updated 2025 CAT Budget includes actual costs for January, February and March 2025, whereas the Original 2025 CAT Budget included budgeted costs for these three months. The variance from the first quarter of the Original 2025 CAT Budget to the actuals for the first quarter of 2025 (as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget) in the last column of the following chart are used in this filing in supporting the reasonableness of the estimates for each category of costs.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B)(1) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to provide a brief description of the cloud hosting services costs set forth in the budget. The Operating Committee approved an operating budget for the CAT pursuant to Section 11.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan that included $82,222,276 in technology costs for cloud hosting services for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period. The technology costs for cloud hosting services represent costs reasonably budgeted to be incurred for services provided by the cloud services provider for the CAT, Amazon Web Services, Inc. (“AWS”) during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period.
In the agreement between CAT LLC and the Plan Processor for the CAT (“Plan Processor Agreement”), FINRA CAT, LLC (“FCAT”), AWS was named as the subcontractor to provide cloud hosting services. Under the Plan Processor Agreement, CAT LLC is required to pay FCAT the fees incurred by the Plan Processor for cloud hosting services provided by AWS as FCAT's subcontractor on a monthly basis for the cloud hosting services, and FCAT, in turn, pays such fees to AWS. The fees for cloud hosting services were negotiated by FCAT on an arm's length basis with the goals of managing costs and receiving services required to comply with the CAT NMS Plan and Rule 613, taking into consideration a variety of factors, including the expected volume of data, the breadth of services provided and market rates for similar services. Services provided by AWS include storage services, databases, compute services and other services (such as networking, management tools and DevOps tools), as well as various environments for CAT, such as development, performance testing, test, and production environments. FCAT utilizes such cloud hosting services for a broad array of services for the CAT, such as data ingestion, data management, and analytic tools for the CAT. AWS performs cloud hosting services for both the CAT transaction database as well as the CAT Customer and Account Information System (“CAIS”). It is anticipated that such cloud hosting services will continue during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period.
The cost for AWS cloud services for the CAT is a function of the volume of CAT Data, largely as a result of the processing and storage of the CAT Data.
CAT LLC estimates that the budget for cloud hosting services costs during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period will be approximately $82,222,276. The budget for cloud hosting services costs during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is calculated based on the Updated 2025 CAT Budget. Specifically, this estimate was calculated by adding the budgeted amounts for cloud hosting services costs for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget.
CAT LLC estimated the budget for the cost for cloud hosting services for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period based on an assumption of 40% annual year-over-year volume growth for the transaction database and an assumption of 5% annual year-over-year volume growth for CAIS. CAT LLC determined these growth assumptions in coordination with FCAT based on an analysis of a variety of existing data and alternative growth scenarios. In particular, in determining to use the 40% annual year-over-year volume growth in events per day, CAT LLC considered, among other things, the average annual year-over-year volume growth for 2019 through 2024 of approximately 45%, the average annual year-over-year volume growth for 2020 through 2024 of approximately 30%, and the average monthly growth rate for 2024 of approximately 50%.
This process for estimating the budget for cloud hosting services costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is the same process by which CAT LLC estimated the cloud hosting services costs for the Original 2025 CAT Budget. The Original 2025 CAT Budget estimated a budget for cloud hosting services of $39,640,542 for the first quarter of 2025. The actual costs for cloud hosting services for the first quarter of 2025, which are set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget, were $36,357,017. Therefore, the variance between budgeted and actual cloud hosting services costs for this period was an approximate decrease of 8%. Accordingly, CAT LLC believes that the process for estimating the budgeted cloud hosting services costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is reasonable.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to describe the reason for changes in the line item for cloud hosting services costs from the prior CAT Fee filing. Accordingly, this filing describes the changes in the cloud hosting services costs from the Original 2025 CAT Budget, which was used in the calculation of the prior Prospective CAT Fee, CAT Fee 2025-1.
The annual 2025 budgeted costs for cloud hosting services as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $182,594,630, and the annual 2025 budgeted costs for cloud hosting services as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget are $159,230,937. Accordingly, budgeted annual costs for cloud hosting services decreased by
Correspondingly, the budgeted costs for cloud hosting services for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $97,748,713,
The decrease in costs for cloud hosting services from the Original 2025 CAT Budget to the Updated 2025 CAT Budget, both for the full year for 2025 and for the third and fourth quarters of 2025, reflects (1) a decrease in costs related to changes made pursuant to the Cost Savings Amendment; (2) cost decreases related to optimizations resulting in reduced processing and storage costs; and (3) volume increases below the initial projection.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B)(1) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to provide a brief description of the operating fees set forth in the budget. The Operating Committee approved an operating budget for the CAT pursuant to Section 11.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan that included $15,453,942 in technology costs for operating fees for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period. Operating fees are those fees paid by CAT LLC to FCAT as the Plan Processor to operate and maintain the CAT and to perform business operations related to the system, including compliance, security, testing, training, communications with the industry (
• Provide the CAT-related functions and services as the Plan Processor as required by SEC Rule 613 and the CAT NMS Plan in connection with the operation and maintenance of the CAT;
• Address compliance items, including drafting CAT policies and procedures, and addressing Regulation SCI requirements;
• Provide support to the Operating Committee, the Compliance Subcommittee and CAT working groups;
• Assist with interpretive efforts, exemptive requests and amendments regarding the CAT NMS Plan;
• Oversee the security of the CAT;
• Monitor the operation of the CAT, including with regard to Participant and Industry Member reporting;
• Provide support to subcontractors under the Plan Processor Agreement;
• Provide support in discussions with the Participants and the SEC and its staff;
• Operate the FINRA CAT Helpdesk;
• Facilitate communications with the industry, including via FAQs, CAT Alerts, meetings, presentations and webinars;
• Administer the CAT website and all of its content;
• Maintain cyber security insurance related to the CAT;
• Assist with billing, collection and other CAT fee-related activity; and
• Provide technical support and assistance with connectivity, data access, and user support, including the use of CAT Data and query tools, for Participants and the SEC staff.
CAT LLC calculated the budget for the FCAT technology costs for operating fees for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period based on the recurring monthly operating fees under the Plan Processor Agreement.
As discussed above, CAT LLC estimated the budget for the operating fees during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period based on monthly rates set forth in the Plan Processor Agreement and the agreement with Algoseek. CAT LLC also recognized that the operating fees are generally consistent throughout the year. This process for estimating the budget for the operating fees for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is the same process by which CAT LLC estimated the operating fees for the Original 2025 CAT Budget. The Original 2025 CAT Budget estimated a budget for operating fees of $7,662,270 for the first quarter of 2025.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to describe the reason for changes in the line item for operating fees from the prior CAT Fee filing. Accordingly, this filing describes the changes from the operating fees set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget, which was used in the calculation of the prior Prospective CAT Fee, CAT Fee
The annual 2025 budgeted costs for operating fees as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $30,831,330,
Correspondingly, the budgeted costs for operating fees for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $15,446,040,
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B)(1) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to provide a brief description of the CAIS operating fees set forth in the budget. The Operating Committee approved an operating budget for the CAT pursuant to Section 11.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan that included $10,374,924 in technology costs for CAIS operating fees for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period. CAIS operating fees represent the fees paid to FCAT for services provided with regard to the operation and maintenance of CAIS, and to perform the business operations related to the system, including compliance, security, testing, training, communications with the industry (
During the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period, it is anticipated that FCAT will provide CAIS-related services. Under the Plan Processor Agreement with FCAT, CAT LLC is required to pay FCAT for CAIS-related services provided by FCAT on a monthly basis. CAT LLC negotiated the fees for FCAT's CAIS-related services on an arm's length basis with the goals of managing costs and receiving services required to comply with the CAT NMS Plan, taking into consideration a variety of factors, including the services to be provided and market rates for similar types of activity. During the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period, it is anticipated that FCAT will continue to provide services relating to the ongoing operation, maintenance and support of CAIS.
CAT LLC estimates that the budget for CAIS operating fees during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period will be approximately $10,374,924. The budget for CAIS operating fees during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is calculated based on the Updated 2025 CAT Budget. Specifically, this estimate was calculated by adding the budgeted amounts for CAIS operating fees for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget.
CAT LLC calculated the budget for FCAT's CAIS-related services for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period based on the recurring monthly CAIS operating fees under the Plan Processor Agreement. This process for estimating the budget for the CAIS operating fees for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is the same process by which CAT LLC estimated the CAIS operating fees for the Original 2025 CAT Budget. The Original 2025 CAT Budget estimated a budget of $5,187,462 for CAIS operating fees for the first quarter of 2025. The actual costs for CAIS operating fees for the first quarter of 2025, which are set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget, were $5,187,462. There was no variance between budgeted and actual CAIS operating fees for the first quarter of 2025. Accordingly, CAT LLC believes that the process for estimating the budgeted CAIS operating fees for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is reasonable.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to describe the reason for changes in the line item for CAIS operating fees from the prior CAT Fee filing. Accordingly, this filing describes the changes in CAIS operating fees from the Original 2025 CAT Budget, which was used in the calculation of the prior Prospective CAT Fee, CAT Fee 2025-1.
CAIS operating fees are based on a recurring monthly rate payable to FCAT and are unchanged from the prior CAT Fee filing. The annual 2025 budgeted costs for CAIS operating fees as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $20,749,848, and the annual 2025 budgeted costs for CAIS operating fees as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget are $20,749,848. Accordingly, the budgeted annual costs for CAIS operating fees are the same for both the Original 2025 CAT Budget and the Updated 2025 CAT Budget.
Correspondingly, the budgeted costs for CAIS operating fees for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $10,374,924, and the budgeted costs for CAIS operating fees for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget are $10,374,924.
Accordingly, there were no changes in the line item for CAIS operating fees from the prior CAT Fee filing.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B)(1) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to provide a brief description of the change request fees set forth in the budget. The Operating Committee approved an operating
Change requests are standard practice and necessary to reflect operational changes, including changes related to new market developments, such as new market participants. In general, if CAT LLC determines that a modification, upgrade or other changes to the functionality or service is necessary and appropriate, CAT LLC will submit a request for such a change to the Plan Processor. The Plan Processor will then respond to the request with a proposal for implementing the change, including the cost (if any) of such a change. CAT LLC then determines whether to approve the proposed change.
The change request budget line is established to include expected costs to be incurred in which the nature of the costs (
During the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period, it is anticipated that CAT LLC will engage FCAT to pursue certain change requests in accordance with the Plan Processor Agreement. The budget for change requests for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period includes a placeholder of $500,000 for potential change request fees that may be necessary in accordance with the Plan Processor Agreement. The placeholder amount was determined based on prior experience with change requests related to the CAT.
CAT LLC estimates that the budget for change requests during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period will be approximately $500,000. The budget for change requests during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is calculated based on the Updated 2025 CAT Budget. Specifically, this estimate was calculated by adding the budgeted amounts for the change requests for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget.
CAT LLC estimated the budget for the potential change requests for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period based on, among other things, a review of past change requests and potential future change request needs, as well as discussions with FCAT. This process for estimating the budget for the change requests for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is the same process by which CAT LLC estimated the change requests cost for the Original 2025 CAT Budget. The Original 2025 CAT Budget estimated a change request budget of $0 for the first quarter of 2025. The actual costs for change requests for the first quarter of 2025, which are set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget, were $0. There was no variance between budgeted and actual change request costs for the first quarter of 2025. Accordingly, CAT LLC believes that the process for estimating the budgeted change request costs for 2025 is reasonable.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to describe the reason for changes in the line item for change request fees from the prior CAT Fee filing. Accordingly, this filing describes the changes in the change request fees from the Original 2025 CAT Budget, which was used in the calculation of the prior Prospective CAT Fee, CAT Fee 2025-1.
The annual 2025 budgeted costs for change requests as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $750,000, and the annual 2025 budgeted costs for change requests as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget are $750,000. Accordingly, budgeted annual costs for change requests are the same for both the Original 2025 CAT Budget and the Updated 2025 CAT Budget.
Correspondingly, the budgeted costs for change requests for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $500,000, and the budgeted costs for change request for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget are $500,000.
Accordingly, there were no changes in the line item for change requests from the prior CAT Fee filing.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B)(1) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to provide a brief description of the capitalized developed technology costs set forth in the budget. The Operating Committee approved an operating budget for the CAT pursuant to Section 11.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan that includes $0 in technology costs for capitalized developed technology costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period. This category of costs includes the budget for capitalizable application development costs incurred in the development of the CAT. It is anticipated that such costs will include certain costs related to the software license fee for CAIS in accordance with the Plan Processor Agreement with FCAT, as well as costs related to a set of technology changes to be implemented by FCAT.
CAT LLC estimates that the budget for capitalized developed technology costs during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period will be approximately $0. The budget for capitalized developed technology costs during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is calculated based on the Updated 2025 CAT Budget. Specifically, this estimate was calculated by adding the budgeted amounts for capitalized developed technology costs for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget.
CAT LLC estimated the budget for capitalized developed technology costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period based on an analysis of a variety of factors, including information related to potential technology costs and related contractual and Plan requirements, and discussions with FCAT regarding such potential technology costs. This process for estimating the budget for capitalized developed technology costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is the same process by which CAT LLC estimated the capitalized developed technology costs for the Original 2025 CAT Budget. The Original 2025 CAT Budget estimated a budget for capitalized developed technology costs of $3,923,360 for the first quarter of 2025.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to describe the reason for changes in the line item for capitalized developed technology costs from the prior CAT Fee filing. Accordingly, this filing describes the changes in the capitalized developed technology costs from the Original 2025 CAT Budget, which was used in the calculation of the prior Prospective CAT Fee, CAT Fee 2025-1.
The annual 2025 budget for capitalized developed technology costs as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $3,923,360,
In addition, the budget for capitalized developed technology costs for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget was $0,
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B)(2) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to provide a brief description of the legal costs set forth in the budget. The Operating Committee approved an operating budget for the CAT pursuant to Section 11.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan that includes $3,631,342 in legal costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period. This category of costs represents budgeted costs for legal services for this period. CAT LLC anticipates that it will receive legal services from two law firms, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (“WilmerHale”) and Jenner & Block LLP (“Jenner”), during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period.
During the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period, it is anticipated that WilmerHale will provide legal services related to the following:
• Assist with CAT fee filings and related funding issues;
• Draft exemptive requests from CAT NMS Plan requirements and/or proposed amendments to the CAT NMS Plan;
• Provide legal guidance with respect to interpretations of CAT NMS Plan requirements;
• Provide legal support for the Operating Committee, Compliance Subcommittee, working groups and Leadership Team;
• Draft SRO rule filings related to the CAT Compliance Rule;
• Manage corporate governance matters, including supporting Operating Committee meetings and preparing resolutions and consents;
• Assist with communications with the industry, including CAT Alerts and presentations;
• Provide guidance regarding the confidentiality of CAT Data;
• Assist with cost management analyses and proposals;
• Assist with commercial contract-related matters, including change orders and amendments, Plan Processor Agreement items, and subcontract matters;
• Provide support with regard to discussions with the SEC and its staff, including with respect to addressing interpretive and implementation issues;
• Provide legal guidance with respect to the CAT budgets;
• Provide background assistance to other counsel for CAT matters;
• Assist with legal responses related to third-party data requests; and
• Provide legal support regarding CAT policies and procedures.
CAT LLC estimated the budget for the legal costs for WilmerHale for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period through an analysis of a variety of factors, including WilmerHale fee rates, historical legal fees, and information related to pending legal issues and potential future legal issues.
During the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period, it is anticipated that Jenner will continue to provide legal assistance to CAT LLC regarding certain litigation matters, including: (1) CAT LLC's defense against a lawsuit filed in the Western District of Texas against the SEC Chair, the SEC and CAT LLC challenging the validity of Rule 613 and the CAT and alleging various constitutional,
CAT LLC estimated the budget for the legal costs for Jenner for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period through an analysis of a variety of factors, including Jenner's fee rates, historical legal fees, and information related to pending legal issues and potential future legal issues.
CAT LLC estimated the budget for the legal services for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period based on an analysis of a variety of factors, including law firm fee rates, historical legal fees, and information related to pending legal issues and potential future legal issues. This process for estimating the budget for the legal services for CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is the same process by which CAT LLC estimated the legal cost for the Original 2025 CAT Budget. The Original 2025 CAT Budget estimated a budget for legal costs of $1,430,000 for the first quarter of 2025. The actual costs for legal services for the first quarter of 2025, which are set forth in the Updated 2025 Budget, were $1,922,990. The increase of $492,990 was due to unanticipated issues that required additional legal efforts on behalf of CAT LLC that developed after the budget was created. Such additional costs were primarily due to additional legal work in responding to an SEC examination related to the CAT, for commercial contract-related matters, including with regard to the Plan Processor Agreement, and related to cost savings initiatives. Accordingly, CAT LLC believes that the process for estimating the budgeted legal costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is reasonable.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to describe the reason for changes in the line item for legal costs from the prior CAT Fee filing. Accordingly, this filing describes the changes in the legal costs from the Original 2025 CAT Budget, which was used in the calculation of the prior Prospective CAT Fee, CAT Fee 2025-1.
The annual 2025 budgeted legal costs as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $5,720,000, and the annual 2025 budgeted legal costs as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget are $7,370,002. Accordingly, the annual budget for legal costs increased by $1,650,002 from the Original 2025 CAT Budget to the Updated 2025 CAT Budget for the full year of 2025.
Correspondingly, the budgeted legal costs for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $2,860,000,
This budgeted increase in the legal costs in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget from the Original 2025 Budget, both for the full year for 2025 and for the third and fourth quarters of 2025, was primarily due to an anticipated increase in legal costs related to litigation matters as well as regulatory and corporate legal matters.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B)(3) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to provide a brief description of the consulting costs set forth in the budget. The Operating Committee approved an operating budget for the CAT pursuant to Section 11.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan that included $866,167 in consulting costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period. The consulting costs represent the fees estimated to be paid to the consulting firm Deloitte & Touche LLP (“Deloitte”) as project manager during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period. These consulting costs include costs for advisory services related to the operation of the CAT, and meeting facilitation and communications coordination, vendor support and financial analyses.
It is anticipated that the costs for CAT during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period will include costs related to consulting services performed by Deloitte. CAT LLC anticipates that it will continue to employ Deloitte during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period based on, among other things, their expertise, long history with the project, and the recognition that it is anticipated that the consulting fees will remain in line with market rates for this type of specialized consulting work. Deloitte's fee rates are negotiated on an annual basis. CAT LLC assesses Deloitte's performance and reviews prospective budgets and staffing plans submitted by Deloitte on an annual basis. The consulting fees will be paid by CAT LLC to Deloitte.
It is anticipated that Deloitte will provide a variety of consulting services to the CAT during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period, including the following:
• Implement program operations for the CAT project;
• Provide support to the Operating Committee, the Chair of the Operating Committee and the Leadership Team, including project management support, coordination and planning for meetings and communications, and interfacing with law firms and the SEC;
• Assist with cost and funding matters for the CAT, including assistance with loans and the CAT bank account for CAT funding;
• Provide support for updating the SEC on the progress of the development of the CAT; and
• Provide support for third party vendors for the CAT, including FCAT,
In addition, the consulting costs include the compensation for the Chair of the CAT Operating Committee.
CAT LLC estimates that the budget for consulting costs during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period will be approximately $866,167. The budget for consulting costs during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is calculated based on the Updated 2025 CAT Budget. Specifically, this estimate was calculated by adding the budgeted amounts for consulting services for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget.
CAT LLC estimates the budget for the consulting costs for Deloitte for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period based on the current statement of work with Deloitte, which took into consideration past consulting costs, potential future consulting needs, the proposed rates and other contractual issues, as well as discussions with Deloitte. This process for estimating the budget for consulting costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is the same process by which CAT LLC estimated the consulting costs for the Original 2025 CAT Budget. The Original 2025 CAT Budget estimated a budget for consulting services of $437,500 for the first quarter of 2025. The actual costs for consulting services for the first quarter of 2025, which are set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget, were $450,745. Therefore, the variance between budgeted and actual consulting costs for the first quarter of 2025 was approximately 3%. Accordingly, CAT LLC believes that the process for estimating the budgeted consulting costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is reasonable.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to describe the reason for changes in the line item for consulting costs from the prior CAT Fee filing. Accordingly, this filing describes the changes in the consulting costs from the Original 2025 CAT Budget, which was used in the calculation of the prior Prospective CAT Fee, CAT Fee 2025-1.
The annual 2025 budget for consulting costs as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget was $1,750,000, and the annual 2025 budget for consulting costs as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget is approximately $1,750,000. Accordingly, the annual budget for consulting costs has not changed from the Original 2025 CAT Budget to the Updated 2025 CAT Budget for the full year of 2025.
Correspondingly, the budget for consulting costs for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget was $875,000,
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B)(4) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to provide a brief description of the insurance costs set forth in the budget. The Operating Committee approved an operating budget for the CAT pursuant to Section 11.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan that included $1,594,452 in insurance costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period. The insurance costs represent the costs to be incurred for insurance for CAT during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period.
It is anticipated that the insurance costs for CAT during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period will include costs related to cyber security liability insurance, directors' and officers' liability insurance, and errors and omissions liability insurance brokered by USI Insurance Services LLC (“USI”). Such policies are standard for corporate entities, and cyber security liability insurance is important for the CAT System. CAT LLC anticipates that it will continue to maintain this insurance during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period, and notes that the annual premiums for these policies were competitive for the coverage provided. CAT LLC estimated the budget for the insurance costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period based on the insurance estimate from USI for 2025. The annual premiums would be paid by CAT LLC to USI.
The budgeted insurance costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period are based on an insurance cost estimate from USI for 2025. Accordingly, CAT LLC believes that the process for estimating the budgeted insurance costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is reasonable.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to describe the reason for changes in the line item for insurance costs from the prior CAT Fee filing. Accordingly, this filing describes the changes in the insurance costs from the Original 2025 CAT Budget, which was used in the calculation of the prior Prospective CAT Fee, CAT Fee 2025-1.
The annual 2025 budgeted insurance costs as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $1,594,452, and the annual 2025 budgeted insurance costs as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget are $1,594,452. Accordingly, the annual budgeted insurance costs remained the same for the Original 2025 CAT Budget and the Updated 2025 CAT Budget for the full year of 2025.
Correspondingly, the budgeted insurance costs for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $1,594,452,
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B)(5) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to provide a brief description of the professional and administration costs set forth in the budget. The Operating Committee approved an operating budget for the CAT pursuant to Section 11.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan that included $609,818 in professional and administration costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period. In adopting the CAT NMS Plan, the Commission amended the Plan to add a requirement that CAT LLC's financial statements be prepared in compliance with GAAP, audited by an independent public accounting firm, and made publicly available.
It is anticipated that Anchin will provide a variety of services to the CAT during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period, including the following:
• Update and maintain internal controls;
• Provide cash management and treasury functions;
• Facilitate bill payments to vendors;
• Facilitate repayments of promissory notes to Participants;
• Provide monthly bookkeeping;
• Review vendor invoices and documentation in support of cash disbursements;
• Review documentation to ensure that repayments of promissory notes to Participants are in accordance with established policies and procedures;
• Provide accounting research and consultations on various accounting, financial reporting and tax matters;
• Address not-for-profit tax and accounting considerations;
• Prepare tax returns;
• Address various accounting, financial reporting and operating inquiries from Participants;
• Develop and maintain annual operating and financial budgets, including budget to actual fluctuation analyses;
• Support compliance with the CAT NMS Plan;
• Work with and provide support to the Operating Committee and various CAT working groups;
• Prepare monthly, quarterly and annual financial statements;
• Review and reconcile the monthly FINRA CAT reports/analyses related to billings, collections, outstanding accounts receivable and cash account;
• Perform certain verification, completeness, and validation testing related to the monthly FINRA CAT reports/analyses related to billings;
• Support the annual financial statement audits by an independent auditor;
• Review historical costs from inception;
• Provide accounting and financial information in support of SEC filings; and
• Perform additional ad hoc accounting and financial advisory services, as requested by CAT LLC.
CAT LLC estimated the annual budget for the costs for Anchin based on historical costs adjusted for cost of living rate increases, and projected incremental advisory and support services.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to describe the reason for changes in the line item for professional and administration costs from the prior CAT Fee filing. Accordingly, this filing describes the changes in the professional and
The annual 2025 budgeted professional and administration costs as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $882,456, and the annual 2025 budgeted professional and administration costs as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget are $1,193,090. Accordingly, the budgeted annual costs for professional and administration services increased by $310,634 from the Original 2025 CAT Budget to the Updated 2025 CAT Budget for the full year of 2025.
Correspondingly, the budgeted costs for professional and administration services for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $444,246,
This budgeted increase in the professional and administration costs in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget from the Original 2025 Budget, both for the full year for 2025 and for the third and fourth quarters of 2025, was primarily due to increases in both financial advisory costs and accounting costs as a result of additional anticipated efforts related to billings and collections of fees from Participants and Industry Members, coupled with expected incremental efforts related to supporting CAT LLC's independent auditors for the 2024 audit.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B)(6) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to provide a brief description of the public relations costs set forth in the budget. The Operating Committee approved an operating budget for the CAT pursuant to Section 11.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan that included $0 in public relations costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period. The public relations costs represent the fees paid to a public relations firm for professional communications services to CAT, including media relations consulting, strategy and execution. Because CAT LLC anticipates that it will not engage a public relations firm for the third and fourth quarters of 2025, the budget for public relations costs for this period is $0.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to describe the reason for changes in the line item for public relations costs from the prior CAT Fee filing. Accordingly, this filing describes the changes in the public relations costs from the Updated 2025 CAT Budget, which was used in the calculation of the prior Prospective CAT Fee, CAT Fee 2025-1.
The annual budgeted public relations costs for 2025 as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $50,000, and the annual budgeted public relations costs for 2025 as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget are $6,575. Accordingly, the annual budget for public relations cost for 2025 decreased by $43,425 from the Original 2025 CAT Budget to the Updated 2025 CAT Budget for the full year of 2025.
Correspondingly, the budgeted costs for public relations services for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $25,000,
This budgeted decrease in the public relations costs from the Original 2025 CAT Budget to the Updated 2025 CAT Budget, both for the full year for 2025 and for the third and fourth quarters of 2025, was primarily due to CAT LLC's anticipation that it would not engage a public relations firm for the remainder of 2025.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to provide a brief description of the reserve costs set forth in the budget. The Operating Committee approved an operating budget for the CAT pursuant to Section 11.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan that includes a reserve amount for 2025. Section 11.1(a)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan states that the budget shall include a reserve. Section 11.1(a)(ii) of the CAT NMS Plan further describes the reserve as follows:
For the reserve referenced in paragraph (a)(i) of this Section, the budget will include an amount reasonably necessary to allow the Company to maintain a reserve of not more than 25% of the annual budget. To the extent collected CAT fees exceed CAT costs, including the reserve of 25% of the annual budget, such surplus shall be used to offset future fees. For the avoidance of doubt, the Company will only include an amount for the reserve in the annual budget if the Company does not have a sufficient reserve (which shall be up to but not more than 25% of the annual budget). For the avoidance of doubt, the calculation of the amount of the reserve would exclude the amount of the reserve from the budget.
CAT LLC determined to maintain a reserve in the amount of 25% of the total expenses set forth in Updated 2025 CAT Budget (which does not include the reserve amount). Accordingly, the total 25% reserve was calculated by multiplying the total expenses set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget (other than the reserve) by 25%, which is $57,083,638.
The Updated 2025 CAT Budget states that CAT LLC had accrued $70,942,596 for the reserve as of the beginning of 2025, and an additional $28,846,075 during the first quarter of 2025, from the collection of CAT Fees 2024-1 and 2025-1 and the related Participant CAT Fees. In addition, the Updated 2025 CAT Budget anticipates the collection of an additional $11,821,477 during the second quarter of 2025 via CAT Fee 2025-1 and the related Participant CAT
Such surplus was related, in part, to (i) the collection of CAT fees in excess of the budgeted CAT costs for 2024 and 2025 in light of the greater actual executed equivalent share volume than the projected executed equivalent share volume for CAT Fees 2024-1 and 2025-1, and (ii) a reduction in anticipated budgeted costs associated with the implementation of certain cost savings measures approved by the SEC pertaining to the processing of options market maker quotes and the storage of certain data.
As set forth in the Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2, the surplus reserve balance of $54,526,412 would be used to offset a portion of CAT costs for the third and fourth quarters of 2025, thereby reducing the fee rate to be paid for CAT Fee 2025-2. Specifically, the total costs used to calculate the fee rate for CAT Fee 2025-2 would be reduced by the amount of the surplus reserve as set forth in the following table:
Accordingly, the fee rate for CAT Fee 2025-2 is calculated based on this reduced amount of $60,726,412, resulting in a fee rate of $0.000009 per executed equivalent share. If the fee rate for CAT Fee 2025-2 were calculated solely based on the reasonably budgeted costs for CAT for July-December 2025 excluding the reduction in that amount due to the surplus reserve offset (that is, based on $115,252,921, not $60,726,412), the fee rate would be the higher rate of $0.000017.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to describe the reason for changes in the line item for a reserve from the prior CAT Fee filing. Accordingly, this filing describes the changes in the reserve from the Original 2025 CAT Budget, which was used in the calculation of the prior Prospective CAT Fee, CAT Fee 2025-1.
For the Original 2025 CAT Budget, CAT LLC determined to maintain a reserve in the amount of 25% of budgeted CAT costs (other than the reserve). Accordingly, the total 25% reserve was calculated by multiplying the budgeted CAT costs (other than the reserve) as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget (which is $248,846,076) by 25%, for a target reserve amount of $62,211,519. However, the Original 2025 CAT Budget recognized that a portion of the reserve—$38,369,315—would have been previously collected, and therefore would not need to be included the budgeted CAT costs to be recovered by the CAT Fees. Specifically, the Original 2025 CAT Budget recognized that there was (i) a liquidity reserve balance of $27,695,385 at the beginning of 2025, (ii) a favorable variance of $10,084,698 for budgeted versus actual cloud hosting services costs covering the period from July 16, 2024 through September 30, 2024, and (iii) a Participation Fee from a new Participant in the CAT NMS Plan of $589,232. These three items totaled $38,369,315. Accordingly, the Original 2025 CAT Budget only included $23,842,200 to be collected towards the reserve via the CAT Fee. This $23,842,200 is calculated by reducing the total 25% reserve amount of $62,211,519 by the $38,369,315 previously collected for the reserve. In the Original 2025 CAT Budget, the budget anticipated collecting the remaining reserve amount of $23,842,200 evenly throughout the year, that is, $5,960,500 for each quarter.
As discussed above, CAT LLC determined to maintain a reserve in the amount of 25% of the budgeted CAT costs (other than the reserve). Accordingly, the total 25% reserve was calculated by multiplying the budgeted CAT costs (other than the reserve) as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget (which is $228,334,551) by 25%, for a target reserve amount of $57,083,638.
As discussed above, such surplus reserve balance of $54,526,412 would be used to offset a portion of CAT costs for the third and fourth quarters of 2025, thereby reducing the fee rate for CAT Fee 2025-2 in accordance with Section 11.1(a)(ii) of the CAT NMS Plan. Section 11.1(a)(ii) of the CAT NMS Plan states that “[t]o the extent collected CAT fees exceed CAT costs, including the reserve of 25% of the annual budget, such surplus shall be used to offset future fees.”
The calculation of Fee Rate 2025-2 also requires the determination of the projected total executed equivalent share volume of transactions in Eligible Securities for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period. Under the CAT NMS Plan, the Operating Committee is required to “reasonably determine the projected total executed equivalent share volume of all transactions in Eligible Securities for each relevant period based on the executed equivalent share volume of all transactions in Eligible Securities for the prior twelve months.”
The total executed equivalent share volume of transactions in Eligible Securities for the 12-month period from April 2024 through March 2025 was 4,580,287,680,646.28 executed equivalent shares. The Operating Committee has determined to calculate the projected total executed equivalent share volume for the six-month recovery period for CAT Fee 2025-2 by multiplying by one-half the executed equivalent share volume for the 12-month period from April 2024 through March 2025. The Operating Committee determined that such an approach was reasonable as the CAT's annual executed equivalent share volume has remained relatively constant. For example, the executed equivalent share volume for 2021 was 3,963,697,612,395, the executed equivalent share volume for 2022 was 4,039,821,841,560.31, the executed equivalent share volume for 2023 was 3,868,940,345,680.6, and the executed equivalent share volume for 2024 was 4,295,884,600,069.41. Accordingly, the projected total executed equivalent share volume for the six-month period for CAT Fee 2025-2 is projected to be 2,290,143,840,323.14 executed equivalent shares.
The projected total executed equivalent share volume of all transactions in Eligible Securities for the six-month recovery period for CAT Fee 2025-2 and a description of the calculation of the projection is provided in this filing in accordance with the requirement in the CAT NMS Plan to provide such information in a fee filing for a CAT Fee.
Fee Rate 2025-2 would be calculated by dividing the Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2 by the reasonably projected total executed equivalent share volume of all transactions in Eligible Securities for the six-month recovery period for CAT Fee 2025-2, as described in detail above.
CEBBs and CEBSs would be required to pay fees for CAT Fee 2025-2 on a monthly basis for six months, from August 2025 until January 2026. A CEBB's or CEBS's fee for each month would be calculated based on the transactions in Eligible Securities executed by the CEBB or CEBS from the prior month.
To implement CAT Fee 2025-2, FINRA proposes to add a new paragraph to FINRA Rule 6897 (Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees), to include the proposed paragraphs described below.
The CAT NMS Plan states that:
Each Industry Member that is the CAT Executing Broker for the buyer in a transaction in Eligible Securities (“CAT Executing Broker for the Buyer” or “CEBB”) and each Industry Member that is the CAT Executing Broker for the seller in a transaction in Eligible Securities (“CAT Executing Broker for the Seller” or “CEBS”) will be required to pay a CAT Fee for each such transaction in Eligible Securities in the prior month based on CAT Data. The CEBB's CAT Fee or CEBS's CAT Fee (as applicable) for each transaction in Eligible Securities will be calculated by multiplying the number of executed equivalent shares in the transaction by one-third and by the Fee Rate reasonably determined pursuant to paragraph (a)(i) of this Section 11.3.
Accordingly, based on the factors discussed above, FINRA proposes to add paragraph (a)(1)(E) to FINRA Rule 6897, which would state that:
(i) Each CAT Executing Broker shall receive its first invoice for CAT Fee 2025-2 in August 2025, which shall set forth the CAT Fee 2025-2 fees calculated based on transactions in July 2025, and shall receive an invoice for CAT Fee 2025-2 for each month thereafter until January 2026.
(ii) Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC shall provide each CAT Executing Broker with an invoice for CAT Fee 2025-2 on a monthly basis. Each month, such invoices shall set forth a fee for each transaction in Eligible Securities executed by the CAT Executing Broker in its capacity as a CAT Executing Broker for the Buyer (“CEBB”) and/or the CAT Executing Broker for the Seller (“CEBS”) (as applicable) from the prior
(iii) Notwithstanding the last invoice date of January 2026 for CAT Fee 2025-2 in paragraph (a)(1)(E)(i) of this Rule, CAT Fee 2025-2 shall continue in effect after January 2026, with each CAT Executing Broker receiving an invoice for CAT Fee 2025-2 each month, until a new subsequent CAT Fee is in effect with regard to Industry Members in accordance with Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act. Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC will provide notice when CAT Fee 2025-2 will no longer be in effect.
(iv) Each CAT Executing Broker shall be required to pay each invoice for CAT Fee 2025-2 in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of this Rule.
As noted in the Plan amendment for the CAT Funding Model, “[a]s a practical matter, the fee filing would provide the exact fee per executed equivalent share to be paid for the CAT Fees, by multiplying the Fee Rate by one-third and describing the relevant number of decimal places for the fee.”
The proposed language in paragraph (a)(1)(E)(i) of Rule 6897 would describe when CAT Executing Brokers would receive their first monthly invoice for CAT Fee 2025-2. Specifically, CAT Executing Brokers would receive their first monthly invoice for CAT Fee 2025-2 in August 2025 and the fees set forth in that invoice would be calculated based on transactions executed in July 2025. The payment for the first invoice would be required within 30 days after the receipt of the first invoice (unless a longer period is indicated), as described in paragraph (a)(2)(B) of Rule 6897.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(E)(i) of Rule 6897 also would describe the monthly cadence of the invoices for CAT Fee 2025-2. Specifically, after the first invoices are provided to CAT Executing Brokers in August 2025, invoices will be sent to CAT Executing Brokers each month thereafter until January 2026.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(E)(ii) of Rule 6897 would describe the invoices for CAT Fee 2025-2. Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(E)(ii) would state that “Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC shall provide each CAT Executing Broker with an invoice for CAT Fee 2025-2 on a monthly basis.” Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(E)(ii) also would describe the fees to be set forth in the invoices for CAT Fee 2025-2. Specifically, it would state that “[e]ach month, such invoices shall set forth a fee for each transaction in Eligible Securities executed by the CAT Executing Broker in its capacity as a CAT Executing Broker for the Buyer (‘CEBB’) and/or the CAT Executing Broker for the Seller (‘CEBS’) (as applicable) from the prior month as set forth in CAT Data. The fee for each such transaction will be calculated by multiplying the number of executed equivalent shares in the transaction by the fee rate of $0.000009 per executed equivalent share.”
Since CAT Fee 2025-2 is a monthly fee based on actual transaction volume from the prior month, CAT Fee 2025-2 may collect more or less than two-thirds of the Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2. To the extent that CAT Fee 2025-2 collects more than two-thirds of the Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2, any excess money collected will be used to offset future fees and/or to fund the reserve for the CAT. To the extent that CAT Fee 2025-2 collects less than two-thirds of the Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2, the budget for the CAT in the ensuing months will reflect such shortfall.
Furthermore, proposed paragraph (a)(1)(E)(iii) of Rule 6897 would describe how long CAT Fee 2025-2 would remain in effect. It would state that “[n]otwithstanding the last invoice date of January 2026 for CAT Fee 2025-2 in paragraph (a)(1)(E)(i) of this Rule, CAT Fee 2025-2 shall continue in effect after January 2026, with each CAT Executing Broker receiving an invoice for CAT Fee 2025-2 each month, until a new subsequent CAT Fee is in effect with regard to Industry Members in accordance with Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act. Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC will provide notice when CAT Fee 2025-2 will no longer be in effect.”
Finally, proposed paragraph (a)(1)(E)(iv) of Rule 6897 would set forth the requirement for the CAT Executing Brokers to pay the invoices for CAT Fee 2025-2. It would state that “[e]ach CAT Executing Broker shall be required to pay each invoice for CAT Fee 2025-2 in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of this Rule.”
Paragraph (a)(2)(A) of Rule 6897 describes the manner of payment of Industry Member CAT fees and states that “[e]ach CAT Executing Broker shall pay its CAT fees as required pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this Rule each month to the Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC in the manner prescribed by the Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC.” The CAT NMS Plan requires the Operating Committee to establish a system for the collection of CAT fees.
The CAT NMS Plan further states that:
Participants shall require each Industry Member to pay all applicable fees authorized under this Article XI within thirty (30) days after receipt of an invoice or other notice indicating payment is due (unless a longer payment period is otherwise indicated). If an Industry Member fails to pay any such fee when due (as determined in accordance with the preceding sentence), such Industry Member shall pay interest on the outstanding balance from such due date until such fee is paid at a per annum rate equal to the lesser of: (a) the Prime Rate plus 300 basis points; or (b) the maximum rate permitted by applicable law.
Accordingly, paragraph (a)(2)(B) of Rule 6897 states that:
Each CAT Executing Broker shall pay the CAT fees required pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this Rule within 30 days after receipt of an invoice or other notice indicating payment is due (unless a longer payment period is otherwise indicated). If a CAT Executing Broker fails to pay any such CAT fee when due, such CAT Executing Broker shall pay interest on the outstanding balance from such due date until such fee is paid at a per annum rate equal to the lesser of (i) the Prime Rate plus 300 basis points, or (ii) the maximum rate permitted by applicable law.
The requirements of paragraph (a)(2) would apply to CAT Fee 2025-2.
The CAT NMS Plan states that:
Details regarding the calculation of a Participant or CAT Executing Broker's CAT Fees will be provided upon request to such Participant or CAT Executing Broker. At a minimum, such details would include each Participant or CAT Executing Broker's executed equivalent share volume and corresponding fee by (1) Listed Options, NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities, (2) by transactions executed on each exchange and transactions executed otherwise than on an exchange, and (3) by buy-side transactions and sell-side transactions.
Such information would provide CEBBs and CEBSs with the ability to understand the details regarding the calculation of their CAT Fee.
In addition, CAT LLC will make certain aggregate statistics regarding CAT Fees publicly available. Specifically, the CAT NMS Plan states that, “[f]or each CAT Fee, at a minimum, CAT LLC will make publicly available the aggregate executed equivalent share volume and corresponding aggregate fee by (1) Listed Options, NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities, (2) by transactions executed on each exchange and transactions executed otherwise than on an exchange, and (3) by buy-side transactions and sell-side transactions.”
Furthermore, CAT LLC will make publicly available on the CAT website the total amount invoiced each month that CAT Fee 2025-2 is in effect as well as the total amount invoiced for CAT Fee 2025-2 for all months since its commencement. CAT LLC also will make publicly available on the CAT website the total costs to be collected from Industry Members for CAT Fee 2025-2.
The CAT NMS Plan states that “[n]o Participant will make a filing with the SEC pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act regarding any CAT Fee related to Prospective CAT Costs until the Financial Accountability Milestone related to Period 4 described in Section 11.6 has been satisfied.”
CAT LLC intends for CAT Fee 2025-2 to replace CAT Fee 2025-1 (which has a fee rate of $0.000022).
While CAT Fees charged to Industry Members become effective in accordance with the requirements of Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act,
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The effective date and the implementation date will be the date of filing.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA believes that this proposed rule change is consistent with the Act because it implements provisions of the Plan and is designed to assist FINRA in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving the Plan, the SEC noted that the Plan “is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.”
The proposed CAT Fee 2025-2 fees would be charged to Industry Members in support of the maintenance of a consolidated audit trail for regulatory purposes. The proposed fees, therefore, are consistent with the Commission's view that regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes. The proposed fees would not cover FINRA services unrelated to the CAT. In addition, any surplus would be used as a reserve to offset future fees.
As further discussed below, the SEC approved the CAT Funding Model, finding it was reasonable and that it equitably allocates fees among Participants and Industry Members. Thus, FINRA believes that the proposed fees adopted pursuant to the CAT Funding Model approved by the SEC are reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory.
Section 11.1(b) of the CAT NMS Plan states that “[t]he Participants shall file with the SEC under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act any such fees on Industry Members that the Operating Committee approves.” Per Section 11.1(b) of the CAT NMS Plan, FINRA has filed this fee filing to implement the Industry Member CAT fees included in the CAT Funding Model. FINRA believes that this proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act because it is consistent with, and implements, the CAT Funding Model in the CAT NMS Plan, and is designed to assist FINRA and its Industry Members in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan. In approving the CAT NMS Plan, the SEC noted that the Plan “is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.”
The SEC has determined that the CAT Funding Model is reasonable and satisfies the requirements of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the SEC has concluded that the method for determining CAT Fees as set forth in Section 11.3 of the CAT NMS Plan, including the formula for calculating the Fee Rate, the identification of the parties responsible for payment and the transactions subject to the fee rate for CAT Fees, is reasonable and satisfies the Exchange Act.
The formula for calculating a Fee Rate requires the amount of Budgeted CAT Costs to be recovered. Specifically, Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires a fee filing to provide:
In accordance with this requirement, FINRA has set forth the amount and type of Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2 for each of the categories above.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan also requires that the fee filing provide “sufficient detail to demonstrate that the budget for the upcoming year, or part of year, as applicable, is reasonable and appropriate.” As discussed below, FINRA believes that the budget for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is “reasonable
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the Commission recognized that it is appropriate to recover budgeted costs related to cloud hosting services as a part of CAT Fees.
To comply with the requirements of the Plan, the breadth of the cloud activities related to the CAT is substantial. The cloud services not only include the production environment for the CAT, but they also include two industry testing environments, support environments for quality assurance and stress testing and disaster recovery capabilities. Moreover, the cloud storage costs are driven by the requirements of the Plan, which requires the storage of multiple versions of the data, from the original submitted version of the data through various processing steps, to the final version of the data.
Data volume is a significant driver of costs for cloud hosting services. When the Commission adopted the CAT NMS Plan in 2016, it estimated that the CAT would need to receive 58 billion records per day
In addition to the effect of the data volume on the cloud hosting costs, the processing timelines set forth in the Plan contribute to the cloud hosting costs. Although CAT LLC has proactively sought to manage cloud hosting costs while complying with the Plan, including through requests to the Commission for exemptive relief and amendments to the CAT NMS Plan to reduce costs, stringent CAT NMS Plan requirements do not allow for any material flexibility in cloud architecture design choices, processing timelines (
The costs for cloud hosting services also reflect the need for specialized cloud hosting services given the data volume and unique processing needs of the CAT. The data volume as well as the data processing needs of the CAT necessitate the use of cloud hosting services. The equipment, power and services required for an on-premises data model, the alternative to cloud hosting services, would be cost prohibitive. Moreover, as CAT was being developed, there were limited cloud hosting providers that could satisfy all the necessary CAT requirements, including the operational and security criteria. Over time, more providers offering cloud hosting services that would satisfy these criteria have entered the market. CAT LLC will continue to evaluate alternative cloud hosting services, recognizing that the time and cost to move to an alternative cloud provider would be substantial.
The reasonableness of the cloud hosting services costs is further supported by key cost discipline mechanisms for the CAT—cost transparency, cost management efforts (including regular efforts to lower compute and storage costs where permitted by the Plan) and oversight. Together, these mechanisms help ensure the ongoing reasonableness of the CAT's costs and the level of fees assessed to support those costs.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover budgeted costs related to operating fees as a part of CAT Fees.
The operating fees would include the negotiated fees paid by CAT LLC to the Plan Processor to operate and maintain the system for order-related information and to perform business operations related to the system, including compliance, security, testing, training, communications with the industry (
The operating costs also include costs related to the receipt of market data. CAT LLC anticipates receiving certain market data from Algoseek during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period. CAT LLC anticipates that Algoseek will provide data as set forth in the SIP Data requirements of the CAT NMS Plan and that the fees are reasonable and in line with market rates for market data received.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover budgeted costs related to CAIS operating fees as a part of CAT Fees.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover budgeted costs related to change request fees as a part of CAT Fees.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover budgeted costs related to capitalized developed technology costs as a part of CAT Fees.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover budgeted costs related to legal fees as a part of CAT Fees.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover budgeted consulting costs as a part of CAT Fees.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover budgeted insurance costs as a part of CAT Fees.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover budgeted professional and administration costs as a part of CAT Fees.
CAT LLC anticipates continuing to make use of Anchin, a financial advisory firm, to assist with financial matters for the CAT. CAT LLC determined that the budgeted costs for Anchin were appropriate, as the financial advisory services were to be provided at reasonable market rates that were comparable to the rates charged by other such firms for similar work. Moreover, the total budgeted costs for such financial advisory services were appropriate in light of the breadth of services provided by Anchin. The services budgeted to be performed by Anchin and the budgeted costs related to such services are described above.
CAT LLC anticipates continuing to make use of Grant Thornton, an independent accounting firm, to complete the audit of CAT LLC's financial statements, in accordance with the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan. CAT LLC determined that the budgeted costs for Grant Thornton were appropriate, as the accounting services were to be provided at reasonable market rates that were comparable to the rates charged by other such firms for similar work. Moreover, the total budgeted costs for such accounting services were appropriate in light of the breadth of services provided by Grant Thornton. The services budgeted to be performed by Grant Thornton and the budgeted costs related to such services are described above.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover budgeted public relations costs as a part of CAT Fees.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover budgeted reserve costs as a part of CAT Fees.
In its approval order for the CAT Funding Model, the Commission stated that it would be reasonable for the annual operating budget for the CAT to “include a reserve of not more than 25% of the annual budget.”
Because the CAT is a critical regulatory tool/system, the CAT needs to have a stable funding source to build financial stability to support the Company as a going concern. Funding for the CAT, as noted in Section 11.1(b), is the responsibility of the Participants and the industry. Because CAT fees are charged based on the budget, which is based on anticipated volume, it is reasonable to have a reserve on hand to prevent a shortfall in the event there is an unexpectedly high volume in a given year. A reserve would help to assure that the CAT has sufficient resources to cover costs should there be unanticipated costs or costs that are higher than expected.
The SEC also recognized that a reserve would help address the difficulty in predicting certain variable CAT costs, like trading volume.
As discussed further below,
The CAT NMS Plan also requires fee filings for Prospective CAT Fees to include “a discussion of how the budget is reconciled to the collected fees.”
The total executed equivalent share volume of transactions in Eligible Securities for the period from April 2024 through March 2025 was 4,580,287,680,646.28 executed equivalent shares. CAT LLC determined the total executed equivalent share volume for the prior twelve months by counting executed equivalent shares in the same manner as it counts executed equivalent shares for CAT billing purposes.
CAT LLC has determined that the projected total executed equivalent share volume for the six months of CAT Fee 2025-2 Period by multiplying by one-half the executed equivalent share volume for the prior twelve months: one-half times 4,580,287,680,646.28 executed equivalent shares.
As noted in the approval order for the CAT Funding Model, as a practical matter, the fee filing for a CAT Fee would provide the exact fee per executed equivalent share to be paid for each CAT Fee, by multiplying the Fee Rate by one-third and describing the relevant number of decimal places for the fee rate.
FINRA believes that charging CAT Fee 2025-2 with a fee rate of $0.000009 per executed equivalent share is reasonable because it provides for a revenue stream for the Company that is aligned with the Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2. Moreover, FINRA believes that the level of the fee rate is reasonable in that it is calculated in accordance with the SEC-approved CAT Funding Model, it is less than CAT Fee 2025-1 and is comparable to other transaction-based fees. Indeed, CAT Fee 2025-2 is significantly lower than fees previously assessed pursuant to Section 31 (
CAT Fee 2025-2 provides for an equitable allocation of fees, as it equitably allocates CAT costs between and among the Participants and Industry Members, in accordance with the SEC-approved CAT Funding Model. The SEC approved the CAT Funding Model, finding that each aspect of the CAT Funding Model satisfied the requirements of the Exchange Act, including the formula for calculating CAT Fees as well as the Industry Members to be charged the CAT Fees.
CAT Fee 2025-2 provides for an equitable allocation of fees as it complies with the requirements regarding the calculation of CAT Fees as set forth in the CAT NMS Plan. For example, as described above, the calculation of CAT Fee 2025-2 complies with the formula set forth in Section 11.3(a) of the CAT NMS Plan. In addition, CAT Fee 2025-2 would be charged to CEBBs and CEBSs in accordance with Section 11.3(a) of the CAT NMS Plan. Furthermore, the Participants would be charged for their designated share of the Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2 through a fee implemented via the CAT NMS Plan, which would have the same fee rate as CAT Fee 2025-2.
In addition, as discussed above, each of the inputs into the calculation of CAT Fee 2025-2—the Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2, the count for the executed equivalent share volume for the prior 12 months, and the projected executed equivalent share volume for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period—are reasonable. Moreover, these inputs lead to a fee rate for CAT Fee 2025-2 that is reasonable as it is consistent with the SEC-approved CAT Funding Model and is lower than other fee rates for transaction-based fees. A reasonable fee rate allocated in accordance with the requirements of the CAT Funding Model provides for an equitable allocation of fees.
CAT Fee 2025-2 is not an unfairly discriminatory fee. The SEC approved the CAT Funding Model, finding that each aspect of the CAT Funding Model satisfies the requirements of the Exchange Act. In reaching this conclusion, the SEC analyzed the potential effect of CAT Fees calculated pursuant to the CAT Funding Model on affected categories of market participants, including Participants (including exchanges and FINRA), Industry Members (including subcategories of Industry Members, such as alternative trading systems, CAT Executing Brokers and market makers),
FINRA believes the proposed fees established pursuant to the CAT Funding Model promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, and are provided in a transparent manner and with specificity in proposed paragraph (a)(1)(E) of Rule 6897. FINRA also believes that the proposed fees are reasonable in that they would provide ease of calculation, ease of billing and other administrative functions, and predictability of a fee based on a fixed rate per executed equivalent share and are consistent with the SEC-approved CAT Funding Model. Such factors are crucial to estimating a reliable revenue stream for CAT LLC and for permitting Industry Members to reasonably predict their payment obligations for budgeting purposes.
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Section 15A(b)(9) of the Act
In addition, all Participants (including exchanges and FINRA) are proposing to introduce CAT Fee 2025-2 on behalf of CAT LLC to implement the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan. Therefore, this is not a competitive fee filing, and, therefore, it does not raise competition issues between and among the Participants.
Furthermore, in approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC analyzed the potential competitive impact of the CAT Funding Model, including competitive issues related to market services, trading services and regulatory services, efficiency concerns, and capital formation.
As discussed above, each of the inputs into the calculation of CAT Fee 2025-2 is reasonable and the resulting fee rate for CAT Fee 2025-2 calculated in accordance with the CAT Funding Model is reasonable. Therefore, CAT Fee 2025-2 would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Exchange Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) of the Act and for an order pursuant to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end investment companies to issue multiple classes of shares of beneficial interest with varying sales loads and to impose asset-based distribution and/or service fees.
Private Debt & Income Fund Brighton Jones LLC.
The application was filed on May 8, 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:
Rachel Loko, Senior Special 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 May 8, 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to establish fees for Industry Members
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of
On July 11, 2012, the Commission adopted Rule 613 of Regulation NMS, which required the self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) to submit a national market system (“NMS”) plan to create, implement and maintain a consolidated audit trail that would capture customer and order event information for orders in NMS securities across all markets, from the time of order inception through routing, cancellation, modification or execution.
The CAT Funding Model provides a framework for the recovery of the costs to create, develop and maintain the CAT, including providing a method for allocating costs to fund the CAT among Participants and Industry Members. The CAT Funding Model establishes two categories of fees: (1) CAT fees assessed by CAT LLC and payable by certain Industry Members to recover a portion of historical CAT costs previously paid by the Participants (“Historical CAT Assessment” fees); and (2) CAT fees assessed by CAT LLC and payable by Participants and Industry Members to fund prospective CAT costs (“CAT Fees”).
Under the CAT Funding Model, Participants, CEBBs and CEBSs are subject to fees designed to cover the ongoing budgeted costs of the CAT, as determined by the Operating Committee. “The Operating Committee will establish fees (`CAT Fees') to be payable by Participants and Industry Members with regard to CAT costs not previously paid by the Participants (`Prospective CAT Costs').”
The CAT Fees to be paid by CEBBs and CEBSs are designed to contribute toward the recovery of two-thirds of the budgeted CAT costs for the relevant period.
CAT LLC proposes to charge CEBBs and CEBSs (as described in more detail below) CAT Fee 2025-2 to recover the reasonably budgeted CAT costs for the period from July 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025 in accordance with the CAT Funding Model. To implement this fee on behalf of CAT LLC, the CAT NMS Plan requires the Participants to “file with the SEC under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act any such fees on Industry Members that the Operating Committee approves, and such fees shall be labeled as `Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees.' ”
CAT Fee 2025-2 will be charged to each CEBB and CEBS for each applicable transaction in Eligible Securities.
(a) with respect to a transaction in an Eligible Security that is executed on an exchange, the Industry Member identified as the Industry Member responsible for the order on the buy-side of the transaction and the Industry Member responsible for the sell-side of the transaction in the equity order trade event and option trade event in the CAT Data submitted to the CAT by the relevant exchange pursuant to the Participant Technical Specifications; and (b) with respect to a transaction in an Eligible Security that is executed otherwise than on an exchange and required to be reported to an equity trade reporting facility of a registered national securities association, the Industry Member identified as the executing broker and the Industry Member identified as the contra-side executing broker in the TRF/ORF/ADF transaction data event in the CAT Data submitted to the CAT by FINRA
The following fields of the Participant Technical Specifications indicate the CAT Executing Brokers for the transactions executed on an exchange:
In addition, the following fields of the Participant Technical Specifications would indicate the CAT Executing Brokers for the transactions executed otherwise than on an exchange:
The Operating Committee determined the Fee Rate to be used in calculating CAT Fee 2025-2 (“Fee Rate 2025-2”) by dividing the reasonably budgeted CAT costs (“Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2”) for the period from July 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025 (“CAT Fee 2025-2 Period”) by the reasonably projected total executed share volume of all transactions in Eligible Securities for the six-month recovery period, as discussed in detail below.
CAT LLC proposes to implement CAT Fee 2025-2 as the third CAT Fee related to Prospective CAT Costs. CAT LLC proposes to commence CAT Fee 2025-2 during the year, rather than at the beginning of the year. Accordingly, CAT Fee 2025-2 “would be calculated as described in paragraph (II)” of Section 11.3(a)(i)(A) of the CAT NMS Plan,
Under the CAT NMS Plan, for purposes of calculating CAT Fees, executed equivalent shares in a transaction in Eligible Securities will be reasonably counted as follows: (1) each executed share for a transaction in NMS Stocks will be counted as one executed equivalent share; (2) each executed contract for a transaction in Listed
The CAT NMS Plan states that “[t]he budgeted CAT costs for the year shall be comprised of all reasonable fees, costs and expenses reasonably budgeted to be incurred by or for the Company in connection with the development, implementation and operation of the CAT as set forth in the annual operating budget approved by the Operating Committee pursuant to Section 11.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan, or as adjusted during the year by the Operating Committee.”
As described in detail below, the Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2 would be $60,726,412. CEBBs collectively will be responsible for one-third of the Budged [
The following describes in detail the Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2 for CAT Fee 2025-2. The following cost details are provided in accordance with the requirement in the CAT NMS Plan to provide in the fee filing the following:
The following table breaks down the Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2 into the categories set forth in Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan.
To the extent that CAT LLC enters into notes with Participants or others to pay costs incurred during the period in which CAT Fee 2025-2 is in effect, CAT LLC will use the proceeds from CAT Fee 2025-2 and the related Participant CAT fees to repay such notes.
The following table compares the annual budgeted CAT costs as set forth in the updated annual CAT budget for 2024 approved by the Operating Committee in July 2024 (“Updated 2024 CAT Budget”),
In addition, the following table compares the first quarter of the Original 2025 CAT Budget with the first quarter of the Updated 2025 CAT Budget. The Updated 2025 CAT Budget includes actual costs for January, February and March 2025, whereas the Original 2025 CAT Budget included budgeted costs for these three months. The variance from the first quarter of the Original 2025 CAT Budget to the actuals for the first quarter of 2025 (as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget) in the last column of the following chart are used in this filing in supporting the reasonableness of the estimates for each category of costs.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B)(1) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to provide a brief description of the cloud hosting services costs set forth in the budget. The Operating Committee approved an operating budget for the CAT pursuant to Section 11.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan that included $82,222,276 in technology costs for cloud hosting services for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period. The technology costs for cloud hosting services represent costs reasonably budgeted to be incurred for services provided by the cloud services provider for the CAT, Amazon Web Services, Inc. (“AWS”) during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period.
In the agreement between CAT LLC and the Plan Processor for the CAT (“Plan Processor Agreement”), FINRA CAT, LLC (“FCAT”), AWS was named as the subcontractor to provide cloud hosting services. Under the Plan Processor Agreement, CAT LLC is required to pay FCAT the fees incurred by the Plan Processor for cloud hosting services provided by AWS as FCAT's subcontractor on a monthly basis for the cloud hosting services, and FCAT, in turn, pays such fees to AWS. The fees for cloud hosting services were negotiated by FCAT on an arm's length basis with the goals of managing costs and receiving services required to comply with the CAT NMS Plan and Rule 613, taking into consideration a variety of factors, including the expected volume of data, the breadth of services provided and market rates for similar services. Services provided by AWS include storage services, databases, compute services and other services (such as networking, management tools and DevOps tools), as well as various environments for CAT, such as development, performance testing, test, and production environments. FCAT utilizes such cloud hosting services for a broad array of services for the CAT, such as data ingestion, data management, and analytic tools for the CAT. AWS performs cloud hosting services for both the CAT transaction database as well as the CAT Customer and Account Information System (“CAIS”). It is anticipated that such cloud hosting services will continue during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period.
The cost for AWS cloud services for the CAT is a function of the volume of CAT Data, largely as a result of the processing and storage of the CAT Data.
CAT LLC estimates that the budget for cloud hosting services costs during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period will be approximately $82,222,276. The budget for cloud hosting services costs during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is calculated based on the Updated 2025 CAT Budget. Specifically, this estimate was calculated by adding the budgeted amounts for cloud hosting services costs for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget.
CAT LLC estimated the budget for the cost for cloud hosting services for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period based on an assumption of 40% annual year-over-year volume growth for the transaction database and an assumption of 5% annual year-over-year volume growth for CAIS. CAT LLC determined these growth assumptions in coordination with FCAT based on an analysis of a variety of existing data and alternative growth scenarios. In particular, in determining to use the 40% annual year-over-year volume growth in events per day, CAT LLC considered, among other things, the average annual year-over-year volume growth for 2019 through 2024 of approximately 45%, the average annual year-over-year volume growth for 2020 through 2024 of approximately 30%, and the average monthly growth rate for 2024 of approximately 50%.
This process for estimating the budget for cloud hosting services costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is the same process by which CAT LLC estimated the cloud hosting services costs for the Original 2025 CAT Budget. The Original 2025 CAT Budget estimated a budget for cloud hosting services of $39,640,542 for the first quarter of 2025. The actual costs for cloud hosting services for the first quarter of 2025, which are set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget, were $36,357,017. Therefore, the variance between budgeted and actual cloud hosting services costs for this period was an approximate decrease of 8%. Accordingly, CAT LLC believes that the process for estimating the budgeted cloud hosting services costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is reasonable.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to describe the reason for changes in the line item for cloud hosting services costs from the prior CAT Fee filing. Accordingly, this filing describes the changes in the cloud hosting services costs from the Original 2025 CAT Budget, which was used in the calculation of the prior Prospective CAT Fee, CAT Fee 2025-1.
The annual 2025 budgeted costs for cloud hosting services as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $182,594,630, and the annual 2025 budgeted costs for cloud hosting services as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget are $159,230,937. Accordingly, budgeted annual costs for cloud hosting services decreased by $23,363,693 from the Original 2025 CAT Budget to the Updated 2025 CAT Budget, which is an approximate 13% reduction in cloud hosting services costs for the full year of 2025.
Correspondingly, the budgeted costs for cloud hosting services for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $97,748,713,
The decrease in costs for cloud hosting services from the Original 2025 CAT Budget to the Updated 2025 CAT Budget, both for the full year for 2025 and for the third and fourth quarters of 2025, reflects (1) a decrease in costs related to changes made pursuant to the Cost Savings Amendment; (2) cost decreases related to optimizations resulting in reduced procesing [
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B)(1) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to provide a brief description of the operating fees set forth in the budget. The Operating Committee approved an operating budget for the CAT pursuant to Section 11.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan that included $15,453,942 in technology costs for operating fees for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period. Operating fees are those fees paid by CAT LLC to FCAT as the Plan Processor to operate and maintain the CAT and to perform business operations related to the system, including compliance, security, testing, training, communications with the industry (
• Provide the CAT-related functions and services as the Plan Processor as required by SEC Rule 613 and the CAT NMS Plan in connection with the operation and maintenance of the CAT;
• Address compliance items, including drafting CAT policies and procedures, and addressing Regulation SCI requirements;
• Provide support to the Operating Committee, the Compliance Subcommittee and CAT working groups;
• Assist with interpretive efforts, exemptive requests and amendments regarding the CAT NMS Plan;
• Oversee the security of the CAT;
• Monitor the operation of the CAT, including with regard to Participant and Industry Member reporting;
• Provide support to subcontractors under the Plan Processor Agreement;
• Provide support in discussions with the Participants and the SEC and its staff;
• Operate the FINRA CAT Helpdesk;
• Facilitate communications with the industry, including via FAQs, CAT Alerts, meetings, presentations and webinars;
• Administer the CAT website and all of its content;
• Maintain cyber security insurance related to the CAT;
• Assist with billing, collection and other CAT fee-related activity; and
• Provide technical support and assistance with connectivity, data access, and user support, including the use of CAT Data and query tools, for Participants and the SEC staff.
CAT LLC calculated the budget for the FCAT technology costs for operating fees for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period based on the recurring monthly operating fees under the Plan Processor Agreement.
As discussed above, CAT LLC estimated the budget for the operating fees during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period based on monthly rates set forth in the Plan Processor Agreement and the agreement with Algoseek. CAT LLC also recognized that the operating fees are generally consistent throughout the year. This process for estimating the budget for the operating fees for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is the same process by which CAT LLC estimated the operating fees for the Original 2025 CAT Budget. The Original 2025 CAT Budget estimated a budget for operating fees of $7,662,270 for the first quarter of 2025.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to describe the reason for changes in the line item for operating fees from the prior CAT Fee filing. Accordingly, this filing describes the changes from the operating fees set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget, which was used in the calculation of the prior Prospective CAT Fee, CAT Fee 2025-1.
The annual 2025 budgeted costs for operating fees as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $30,831,330,
Correspondingly, the budgeted costs for operating fees for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $15,446,040,
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B)(1) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to provide a brief description of the CAIS operating fees set forth in the budget. The Operating Committee approved an operating budget for the CAT pursuant to Section 11.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan that included $10,374,924 in technology costs for CAIS operating fees for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period. CAIS operating fees represent the fees paid to FCAT for services provided with regard to the operation and maintenance of CAIS, and to perform the business operations related to the system, including compliance, security, testing, training, communications with the industry (
During the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period, it is anticipated that FCAT will provide CAIS-related services. Under the Plan Processor Agreement with FCAT, CAT LLC is required to pay FCAT for CAIS-related services provided by FCAT on a monthly basis. CAT LLC negotiated the fees for FCAT's CAIS-related services on an arm's length basis with the goals of managing costs and receiving services required to comply with the CAT NMS Plan, taking into consideration a variety of factors, including the services to be provided and market rates for similar types of activity. During the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period, it is anticipated that FCAT will continue to provide services relating to the ongoing operation, maintenance and support of CAIS.
CAT LLC estimates that the budget for CAIS operating fees during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period will be approximately $10,374,924. The budget for CAIS operating fees during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is calculated based on the Updated 2025 CAT Budget. Specifically, this estimate was
CAT LLC calculated the budget for FCAT's CAIS-related services for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period based on the recurring monthly CAIS operating fees under the Plan Processor Agreement. This process for estimating the budget for the CAIS operating fees for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is the same process by which CAT LLC estimated the CAIS operating fees for the Original 2025 CAT Budget. The Original 2025 CAT Budget estimated a budget of $5,187,462 for CAIS operating fees for the first quarter of 2025. The actual costs for CAIS operating fees for the first quarter of 2025, which are set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget, were $5,187,462. There was no variance between budgeted and actual CAIS operating fees for the first quarter of 2025. Accordingly, CAT LLC believes that the process for estimating the budgeted CAIS operating fees for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is reasonable.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to describe the reason for changes in the line item for CAIS operating fees from the prior CAT Fee filing. Accordingly, this filing describes the changes in CAIS operating fees from the Original 2025 CAT Budget, which was used in the calculation of the prior Prospective CAT Fee, CAT Fee 2025-1.
CAIS operating fees are based on a recurring monthly rate payable to FCAT and are unchanged from the prior CAT Fee filing. The annual 2025 budgeted costs for CAIS operating fees as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $20,749,848, and the annual 2025 budgeted costs for CAIS operating fees as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget are $20,749,848. Accordingly, the budgeted annual costs for CAIS operating fees are the same for both the Original 2025 CAT Budget and the Updated 2025 CAT Budget.
Correspondingly, the budgeted costs for CAIS operating fees for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $10,374,924, and the budgeted costs for CAIS operating fees for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget are $10,374,924.
Accordingly, there were no changes in the line item for CAIS operating fees from the prior CAT Fee filing.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B)(1) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to provide a brief description of the change request fees set forth in the budget. The Operating Committee approved an operating budget for the CAT pursuant to Section 11.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan that included $500,000 in technology costs for change request fees for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period. The technology costs related to change request fees include costs related to certain modifications, upgrades or other changes to the CAT.
Change requests are standard practice and necessary to reflect operational changes, including changes related to new market developments, such as new market participants. In general, if CAT LLC determines that a modification, upgrade or other changes to the functionality or service is necessary and appropriate, CAT LLC will submit a request for such a change to the Plan Processor. The Plan Processor will then respond to the request with a proposal for implementing the change, including the cost (if any) of such a change. CAT LLC then determines whether to approve the proposed change.
The change request budget line is established to include expected costs to be incurred in which the nature of the costs (
During the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period, it is anticipated that CAT LLC will engage FCAT to pursue certain change requests in accordance with the Plan Processor Agreement. The budget for change requests for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period includes a placeholder of $500,000 for potential change request fees that may be necessary in accordance with the Plan Processor Agreement. The placeholder amount was determined based on prior experience with change requests related to the CAT.
CAT LLC estimates that the budget for change requests during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period will be approximately $500,000. The budget for change requests during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is calculated based on the Updated 2025 CAT Budget. Specifically, this estimate was calculated by adding the budgeted amounts for the change requests for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget.
CAT LLC estimated the budget for the potential change requests for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period based on, among other things, a review of past change requests and potential future change request needs, as well as discussions with FCAT. This process for estimating the budget for the change requests for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is the same process by which CAT LLC estimated the change requests cost for the Original 2025 CAT Budget. The Original 2025 CAT Budget estimated a change request budget of $0 for the the [
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to describe the reason for changes in the line item for change request fees from the prior CAT Fee filing. Accordingly, this filing describes the changes in the change request fees from the Original 2025 CAT Budget, which was used in the calculation of the prior Prospective CAT Fee, CAT Fee 2025-1.
The annual 2025 budgeted costs for change requests as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $750,000, and the annual 2025 budgeted costs for change requests as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget are $750,000. Accordingly, budgeted annual costs for change requests are the same for both the Original 2025 CAT Budget and the Updated 2025 CAT Budget.
Correspondingly, the budgeted costs for change requests for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $500,000, and the budgeted costs for change request for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget are $500,000.
Accordingly, there were no changes in the line item for change requests from the prior CAT Fee filing.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B)(1) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to provide a brief description of the capitalized developed technology costs set forth in the budget. The Operating Committee approved an operating budget for the CAT pursuant to Section 11.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan that includes $0 in technology costs for capitalized developed technology costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period. This category of costs includes the budget for capitalizable application development costs incurred in the development of the CAT. It is anticipated that such costs will include certain costs related to the software license fee for CAIS in accordance with the Plan Processor Agreement with FCAT, as well as costs related to a set of technology changes to be implemented by FCAT.
CAT LLC estimates that the budget for capitalized developed technology costs during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period will be approximately $0. The budget for capitalized developed technology costs during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is calculated based on the Updated 2025 CAT Budget. Specifically, this estimate was calculated by adding the budgeted amounts for capitalized developed technology costs for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget.
CAT LLC estimated the budget for capitalized developed technology costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period based on an analysis of a variety of factors, including information related to potential technology costs and related contractual and Plan requirements, and discussions with FCAT regarding such potential technology costs. This process for estimating the budget for capitalized developed technology costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is the same process by which CAT LLC estimated the capitalized developed technology costs for the Original 2025 CAT Budget. The Original 2025 CAT Budget estimated a budget for capitalized developed technology costs of $3,923,360 for the first quarter of 2025.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to describe the reason for changes in the line item for capitalized developed technology costs from the prior CAT Fee filing. Accordingly, this filing describes the changes in the capitalized developed technology costs from the Original 2025 CAT Budget, which was used in the calculation of the prior Prospective CAT Fee, CAT Fee 2025-1.
The annual 2025 budget for capitalized developed technology costs as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $3,923,360
In addition, the budget for capitalized developed technology costs for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget was $0,
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B)(2) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to provide a brief description of the legal costs set forth in the budget. The Operating Committee approved an operating budget for the CAT pursuant to Section 11.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan that includes $3,631,342 in legal costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period. This category of costs represents budgeted costs for legal services for this period. CAT LLC anticipates that it will receive legal services from two law firms, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (“WilmerHale”) and Jenner & Block LLP (“Jenner”), during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period.
During the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period, it is anticipated that WilmerHale will provide legal services related to the following:
• Assist with CAT fee filings and related funding issues;
• Draft exemptive requests from CAT NMS Plan requirements and/or proposed amendments to the CAT NMS Plan;
• Provide legal guidance with respect to interpretations of CAT NMS Plan requirements;
• Provide legal support for the Operating Committee, Compliance Subcommittee, working groups and Leadership Team;
• Draft SRO rule filings related to the CAT Compliance Rule;
• Manage corporate governance matters, including supporting Operating Committee meetings and preparing resolutions and consents;
• Assist with communications with the industry, including CAT Alerts and presentations;
• Provide guidance regarding the confidentiality of CAT Data;
• Assist with cost management analyses and proposals;
• Assist with commercial contract-related matters, including change orders and amendments, Plan Processor Agreement items, and subcontract matters;
• Provide support with regard to discussions with the SEC and its staff, including with respect to addressing interpretive and implementation issues;
• Provide legal guidance with respect to the CAT budgets;
• Provide background assistance to other counsel for CAT matters;
• Assist with legal responses related to third-party data requests; and
• Provide legal support regarding CAT policies and procedures.
CAT LLC estimated the budget for the legal costs for WilmerHale for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period through an analysis of a variety of factors, including WilmerHale fee rates, historical legal fees, and information related to pending legal issues and potential future legal issues.
During the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period, it is anticipated that Jenner will continue to provide legal assistance to CAT LLC regarding certain litigation matters, including: (1) CAT LLC's defense against a lawsuit filed in the Western District of Texas against the SEC Chair, the SEC and CAT LLC challenging the validity of Rule 613 and the CAT and alleging various constitutional, statutory, and common law claims;
CAT LLC estimated the budget for the legal costs for Jenner for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period through an analysis of a variety of factors, including Jenner's fee rates, historical legal fees, and information related to pending legal issues and potential future legal issues.
CAT LLC estimated the budget for the legal services for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period based on an analysis of a variety of factors, including law firm fee rates, historical legal fees, and information related to pending legal issues and potential future legal issues. This process for estimating the budget for the legal services for CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is the same process by which CAT LLC estimated the legal cost for the Original 2025 CAT Budget. The Original 2025 CAT Budget estimated a budget for legal costs of $1,430,000 for the first quarter of 2025. The actual costs for legal services for the first quarter of 2025, which are set forth in the Updated 2025 Budget, were $1,922,990. The increase of $492,990 was due to unanticipated issues that required additional legal efforts on behalf of CAT LLC that developed after the budget was created. Such additional costs were primarily due to additional legal work in responding to an SEC examination related to the CAT, for commercial contract-related matters, including with regard to the Plan Processor Agreement, and related to cost savings initiatives. Accordingly, CAT LLC believes that the process for estimating the budgeted legal costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is reasonable.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to describe the reason for changes in the line item for legal costs from the prior CAT Fee filing. Accordingly, this filing describes the changes in the legal costs from the Original 2025 CAT Budget, which was used in the calculation of the prior Prospective CAT Fee, CAT Fee 2025-1.
The annual 2025 budgeted legal costs as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $5,720,000, and the annual 2025 budgeted legal costs as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget are $7,370,002. Accordingly, the annual budget for legal costs increased by
Correspondingly, the budgeted legal costs for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $2,860,000,
This budgeted increase in the legal costs in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget from the Original 2025 Budget, both for the full year for 2025 and for the third and fourth quarters of 2025, was primarily due to an anticipated increase in legal costs related to litigation matters as well as regulatory and corporate legal matters.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B)(3) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to provide a brief description of the consulting costs set forth in the budget. The Operating Committee approved an operating budget for the CAT pursuant to Section 11.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan that included $866,167 in consulting costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period. The consulting costs represent the fees estimated to be paid to the consulting firm Deloitte & Touche LLP (“Deloitte”) as project manager during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period. These consulting costs include costs for advisory services related to the operation of the CAT, and meeting facilitation and communications coordination, vendor support and financial analyses.
It is anticipated that the costs for CAT during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period will include costs related to consulting services performed by Deloitte. CAT LLC anticipates that it will continue to employ Deloitte during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period based on, among other things, their expertise, long history with the project, and the recognition that it is anticipated that the consulting fees will remain in line with market rates for this type of specialized consulting work. Deloitte's fee rates are negotiated on an annual basis. CAT LLC assesses Deloitte's performance and reviews prospective budgets and staffing plans submitted by Deloitte on an annual basis. The consulting fees will be paid by CAT LLC to Deloitte.
It is anticipated that Deloitte will provide a variety of consulting services to the CAT during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period, including the following:
• Implement program operations for the CAT project;
• Provide support to the Operating Committee, the Chair of the Operating Committee and the Leadership Team, including project management support, coordination and planning for meetings and communications, and interfacing with law firms and the SEC;
• Assist with cost and funding matters for the CAT, including assistance with loans and the CAT bank account for CAT funding;
• Provide support for updating the SEC on the progress of the development of the CAT; and
• Provide support for third party vendors for the CAT, including FCAT, Anchin and the law firms engaged by CAT LLC.
In addition, the consulting costs include the compensation for the Chair of the CAT Operating Committee.
CAT LLC estimates that the budget for consulting costs during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period will be approximately $866,167. The budget for consulting costs during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is calculated based on the Updated 2025 CAT Budget. Specifically, this estimate was calculated by adding the budgeted amounts for consulting services for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget.
CAT LLC estimates the budget for the consulting costs for Deloitte for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period based on the current statement of work with Deloitte, which took into consideration past consulting costs, potential future consulting needs, the proposed rates and other contractual issues, as well as discussions with Deloitte. This process for estimating the budget for consulting costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is the same process by which CAT LLC estimated the consulting costs for the Original 2025 CAT Budget. The Original 2025 CAT Budget estimated a budget for consulting services of $437,500 for the first quarter of 2025. The actual costs for consulting services for the first quarter of 2025, which are set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget, were $450,745. Therefore, the variance between budgeted and actual consulting costs for the first quarter of 2025 was approximately 3%. Accordingly, CAT LLC believes that the process for estimating the budgeted consulting costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is reasonable.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to describe the reason for changes in the line item for consulting costs from the prior CAT Fee filing. Accordingly, this filing describes the changes in the consulting costs from the Original 2025 CAT Budget, which was used in the calculation of the prior Prospective CAT Fee, CAT Fee 2025-1.
The annual 2025 budget for consulting costs as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget was $1,750,000, and the annual 2025 budget for consulting costs as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget is approximately $1,750,000. Accordingly, the annual budget for consulting costs has not changed from the Original 2025 CAT Budget to the Updated 2025 CAT Budget for the full year of 2025.
Correspondingly, the budget for consulting costs for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget was $875,000,
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B)(4) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to provide a brief description of the insurance costs set forth in the budget. The Operating Committee approved an operating
It is anticipated that the insurance costs for CAT during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period will include costs related to cyber security liability insurance, directors' and officers' liability insurance, and errors and omissions liability insurance brokered by USI Insurance Services LLC (“USI”). Such policies are standard for corporate entities, and cyber security liability insurance is important for the CAT System. CAT LLC anticipates that it will continue to maintain this insurance during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period, and notes that the annual premiums for these policies were competitive for the coverage provided. CAT LLC estimated the budget for the insurance costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period based on the insurance estimate from USI for 2025. The annual premiums would be paid by CAT LLC to USI.
The budgeted insurance costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period are based on an insurance cost estimate from USI for 2025. Accordingly, CAT LLC believes that the process for estimating the budgeted insurance costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is reasonable.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to describe the reason for changes in the line item for insurance costs from the prior CAT Fee filing. Accordingly, this filing describes the changes in the insurance costs from the Original 2025 CAT Budget, which was used in the calculation of the prior Prospective CAT Fee, CAT Fee 2025-1.
The annual 2025 budgeted insurance costs as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $1,594,452, and the annual 2025 budgeted insurance costs as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget are $1,594,452. Accordingly, the annual budgeted insurance costs remained the same for the Original 2025 CAT Budget and the Updated 2025 CAT Budget for the full year of 2025.
Correspondingly, the budgeted insurance costs for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $1,594,452,
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B)(5) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to provide a brief description of the professional and administration costs set forth in the budget. The Operating Committee approved an operating budget for the CAT pursuant to Section 11.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan that included $609,818 in professional and administration costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period. In adopting the CAT NMS Plan, the Commission amended the Plan to add a requirement that CAT LLC's financial statements be prepared in compliance with GAAP, audited by an independent public accounting firm, and made publicly available.
It is anticipated that Anchin will provide a variety of services to the CAT during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period, including the following:
• Update and maintain internal controls;
• Provide cash management and treasury functions;
• Facilitate bill payments to vendors;
• Facilitate repayments of promissory notes to Participants;
• Provide monthly bookkeeping;
• Review vendor invoices and documentation in support of cash disbursements;
• Review documentation to ensure that repayments of promissory notes to Participants are in accordance with established policies and procedures;
• Provide accounting research and consultations on various accounting, financial reporting and tax matters;
• Address not-for-profit tax and accounting considerations;
• Prepare tax returns;
• Address various accounting, financial reporting and operating inquiries from Participants;
• Develop and maintain annual operating and financial budgets, including budget to actual fluctuation analyses;
• Support compliance with the CAT NMS Plan;
• Work with and provide support to the Operating Committee and various CAT working groups;
• Prepare monthly, quarterly and annual financial statements;
• Review and reconcile the monthly FINRA CAT reports/analyses related to billings, collections, outstanding accounts receivable and cash account;
• Perform certain verification, completeness, and validation testing related to the monthly FINRA CAT reports/analyses related to billings;
• Support the annual financial statement audits by an independent auditor;
• Review historical costs from inception;
• Provide accounting and financial information in support of SEC filings; and
• Perform additional ad hoc accounting and financial advisory services, as requested by CAT LLC.
CAT LLC estimated the annual budget for the costs for Anchin based on historical costs adjusted for cost of living rate increases, and projected incremental advisory and support services.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to describe the reason for changes in the line item for professional and administration costs from the prior CAT Fee filing. Accordingly, this filing describes the changes in the professional and administration costs from the Original 2025 CAT Budget, which was used in the calculation of the prior Prospective CAT Fee, CAT Fee 2025-1.
The annual 2025 budgeted professional and administration costs as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $882,456, and the annual 2025 budgeted professional and administration costs as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget are $1,193,090. Accordingly, the budgeted annual costs for professional and administration services increased by $310,634 from the Original 2025 CAT Budget to the Updated 2025 CAT Budget for the full year of 2025.
Correspondingly, the budgeted costs for professional and administration services for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $444,246,
This budgeted increase in the professional and administration costs in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget from the Original 2025 Budget, both for the full year for 2025 and for the third and fourth quarters of 2025, was primarily due to increases in both financial advisory costs and accounting costs as a result of additional anticipated efforts related to billings and collections of fees from Participants and Industry Members, coupled with expected incremental efforts related to supporting CAT LLC's independent auditors for the 2024 audit.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B)(6) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to provide a brief description of the public relations costs set forth in the budget. The Operating Committee approved an operating budget for the CAT pursuant to Section 11.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan that included $0 in public relations costs for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period. The public relations costs represent the fees paid to a public relations firm for professional communications services to CAT, including media relations consulting, strategy and execution. Because CAT LLC anticipates that it will not engage a public relations firm for the third and fourth quarters of 2025, the budget for public relations costs for this period is $0.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to describe the reason for changes in the line item for public relations costs from the prior CAT Fee filing. Accordingly, this filing describes the changes in the public relations costs from the Updated 2025 CAT Budget, which was used in the calculation of the prior Prospective CAT Fee, CAT Fee 2025-1.
The annual budgeted public relations costs for 2025 as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $50,000, and the annual budgeted public relations costs for 2025 as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget are $6,575. Accordingly, the annual budget for public relations cost for 2025 decreased by $43,425 from the Original 2025 CAT
Correspondingly, the budgeted costs for public relations services for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget were $25,000,
This budgeted decrease in the public relations costs from the Original 2025 CAT Budget to the Updated 2025 CAT Budget, both for the full year for 2025 and for the third and fourth quarters of 2025, was primarily due to CAT LLC's anticipation that it would not engage a public relations firm for the remainder of 2025.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to provide a brief description of the reserve costs set forth in the budget. The Operating Committee approved an operating budget for the CAT pursuant to Section 11.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan that includes a reserve amount for 2025. Section 11.1(a)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan states that the budget shall include a reserve. Section 11.1(a)(ii) of the CAT NMS Plan further describes the reserve as follows:
For the reserve referenced in paragraph (a)(i) of this Section, the budget will include an amount reasonably necessary to allow the Company to maintain a reserve of not more than 25% of the annual budget. To the extent collected CAT fees exceed CAT costs, including the reserve of 25% of the annual budget, such surplus shall be used to offset future fees. For the avoidance of doubt, the Company will only include an amount for the reserve in the annual budget if the Company does not have a sufficient reserve (which shall be up to but not more than 25% of the annual budget). For the avoidance of doubt, the calculation of the amount of the reserve would exclude the amount of the reserve from the budget.
The Updated 2025 CAT Budget states that CAT LLC had accrued $70,942,596 for the reserve as of the beginning of 2025, and an additional $28,846,075 during the first quarter of 2025, from the collection of CAT Fees 2024-1 and 2025-1 and the related Participant CAT Fees. In addition, the Updated 2025 CAT Budget anticipates the collection of an additional $11,821,477 during the second quarter of 2025 via CAT Fee 2025-1 and the related Participant CAT Fee. Accordingly, the Updated 2025 CAT Budget estimates that CAT LLC would collect a surplus reserve amount through June 2025 of $54,526,412 over the 25% reserve amount of $57,083,638.
Such surplus was related, in part, to (i) the collection of CAT fees in excess of the budgeted CAT costs for 2024 and 2025 in light of the greater actual executed equivalent share volume than the projected executed equivalent share volume for CAT Fees 2024-1 and 2025-1, and (ii) a reduction in anticipated budgeted costs associated with the implementation of certain cost savings measures approved by the SEC pertaining to the processing of options market maker quotes and the storage of certain data.
As set forth in the Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2, the surplus reserve balance of $54,526,412 would be used to offset a portion of CAT costs for the third and fourth quarters of 2025, thereby reducing the fee rate to be paid for CAT Fee 2025-2. Specifically, the total costs used to calculate the fee rate for CAT Fee 2025-2 would be reduced by the amount of the surplus reserve as set forth in the following table:
Accordingly, the fee rate for CAT Fee 2025-2 is calculated based on this reduced amount of $60,726,412, resulting in a fee rate of $0.000009 per executed equivalent share. If the fee rate for CAT Fee 2025-2 were calculated solely based on the reasonably budgeted costs for CAT for July-December 2025 excluding the reduction in that amount due to the surplus reserve offset (that is, based on $115,252,921, not $60,726,412), the fee rate would be the higher rate of $0.000017.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the fee filing for a Prospective CAT Fee to describe the reason for changes in the line item for a reserve from the prior CAT Fee filing. Accordingly, this filing describes the
For the Original 2025 CAT Budget, CAT LLC determined to maintain a reserve in the amount of 25% of budgeted CAT costs (other than the reserve). Accordingly, the total 25% reserve was calculated by multiplying the budgeted CAT costs (other than the reserve) as set forth in the Original 2025 CAT Budget (which is $248,846,076) by 25%, for a target reserve amount of $62,211,519. However, the Original 2025 CAT Budget recognized that a portion of the reserve—$38,369,315—would have been previously collected, and therefore would not need to be included the budgeted CAT costs to be recovered by the CAT Fees. Specifically, the Original 2025 CAT Budget recognized that there was (i) a liquidity reserve balance of $27,695,385 at the beginning of 2025, (ii) a favorable variance of $10,084,698 for budgeted versus actual cloud hosting services costs covering the period from July 16, 2024 through September 30, 2024, and (iii) a Participation Fee from a new Participant in the CAT NMS Plan of $589,232. These three items totaled $38,369,315. Accordingly, the Original 2025 CAT Budget only included $23,842,200 to be collected towards the reserve via the CAT Fee. This $23,842,200 is calculated by reducing the total 25% reserve amount of $62,211,519 by the $38,369,315 previously collected for the reserve. In the Original 2025 CAT Budget, the budget anticipated collecting the remaining reserve amount of $23,842,200 evenly throughout the year, that is, $5,960,500 for each quarter.
As discussed above, CAT LLC determined to maintain a reserve in the amount of 25% of the budgeted CAT costs (other than the reserve). Accordingly, the total 25% reserve was calculated by multiplying the budgeted CAT costs (other than the reserve) as set forth in the Updated 2025 CAT Budget (which is $228,334,551) by 25%, for a target reserve amount of $57,083,638.
As discussed above, such surplus reserve balance of $54,526,412 would be used to offset a portion of CAT costs for the third and fourth quarters of 2025, thereby reducing the fee rate for CAT Fee 2025-2 in accordance with Section 11.1(a)(ii) of the CAT NMS Plan. Section 11.1(a)(ii) of the CAT NMS Plan states that “[t]o the extent collected CAT fees exceed CAT costs, including the reserve of 25% of the annual budget, such surplus shall be used to offset future fees.”
The calculation of Fee Rate 2025-2 also requires the determination of the projected total executed equivalent share volume of transactions in Eligible Securities for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period. Under the CAT NMS Plan, the Operating Committee is required to “reasonably determine the projected total executed equivalent share volume of all transactions in Eligible Securities for each relevant period based on the executed equivalent share volume of all transactions in Eligible Securities for the prior twelve months.”
The total executed equivalent share volume of transactions in Eligible Securities for the 12-month period from April 2024 through March 2025 was 4,580,287,680,646.28 executed equivalent shares. The Operating Committee has determined to calculate the projected total executed equivalent share volume for the six-month recovery period for CAT Fee 2025-2 by multiplying by one-half the executed equivalent share volume for the 12-month period from April 2024 through March 2025. The Operating Committee determined that such an approach was reasonable as the CAT's annual executed equivalent share volume has remained relatively constant. For example, the executed equivalent share volume for 2021 was 3,963,697,612,395, the executed equivalent share volume for 2022 was 4,039,821,841,560.31, the executed equivalent share volume for 2023 was 3,868,940,345,680.6, and the executed equivalent share volume for 2024 was 4,295,884,600,069.41. Accordingly, the projected total executed equivalent share volume for the six-month period for CAT Fee 2025-2 is projected to be 2,290,143,840,323.14 executed equivalent shares.
The projected total executed equivalent share volume of all transactions in Eligible Securities for the six-month recovery period for CAT Fee 2025-2 and a description of the calculation of the projection is provided in this filing in accordance with the requirement in the CAT NMS Plan to provide such information in a fee filing for a CAT Fee.
Fee Rate 2025-2 would be calculated by dividing the Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2 by the reasonably projected total executed equivalent share volume of all transactions in Eligible Securities for the six-month recovery period for CAT Fee 2025-2, as described in detail above.
CEBBs and CEBSs would be required to pay fees for CAT Fee 2025-2 on a monthly basis for six months, from August 2025 until January 2026. A CEBB's or CEBS's fee for each month would be calculated based on the transactions in Eligible Securities executed by the CEBB or CEBS from the prior month.
To implement CAT Fee 2025-2, the Exchange proposes to add a new paragraph to the “Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees” section of the Exchange's fee schedule, to include the proposed paragraphs described below.
The CAT NMS Plan states that:
Each Industry Member that is the CAT Executing Broker for the buyer in a transaction in Eligible Securities (“CAT Executing Broker for the Buyer” or “CEBB”) and each Industry Member that is the CAT Executing Broker for the seller in a transaction in Eligible Securities (“CAT Executing Broker for the Seller” or “CEBS”) will be required to pay a CAT Fee for each such transaction in Eligible Securities in the prior month based on CAT Data. The CEBB's CAT Fee or CEBS's CAT Fee (as applicable) for each transaction in Eligible Securities will be calculated by multiplying the number of executed equivalent shares in the transaction by one-third and by the Fee Rate reasonably determined pursuant to paragraph (a)(i) of this Section 11.3.
(A) Each CAT Executing Broker shall receive its first invoice for CAT Fee 2025-2 in August 2025, which shall set forth the CAT Fee 2025-2 fees calculated based on transactions in July 2025, and shall receive an invoice for CAT Fee 2025-2 for each month thereafter until January 2026.
(B) Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC shall provide each CAT Executing Broker with an invoice for CAT Fee 2025-2 on a monthly basis. Each month, such invoices shall set forth a fee for each transaction in Eligible Securities executed by the CAT Executing Broker in its capacity as a CAT Executing Broker for the Buyer (“CEBB”) and/or the CAT Executing Broker for the Seller (“CEBS”) (as applicable) from the prior month as set forth in CAT Data. The fee for each such transaction will be calculated by multiplying the number of executed equivalent shares in the transaction by the fee rate of $0.000009 per executed equivalent share.
(C) Notwithstanding the last invoice date of January 2026 for CAT Fee 2025-2 in paragraph 5(A), CAT Fee 2025-2 shall continue in effect after January 2026, with each CAT Executing Broker receiving an invoice for CAT Fee 2025-2 each month, until a new subsequent CAT Fee is in effect with regard to Industry Members in accordance with Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act. Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC will provide notice when CAT Fee 2025-2 will no longer be in effect.
(D) Each CAT Executing Broker shall be required to pay each invoice for CAT Fee 2025-2 in accordance with paragraph (b).
As noted in the Plan amendment for the CAT Funding Model, “[a]s a practical matter, the fee filing would provide the exact fee per executed equivalent share to be paid for the CAT Fees, by multiplying the Fee Rate by one-third and describing the relevant number of decimal places for the fee.”
The proposed language in paragraph (a)(5)(A) of the fee schedule would describe when CAT Executing Brokers would receive their first monthly invoice for CAT Fee 2025-2. Specifically, CAT Executing Brokers would receive their first monthly invoice for CAT Fee 2025-2 in August 2025 and the fees set forth in that invoice would be calculated based on transactions executed in July 2025. The payment for the first invoice would be required within 30 days after the receipt of the first invoice (unless a longer period is indicated), as described in paragraph (b)(2) of the fee schedule.
Proposed paragraph (a)(5)(A) of the fee schedule also would describe the monthly cadence of the invoices for CAT Fee 2025-2. Specifically, after the first invoices are provided to CAT Executing Brokers in August 2025, invoices will be sent to CAT Executing Brokers each month thereafter until January 2026.
Proposed paragraph (a)(5)(B) of the fee schedule would describe the invoices for CAT Fee 2025-2. Proposed paragraph (a)(5)(B) of the fee schedule would state that “Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC shall provide each CAT Executing Broker with an invoice for CAT Fee 2025-2 on a monthly basis.” Proposed paragraph (a)(5)(B) of the fee schedule also would describe the fees to be set forth in the invoices for CAT Fee 2025-2. Specifically, it would state that “[e]ach month, such invoices shall set forth a fee for each transaction in Eligible Securities executed by the CAT Executing Broker in its capacity as a CAT Executing Broker for the Buyer (`CEBB') and/or the CAT Executing Broker for the Seller (`CEBS') (as applicable) from the prior month as set forth in CAT Data. The fee for each such transaction will be calculated by multiplying the number of executed equivalent shares in the transaction by the fee rate of $0.000009 per executed equivalent share.”
Since CAT Fee 2025-2 is a monthly fee based on actual transaction volume from the prior month, CAT Fee 2025-2 may collect more or less than two-thirds of the Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2. To the extent that CAT Fee 2025-2 collects more than two-thirds of the Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2, any excess money collected will be used to offset future fees and/or to fund the reserve for the CAT. To the extent that CAT Fee 2025-2 collects less than two-thirds of the Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2, the budget for the CAT in the ensuing months will reflect such shortfall.
Furthermore, proposed paragraph (a)(5)(C) of the fee schedule would describe how long CAT Fee 2025-2 would remain in effect. It would state that “[n]otwithstanding the last invoice date of January 2026 for CAT Fee 2025-2 in paragraph 5(A), CAT Fee 2025-2 shall continue in effect after January 2026, with each CAT Executing Broker receiving an invoice for CAT Fee 2025-2 each month, until a new subsequent CAT Fee is in effect with regard to
Finally, proposed paragraph (a)(5)(D) of the fee schedule would set forth the requirement for the CAT Executing Brokers to pay the invoices for CAT Fee 2025-2. It would state that “[e]ach CAT Executing Broker shall be required to pay each invoice for CAT Fee 2025-2 in accordance with paragraph (b).”
Paragraph (b)(1) of the “Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees” section of the fee schedule describes the manner of payment of Industry Member CAT fees. It states that “[e]ach CAT Executing Broker shall pay its CAT fees as required pursuant to paragraph (a) each month to the Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC in the manner prescribed by the Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC.” The CAT NMS Plan requires the Operating Committee to establish a system for the collection of CAT fees.
The CAT NMS Plan further states that:
Participants shall require each Industry Member to pay all applicable fees authorized under this Article XI within thirty (30) days after receipt of an invoice or other notice indicating payment is due (unless a longer payment period is otherwise indicated). If an Industry Member fails to pay any such fee when due (as determined in accordance with the preceding sentence), such Industry Member shall pay interest on the outstanding balance from such due date until such fee is paid at a per annum rate equal to the lesser of: (a) the Prime Rate plus 300 basis points; or (b) the maximum rate permitted by applicable law.
Each CAT Executing Broker shall pay the CAT fees required pursuant to paragraph (a) within thirty days after receipt of an invoice or other notice indicating payment is due (unless a longer payment period is otherwise indicated). If a CAT Executing Broker fails to pay any such CAT fee when due, such CAT Executing Broker shall pay interest on the outstanding balance from such due date until such fee is paid at a per annum rate equal to the lesser of (i) the Prime Rate plus 300 basis points, or (ii) the maximum rate permitted by applicable law.
The CAT NMS Plan states that:
Details regarding the calculation of a Participant or CAT Executing Broker's CAT Fees will be provided upon request to such Participant or CAT Executing Broker. At a minimum, such details would include each Participant or CAT Executing Broker's executed equivalent share volume and corresponding fee by (1) Listed Options, NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities, (2) by transactions executed on each exchange and transactions executed otherwise than on an exchange, and (3) by buy-side transactions and sell-side transactions.
In addition, CAT LLC will make certain aggregate statistics regarding CAT Fees publicly available. Specifically, the CAT NMS Plan states that, “[f]or each CAT Fee, at a minimum, CAT LLC will make publicly available the aggregate executed equivalent share volume and corresponding aggregate fee by (1) Listed Options, NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities, (2) by transactions executed on each exchange and transactions executed otherwise than on an exchange, and (3) by buy-side transactions and sell-side transactions.”
Furthermore, CAT LLC will make publicly available on the CAT website the total amount invoiced each month that CAT Fee 2025-2 is in effect as well as the total amount invoiced for CAT Fee 2025-2 for all months since its commencement. CAT LLC also will make publicly available on the CAT website the total costs to be collected from Industry Members for CAT Fee 2025-2.
The CAT NMS Plan states that “[n]o Participant will make a filing with the SEC pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act regarding any CAT Fee related to Prospective CAT Costs until the Financial Accountability Milestone related to Period 4 described in Section 11.6 has been satisfied.”
CAT LLC intends for CAT Fee 2025-2 to replace CAT Fee 2025-1 (which has a fee rate of $0.000022).
While CAT Fees charged to Industry Members become effective in accordance with the requirements of Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it implements provisions of the Plan and is designed to assist the Exchange in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving the Plan, the SEC noted that the Plan “is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.”
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees to be paid by the CEBBs and CEBSs are reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory. First, the CAT Fee 2025-2 fees to be collected are directly associated with the budgeted costs of establishing and maintaining the CAT, where such costs include Plan Processor costs and costs related to technology, legal, consulting, insurance, professional and administration, and public relations costs.
The proposed CAT Fee 2025-2 fees would be charged to Industry Members in support of the maintenance of a consolidated audit trail for regulatory purposes. The proposed fees, therefore, are consistent with the Commission's view that regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes and not to support the Exchange's business operations. The proposed fees would not cover Exchange services unrelated to the CAT. In addition, any surplus would be used as a reserve to offset future fees. Given the direct relationship between CAT fees and CAT costs, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
As further discussed below, the SEC approved the CAT Funding Model, finding it was reasonable and that it equitably allocates fees among Participants and Industry Members. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees adopted pursuant to the CAT Funding Model approved by the SEC are reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory.
Section 11.1(b) of the CAT NMS Plan states that “[t]he Participants shall file with the SEC under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act any such fees on Industry Members that the Operating Committee approves.” Per Section 11.1(b) of the CAT NMS Plan, the Exchange has filed this fee filing to implement the Industry Member CAT fees included in the CAT Funding Model. The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Exchange Act because it is consistent with, and implements, the CAT Funding Model in the CAT NMS Plan, and is designed to assist the Exchange and its Industry Members in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan. In approving the CAT NMS Plan, the SEC noted that the Plan “is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
The SEC has determined that the CAT Funding Model is reasonable and satisfies the requirements of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the SEC has concluded that the method for determining CAT Fees as set forth in Section 11.3 of the CAT NMS Plan, including the formula for calculating the Fee Rate, the identification of the parties responsible for payment and the transactions subject to the fee rate for CAT Fees, is reasonable and satisfies the Exchange Act.
The formula for calculating a Fee Rate requires the amount of Budgeted CAT Costs to be recovered. Specifically, Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan requires a fee filing to provide:
the budget for the upcoming year (or remainder of the year, as applicable), including a brief description of each line item in the budget, including (1) the technology line items of cloud hosting services, operating fees, CAIS operating fees, change request fees, and capitalized developed technology costs, (2) legal, (3) consulting, (4) insurance, (5) professional and administration, and (6) public relations costs, a reserve and/or such other categories as reasonably determined by the Operating Committee to be included in the budget, and the reason for changes in each such line item from the prior CAT fee filing.
Section 11.3(a)(iii)(B) of the CAT NMS Plan also requires that the fee filing provide “sufficient detail to demonstrate that the budget for the upcoming year, or part of year, as applicable, is reasonable and appropriate.” As discussed below, the Exchange believes that the budget for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period is “reasonable and appropriate.” Each of the costs included in CAT Fee 2025-2 are reasonable and appropriate because the costs are consistent with standard industry practice, based on the need to comply with the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan, incurred subject to negotiations performed on an arm's length basis, and/or are consistent with the needs of any legal entity, particularly one with no employees.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the Commission recognized that it is appropriate to recover budgeted costs related to cloud hosting services as a part of CAT Fees.
To comply with the requirements of the Plan, the breadth of the cloud activities related to the CAT is substantial. The cloud services not only include the production environment for the CAT, but they also include two industry testing environments, support environments for quality assurance and stress testing and disaster recovery capabilities. Moreover, the cloud storage costs are driven by the requirements of the Plan, which requires the storage of multiple versions of the data, from the original submitted version of the data through various processing steps, to the final version of the data.
Data volume is a significant driver of costs for cloud hosting services. When the Commission adopted the CAT NMS Plan in 2016, it estimated that the CAT would need to receive 58 billion records per day
In addition to the effect of the data volume on the cloud hosting costs, the processing timelines set forth in the Plan contribute to the cloud hosting costs. Although CAT LLC has proactively sought to manage cloud hosting costs while complying with the Plan, including through requests to the Commission for exemptive relief and amendments to the CAT NMS Plan to reduce costs, stringent CAT NMS Plan requirements do not allow for any material flexibility in cloud architecture design choices, processing timelines (
The costs for cloud hosting services also reflect the need for specialized cloud hosting services given the data volume and unique processing needs of the CAT. The data volume as well as the data processing needs of the CAT necessitate the use of cloud hosting services. The equipment, power and services required for an on-premises data model, the alternative to cloud
The reasonableness of the cloud hosting services costs is further supported by key cost discipline mechanisms for the CAT—a cost-based funding structure, cost transparency, cost management efforts (including regular efforts to lower compute and storage costs where permitted by the Plan) and oversight. Together, these mechanisms help ensure the ongoing reasonableness of the CAT's costs and the level of fees assessed to support those costs.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover budgeted costs related to operating fees as a part of CAT Fees.
The operating fees would include the negotiated fees paid by CAT LLC to the Plan Processor to operate and maintain the system for order-related information and to perform business operations related to the system, including compliance, security, testing, training, communications with the industry (
The operating costs also include costs related to the receipt of market data. CAT LLC anticipates receiving certain market data from Algoseek during the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period. CAT LLC anticipates that Algoseek will provide data as set forth in the SIP Data requirements of the CAT NMS Plan and that the fees are reasonable and in line with market rates for market data received.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover budgeted costs related to CAIS operating fees as a part of CAT Fees.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover budgeted costs related to change request fees as a part of CAT Fees.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover budgeted costs related to capitalized developed technology costs as a part of CAT Fees.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover budgeted costs related to legal fees as a part of CAT Fees.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover budgeted consulting costs as a part of CAT Fees.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover budgeted insurance costs as a part of CAT Fees.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover budgeted professional and administration costs as a part of CAT Fees.
CAT LLC anticipates continuing to make use of Anchin, a financial advisory firm, to assist with financial matters for the CAT. CAT LLC determined that the budgeted costs for Anchin were appropriate, as the financial advisory services were to be provided at reasonable market rates that were comparable to the rates charged by other such firms for similar work. Moreover, the total budgeted costs for such financial advisory services were appropriate in light of the breadth of services provided by Anchin. The services budgeted to be performed by Anchin and the budgeted costs related to such services are described above.
CAT LLC anticipates continuing to make use of Grant Thornton, an independent accounting firm, to complete the audit of CAT LLC's financial statements, in accordance with the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan. CAT LLC determined that the budgeted costs for Grant Thornton were appropriate, as the accounting services were to be provided at reasonable market rates that were comparable to the rates charged by other such firms for similar work. Moreover, the total budgeted costs for such accounting services were appropriate in light of the breadth of services provided by Grant Thornton. The services budgeted to be performed by Grant Thornton and the budgeted costs related to such services are described above.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover budgeted public relations costs as a part of CAT Fees.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover budgeted reserve costs as a part of CAT Fees.
In its approval order for the CAT Funding Model, the Commission stated that it would be reasonable for the annual operating budget for the CAT to
Because the CAT is a critical regulatory tool/system, the CAT needs to have a stable funding source to build financial stability to support the Company as a going concern. Funding for the CAT, as noted in Section 11.1(b), is the responsibility of the Participants and the industry. Because CAT fees are charged based on the budget, which is based on anticipated volume, it is reasonable to have a reserve on hand to prevent a shortfall in the event there is an unexpectedly high volume in a given year. A reserve would help to assure that the CAT has sufficient resources to cover costs should there be unanticipated costs or costs that are higher than expected.
As discussed further below,
The CAT NMS Plan also requires fee filings for Prospective CAT Fees to include “a discussion of how the budget is reconciled to the collected fees.”
The total executed equivalent share volume of transactions in Eligible Securities for the period from April 2024 through March 2025 was 4,580,287,680,646.28 executed equivalent shares. CAT LLC determined the total executed equivalent share volume for the prior twelve months by counting executed equivalent shares in the same manner as it counts executed equivalent shares for CAT billing purposes.
CAT LLC has determined that the projected total executed equivalent share volume for the six months of CAT Fee 2025-2 Period by multiplying by one-half the executed equivalent share volume for the prior twelve months: one-half times 4,580,287,680,646.28 executed equivalent shares.
As noted in the approval order for the CAT Funding Model, as a practical matter, the fee filing for a CAT Fee would provide the exact fee per executed equivalent share to be paid for each CAT Fee, by multiplying the Fee Rate by one-third and describing the relevant number of decimal places for the fee rate.
The Exchange believes that charging CAT Fee 2025-2 with a fee rate of $0.000009 per executed equivalent share is reasonable because it provides for a revenue stream for the Company that is aligned with the Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the level of the fee rate is reasonable, as it is less than CAT Fee 2025-1 and is comparable to other transaction-based fees. Indeed, CAT Fee 2025-2 is significantly lower than fees previously assessed pursuant to Section 31 (
CAT Fee 2025-2 provides for an equitable allocation of fees, as it equitably allocates CAT costs between and among the Participants and Industry Members. The SEC approved the CAT Funding Model, finding that each aspect of the CAT Funding Model satisfied the requirements of the Exchange Act, including the formula for calculating CAT Fees as well as the Industry Members to be charged the CAT Fees.
CAT Fee 2025-2 provides for an equitable allocation of fees as it complies with the requirements regarding the calculation of CAT Fees as set forth in the CAT NMS Plan. For example, as described above, the calculation of CAT Fee 2025-2 complies with the formula set forth in Section 11.3(a) of the CAT NMS Plan. In addition, CAT Fee 2025-2 would be charged to CEBBs and CEBSs in accordance with Section 11.3(a) of the CAT NMS Plan. Furthermore, the Participants would be charged for their designated share of the Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2 through a fee implemented via the CAT NMS Plan, which would have the same fee rate as CAT Fee 2025-2.
In addition, as discussed above, each of the inputs into the calculation of CAT Fee 2025-2—the Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2, the count for the executed equivalent share volume for the prior 12 months, and the projected executed equivalent share volume for the CAT Fee 2025-2 Period—are reasonable. Moreover, these inputs lead to a reasonable fee rate for CAT Fee 2025-2 that is lower than other fee rates for transaction-based fees. A reasonable fee rate allocated in accordance with the requirements of the CAT Funding Model provides for an equitable allocation of fees.
CAT Fee 2025-2 is not an unfairly discriminatory fee. The SEC approved the CAT Funding Model, finding that each aspect of the CAT Funding Model satisfies the requirements of the Exchange Act. In reaching this conclusion, the SEC analyzed the potential effect of CAT Fees calculated pursuant to the CAT Funding Model on affected categories of market participants, including Participants (including exchanges and FINRA), Industry Members (including subcategories of Industry Members, such as alternative trading systems, CAT Executing Brokers and market makers), and investors generally, and considered market effects related to equities and options, among other things. CAT Fee 2025-2 complies with the requirements regarding the calculation of CAT Fees as set forth in the CAT NMS Plan. In addition, as discussed above, each of the inputs into the calculation of CAT Fee 2025-2 and the resulting fee rate for CAT Fee 2025-2 is reasonable. Therefore, CAT Fee 2025-2 does not impose an unfairly discriminatory fee on Industry Members.
The Exchange believes the proposed fees established pursuant to the CAT Funding Model promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, and are provided in a transparent manner and with specificity in the fee schedule. The Exchange also believes that the proposed fees are reasonable because they would provide ease of calculation, ease of billing and other administrative functions, and predictability of a fee based on fixed rate per executed equivalent share. Such factors are crucial to estimating a reliable revenue stream for CAT LLC and for permitting Exchange members to reasonably predict their payment obligations for budgeting purposes.
Section 6(b)(8) of the Act
In addition, all Participants (including exchanges and FINRA) are proposing to introduce CAT Fee 2025-2 on behalf of CAT LLC to implement the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan. Therefore, this is not a competitive fee filing, and, therefore, it does not raise competition issues between and among the Participants.
Furthermore, in approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC analyzed the potential competitive impact of the CAT Funding Model, including competitive issues related to market services, trading services and regulatory services, efficiency concerns, and capital formation.
As discussed above, each of the inputs into the calculation of CAT Fee 2025-2 is reasonable and the resulting fee rate for CAT Fee 2025-2 calculated in accordance with the CAT Funding Model is reasonable. Therefore, CAT Fee 2025-2 would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Exchange Act.
Not applicable.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Schedule 14D-9F (17 CFR 240.14d-103) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78
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.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend and restate the Exchange's Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement (the “Second Amended LLC Agreement”) as the Third Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement (the “Third Amended LLC Agreement”) to reflect certain amendments, as further described below. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5 and is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend and restate the Exchange LLC Agreement to modify the requirements of who may serve as a Nominating Committee member, as discussed below.
Currently, the Exchange LLC Agreement provides that the Board shall be comprised of natural Persons (each such Person, a “Director”) who shall be nominated on an annual basis by the Nominating Committee, and Section 8.7(a) provides that, among other requirements, all Nominating Committee members shall be Independent Directors. As set forth in Section 1.1, an “Independent Director” is defined as a Director who has no material relationship with the Company or any Affiliate of the Company, or any Exchange Member or any Affiliate of any such Exchange Member; provided, however, that an individual who otherwise qualifies as an Independent Director shall not be disqualified from serving in such capacity solely because such Director is a Director of the Company or Holdco.
The Exchange is proposing to modify this provision under 8.7(a) to state that all Nominating Committee members shall be Independent Committee Members. Also as set forth in Section 1.1, an “Independent Committee Member” is defined as a member of any Committee who has no material relationship with the Company or any Affiliate of the Company, or any Exchange Member or any Affiliate of any such Exchange Member, other than as member of such Committee. The term “Independent Committee Member” may but is not required to refer to an Independent Director who serves on a Committee; provided, however, that an individual who otherwise qualifies as an Independent Committee Member shall not be disqualified from serving in such capacity solely because such individual is an Independent Director of the Company or, if applicable, an independent director of Holdco.
The purpose of the proposed change is to provide the Exchange flexibility to allow individuals who meet the definition of Independent Committee Members, but not necessarily Independent Directors, to serve on the Nominating Committee. The Exchange notes that the definition of an Independent Committee Member may, but is not required to, refer to an Independent Director, and as such, the Nominating Committee may be comprised solely of Independent Directors under the language of the proposed change, however, the Exchange wishes to modify the language in order to expand the universe of individuals that may serve on the Nominating Committee to include Independent Committee Members, which may not be Directors. The Exchange notes that this modification would make the structure of the Nominating Committee consistent with that of its affiliate Exchange, MX2, LLC (“MX2”), pursuant to Section 8.7 of the First Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of MX2.
The Exchange is not proposing to modify any other provisions of the Exchange LLC Agreement related to the composition of the Nominating Committee under Section 8.7(a)
Further, MEMX has reviewed the rules of other U.S. securities exchanges and noted that certain other exchanges do not require Nominating Committee members to be Directors.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to the Exchange LLC Agreement is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that amending which individuals may serve on the Nominating Committee is consistent with the Act as this will provide a broader base of potential candidates to serve on the Nominating Committee and aligns with the governance framework of the Exchange's affiliate, MX2. In other words, as MX2 does, allowing members of the Nominating Committee to be Independent Committee Members, rather than Independent Directors, allows both Directors and non-Directors to serve on the Nominating Committee. Thus, the Exchange does not believe this change will affect the Exchange's ability to be organized as to have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Act and to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange, promoting just and equitable principles of trade, removing impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market, and protecting investors and the public interest. Further, the Exchange believes the proposed change to the Exchange LLC Agreement is consistent with, and will not interfere with, the self-regulatory obligations of the Exchange. The Exchange notes that it is not proposing to amend any provisions within the Exchange LLC Agreement dealing with the availability or protection of information, books and records, undue influence, conflicts of interest, unfair control by an affiliate, or regulatory independence of the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned solely with the type of individuals that may serve on the Nominating Committee, as described above.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii)
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 will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 6897(b) (CAT Cost Recovery Fees) to implement a Consolidated Audit Trail (“CAT”) cost recovery fee designed to permit FINRA to recoup its designated portion of the reasonably budgeted CAT costs of the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (the “CAT NMS Plan” or “Plan”) for the period July 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On July 11, 2012, the Commission adopted Rule 613 of Regulation NMS, which required the self-regulatory organizations to submit a national market system (“NMS”) plan to create, implement and maintain a consolidated audit trail that would capture customer and order event information for orders in NMS securities across all markets, from the time of order inception through routing, cancellation, modification, or execution.
The CAT Funding Model provides a framework for the recovery of the costs to create, develop, and maintain the CAT, including providing a method for allocating costs to fund the CAT among Participants and Industry Members. The CAT Funding Model establishes two categories of fees: (1) CAT fees assessed by CAT LLC and payable by certain Industry Members to recover a portion of historical CAT costs previously paid by the Participants;
With respect to CAT fees implemented to fund Prospective CAT Costs, the CAT Operating Committee has established CAT Fee 2025-2 to implement fees payable by Industry Members to recover the reasonably budgeted Prospective CAT Costs for the period July 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025 (“Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2”).
In light of the filing of File No. SR-FINRA-2025-009, which implements CAT Fee 2025-2 with regard to Industry Members, FINRA is filing the instant proposed rule change to establish a fee
As discussed in File No. SR-FINRA-2025-009, the Operating Committee has established CAT Fee 2025-2, payable to CAT LLC by Industry Members, to recover two-thirds of the $60,726,412 in Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2 over the July 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025 period, or $40,484,274.66.
The Operating Committee further determined that the fee rate for CAT Fee 2025-2 is $0.00002651641828376661 per executed equivalent share,
For the twelve months from April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025, the average monthly executed equivalent share volume in Eligible Securities where FINRA was the relevant Participant (
FINRA's recovery of its designated portion of Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2 is reasonable and consistent with the Exchange Act. As discussed herein and in File No. SR-FINRA-2025-009, Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2 are reasonable, appropriate and necessary for the creation, implementation, and maintenance of the CAT. In addition, the portion of Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2 designated to FINRA has been established under the SEC-approved CAT Funding Model.
FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 6897(b) (CAT Cost Recovery Fees) to implement Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2 to allow FINRA to recover its designated portion of Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2.
The following fields of the Participant Technical Specifications indicate the CAT Executing Brokers for transactions executed otherwise than on an exchange.
As discussed in File No. SR-FINRA-2025-009, consistent with the CAT Funding Model, in implementing CAT Fee 2025-2, the Operating Committee has determined that each of the CEBB, CEBS and relevant Participant for a given transaction in an Eligible Security would be assessed a fee of $0.000009 per executed equivalent share. In line with this approach, FINRA proposes that the amount assessed on CEBBs and CEBSs under Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2 would generally take the approach of equally apportioning the fee rate that is assessed to FINRA under CAT Fee 2025-2
FINRA proposes to adopt Rule 6897(b)(1)(E) (Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2) to implement Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2. Proposed Rule 6897(b)(1)(E)(i) would provide that each member CAT Executing Broker shall receive its first invoice from FINRA in August 2025, setting forth the Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2 fees calculated based on transactions in July 2025, and shall receive an invoice for Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2 from FINRA for each month thereafter until January 2026. As provided in proposed Rule 6897(b)(1)(E)(ii), FINRA shall provide each member CAT Executing Broker with an invoice for Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2 on a monthly basis (which shall be separate from the invoice provide by CAT LLC with respect to CAT Fee 2025-2). Each monthly invoice provided by FINRA shall set forth a fee for each transaction in Eligible Securities executed by the CAT Executing Broker in its capacity as the CEBB and/or the CEBS (as applicable) otherwise than on an exchange from the prior month as set forth in CAT Data. The fee assessed to each CEBB and CEBS for each such transaction will be calculated by multiplying the number of executed equivalent shares in the transaction by the Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2 fee rate of $0.000005 per executed equivalent share.
Further, as provided in proposed Rule 6897(b)(1)(E)(iii), notwithstanding the last invoice date of January 2026 for Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2 in Rule 6897(b)(1)(E)(i), Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2 shall continue in effect after January 2026, with each CAT Executing Broker receiving an invoice for Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2 each month, until a new subsequent Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee is in effect with regard to members in accordance with Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act.
Beginning with the initial invoice for Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2 in August 2025, FINRA will make available to each member CAT Executing Broker a copy of the relevant details for fee liable transactions executed each month otherwise than on an exchange. Similar to the information that would be provided by CAT LLC to CAT Executing Brokers in assessing the off-exchange portion of CAT Fee 2025-2 each month,
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The effective date and the implementation date will be the date of filing.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA believes that this proposed rule change is consistent with the Act because it is designed to assist FINRA in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving the Plan, the SEC noted that the Plan “is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.”
As discussed in detail in File No. SR-FINRA-2025-009, FINRA believes that the proposed fees paid by the CEBBs and CEBSs in connection with CAT Fee 2025-2 are reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory. Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2 would similarly allow FINRA to recover costs related to CAT Fee 2025-2 from member CAT Executing Brokers in a fair and reasonable manner, as contemplated by the Exchange Act and consistent with the CAT Funding Model Approval Order.
Proposed Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2 would be charged to member CAT Executing Brokers in support of the maintenance of a consolidated audit trail for regulatory purposes. The proposed fees, therefore, are consistent with the Commission's view that regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes. The proposed fees would not cover FINRA costs unrelated to the CAT. Accordingly, FINRA believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
The reasonableness of Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2 and its consistency with the Exchange Act likewise is grounded in the facts described above and detailed in File No. SR-FINRA-2025-009. Specifically, the reasonably budgeted expenses that compose the portion of Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2 sought to be recovered through Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2 were recognized by the SEC as appropriate for recovery pursuant to the formula approved in the CAT Funding Model (
Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2 is designed to allow FINRA to recover its designated portion of Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2, consistent with the Exchange Act and the CAT Funding Model Approval Order.
Without a mechanism to recover its CAT costs, FINRA, which is unique among the Participants as a not-for-profit, national securities association, would not be able to effectively sustain its regulatory mission.
Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2 is designed to recover FINRA's designated portion of budgeted CAT costs to be incurred by CAT LLC associated with the development, implementation, and operation of the CAT system under the CAT NMS Plan. Thus, Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2 also generally is designed to support FINRA's efforts to align its operating expenses with its operating revenues, target break-even cash flows over time, and continue to responsibly manage expenses driven by mandatory initiatives, like the CAT NMS Plan, in a manner consistent with FINRA's public Financial Guiding Principles.
FINRA's approach in determining Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2, which generally is consistent with the approach provided for under the SEC-approved CAT Funding Model, is also reasonable and consistent with the Exchange Act. Specifically, similar to the CAT cost assessment methodology approved by the Commission, FINRA proposes to allocate equally among member CEBBs and CEBSs FINRA's designated portion of the Participants' one-third share of Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2.
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Section 15A(b)(9) of the Act
Furthermore, in approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC analyzed the potential competitive impact of the CAT Funding Model, including competitive issues related to market services, trading services and regulatory services, efficiency concerns, and capital formation.
As discussed in File No. SR-FINRA-2025-009, each of the inputs into the calculation of CAT Fee 2025-2 is reasonable and the resulting fee rate for CAT Fee 2025-2 is reasonable. Therefore, Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2, for these same reasons, is reasonable and would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Exchange Act.
Based on the regulatory need discussed above, FINRA has undertaken an economic impact assessment, as set forth below, to analyze the potential economic impacts of the proposed rule change, including potential costs, benefits, and distributional and competitive effects, relative to the current baseline.
As discussed above under the “FINRA's Designated Portion of Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2” section, FINRA is filing a proposed rule change to establish Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2 to recover its designated portion of the Participants' share of Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2.
As discussed above under the “FINRA's Designated Portion of Budgeted CAT Costs 2025-2” section, FINRA arrived at the fee rate for Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2 by rounding up the CAT Fee 2025-2 of $0.000009 to $0.000010 per executed equivalent share, and dividing it by two, resulting in a Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee 2025-2 of $0.000005.
For the twelve months from April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025, based on transactions reported to a FINRA TRF or to the ORF, there were 979 firm MPIDs that executed at least one purchase or sale of an equivalent share of an Eligible Security.
FINRA's proposal to recover its designated portion of the Participants' share of Prospective CAT Costs generally is consistent with the CAT Funding Model in that, for relevant transactions, FINRA would apply to each of the CEBB and CEBS a Prospective CAT Cost Recovery Fee rate that equals the fee rate that is assessed to FINRA under CAT Fee 2025-2 rounded up to the next even number at the sixth decimal place and divided by two.
As the SEC noted in approving the revised CAT Funding Model, if FINRA passes on its portion of the CAT fee allocation to its member firms and exchanges choose not to pass through their CAT fee allocations to their members, the cost to transact off-exchange may increase relative to executing on an exchange, potentially giving exchanges a competitive advantage.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form F-8 (17 CFR 239.38) may be used by certain Canadian issuers for registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
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.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend certain of the Exchange's Index Options Rules (Chapter XVIII) to: (1) adopt a new classification of narrow-based indexes, classified as “micro narrow-based” indexes; (2) establish the initial listing standards and maintenance standards for micro narrow-based indexes; and (3) adopt rules regarding position limits and exercise limits for micro narrow-based index options.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt rules to allow the Exchange to list and trade options on micro narrow-based indexes. The proposed rules include the definition of a micro narrow-based index, listing and maintenance criteria for a micro narrow-based index, and position limits and exercise limits for micro narrow-based index options. All of the proposed rules and changes to
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1801(m) to add the definition of micro narrow-based index. The proposed definition of “micro narrow-based index” is an industry or narrow-based index that meets the specific criteria provided under proposed Exchange Rule 1802(f). The Exchange notes that other exchanges have the same definition of micro narrow-based index.
Proposed Exchange Rule 1802(f) will describe the initial listing standards for a micro narrow-based index on which options may be traded on the Exchange. Pursuant to proposed Exchange Rule 1802(f), the Exchange may trade options on a micro narrow-based index pursuant to 19b-4(e) of the Act,
(1) The index is a security index:
(i) that has nine or fewer component securities;
(ii) in which a component security comprises more than 30% of the index's weighting;
(iii) in which the five highest weighted component securities in the aggregate comprise more than 60% of the index's weighting; or
(iv) in which the lowest weighted component securities comprising, in the aggregate, 25% of the index's weighting have an aggregate dollar value of average daily trading volume of less than $50,000,000 (or in the case of an index with 15 or more component securities, $30,000,000) except that if there are two or more securities with equal weighting that could be included in the calculation of the lowest weighted component securities comprising, in the aggregate, 25% of the index's weighting, such securities shall be ranked from lowest to highest dollar value of average daily trading volume and shall be included in the calculation based on their ranking starting with the lowest ranked security;
(2) The index is capitalization-weighted, modified capitalization-weighted, price-weighted, share weighted, equal dollar-weighted, approximate equal-dollar weighted, or modified equal-dollar weighted;
(i) For the purposes of this Exchange Rule 1802(f), an approximate equal-dollar weighted index is composed of one or more securities in which each component security will be weighted equally based on its market price on the index's selection date and the index must be reconstituted and rebalanced if the notional value of the largest component is at least twice the notional volume of the smallest component for 50% or more of the trading days in the three months prior to December 31 of each year. For purposes of this provision the “notional value” is the market price of the component times the number of shares of the underlying component in the index. Reconstitution and rebalancing are also mandatory if the number of components in the index is greater than five at the time of rebalancing. The Exchange reserves the right to rebalance quarterly at its discretion.
(ii) For the purposes of this Exchange Rule 1802(f), a modified equal-dollar weighted index is an index in which each underlying component represents a pre-determined weighting percentage of the entire index. Each component is assigned a weight that takes into account the relative market capitalization of the securities comprising the index. A modified equal-dollar weighted index will be balanced quarterly.
(iii) For the purposes of this Exchange Rule 1802(f), a share-weighted index is calculated by multiplying the price of the component security by an adjustment factor. Adjustment factors are chosen to reflect the investment objective deemed appropriate by the designer of the index and will be published by the Exchange as part of the contract specifications. The value of the index is calculated by adding the weight of each component security and dividing the total by an index divisor, calculated to yield a benchmark index level as of a particular date. A share-weighted index is not adjusted to reflect changes in the number of outstanding shares of its components. A share-weighted micro narrow-based index will not be re- balanced. If a share-weighted micro narrow-based index fails to meet the maintenance listing standards under Exchange Rule 1802(g), the Exchange will restrict trading in existing option series to closing transactions and will not issue additional series for that index.
(iv) The Exchange may rebalance any micro narrow-based index on an interim basis if warranted as a result of extraordinary changes in the relative values of the component securities. To the extent investors with open positions must rely upon the continuity of the options contract on the index, outstanding contracts are unaffected by rebalancings.
(3) Each component security in the index has a minimum market capitalization of at least $75 million, except that each of the lowest weighted securities in the index that in the aggregate account for no more than 10% of the weight of the index may have a minimum market capitalization of only $50 million;
(4) The average daily trading volume in each of the preceding six months for each component security in the index is at least 45,500 shares, except that each of the lowest weighted component securities in the index that in the aggregate account for no more than 10% of the weight of the index may have an average daily trading volume of only 22,750 shares for each of the last six months;
(5) In a capitalization-weighted index, the lesser of: (i) the five highest weighted component securities in the index each have had an average daily trading volume of at least 90,000 shares over the past six months; or (ii) the highest weighted component securities in the index that in the aggregate represent at least 30% of the total number of component securities in the index each have had an average daily trading volume of at least 90,000 shares over the past six months;
(6) Subject to subparagraphs (4) and (5) above, the component securities that account for at least 90% of the total index weight and at least 80% of the total number of component securities in the index must meet the requirements of Exchange Rule 402 applicable to individual underlying securities;
(7)
(i) Each component security in the index is an “NMS Security” as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act; and
(ii) Foreign securities or ADRs that are not subject to comprehensive surveillance sharing agreements do not
(8) The current underlying index value will be reported at least once every 15 seconds during the time the index options are traded on the Exchange;
(9) An equal dollar-weighted index will be rebalanced at least once every quarter;
(10) If the underlying index is maintained by a broker-dealer, the index is calculated by a third party who is not a broker-dealer, and the broker-dealer has in place an information barrier around its personnel who have access to information concerning changes in and adjustments to the index;
(11) Each component security in the index is registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act; and
(12) Cash settled index options are designated as A.M.-settled options.
The above initial listing standards are substantively similar as the initial listing standards currently in place on other exchanges.
The Exchange also proposes to make conforming changes to Exchange Rule 1802(a) to add a cross reference to proposed new subparagraph (f) to the exceptions to the rule filing requirement applicable to the listing of a class of index option provided under Section 19(b) of the Act. Currently, Exchange Rule 1802(a) provides that except as set forth in subparagraph (b) and (d), which refer to initial listing standards for narrow-based indexes and broad-based indexes, the listing of a class of index options requires a proposed rule change to be approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act. Since the Exchange proposes to adopt rules to allow the Exchange to list and trade options on micro narrow-based indexes, in addition to narrow-based indexes and broad-based indexes, the Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1802(a) to add a cross reference to proposed new subparagraph (f) (Micro Narrow-Based Index Initial Listing Criteria) to the exceptions to the rule filing requirement applicable to the listing of a class of index options pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act. This is to allow the Exchange to trade options on micro narrow-based indexes pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) of the Act, without filing of a proposed rule change to be approved by the Commission, if each of the initial listing standards is satisfied.
In addition to the initial listing standards, certain maintenance listing standards, listed below, will apply to each class of index options originally listed pursuant to proposed Exchange Rule 1802(f). Specifically, in order for an index to remain listed on the Exchange, pursuant to proposed Exchange Rule 1802(g), the following maintenance listing standards shall be satisfied:
(1) The index meets the criteria of subparagraph (f)(1) of this Rule;
(2) Subject to subparagraphs (g)(9) and (10) below, the component securities that account for at least 90% of the total index weight and at least 80% of the total number of component securities in the index must meet the requirements of Exchange Rule 402;
(3) Each component security in the index has a market capitalization of at least $75 million, except that each of the lowest weighted component securities that in the aggregate account for no more than 10% of the weight of the index may have a market capitalization of only $50 million;
(4) Each component security in the index is an “NMS Security” as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act;
(5) Foreign securities or ADRs thereon that are not subject to comprehensive surveillance sharing agreements do not represent more than 20% of the weight of the index;
(6) The current underlying index value will be reported at least once every 15 seconds during the time the index options are traded on the Exchange;
(7) If the underlying index is maintained by a broker-dealer, the index is calculated by a third party who is not a broker-dealer, and the broker-dealer has in place an information barrier around its personnel who have access to information concerning changes in and adjustments to the index;
(8) The total number of component securities in the index may not increase or decrease by more than 33
(9) Trading volume of each component security in the index must be at least 500,000 shares for each of the last six months, except that for each of the lowest weighted component securities in the index that in the aggregate account for no more than 10% of the weight of the index, trading volume must be at least 400,000 shares for each of the last six months;
(10) In a capitalization-weighted index and a modified capitalization weighted index, the lesser of the five highest weighted component securities in the index or the highest weighted component securities in the index that in the aggregate represent at least 30% of the total number of stocks in the index each have had an average monthly trading volume of at least 1,000,000 shares over the past six months;
(11) Each component security in the index is registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act;
(12) In an approximate equal-dollar weighted index, the index must be reconstituted and rebalanced if the notional value of the largest component is at least twice the notional volume of the smallest component for 50% or more of the trading days in the three months prior to December 31 of each year. For purposes of this provision the “notional value” is the market price of the component times the number of shares of the underlying component in the index. Reconstitution and rebalancing are also mandatory if the number of components in the index is greater than five at the time of rebalancing. The Exchange reserves the right to rebalance quarterly at its discretion;
(13) In a modified equal-dollar weighted index the Exchange will re-balance the index quarterly;
(14) In a share-weighted index, if a share-weighted micro narrow-based index fails to meet the maintenance listing standards under Exchange Rule 1802(g), the Exchange will not re-balance the index, will restrict trading in existing option series to closing transactions, and will not issue additional series for that index; and
(15) In the event a class of index options listed on the Exchange fails to satisfy the maintenance listing standards set forth herein, the Exchange shall not open for trading any additional series of options of that class unless such failure is determined by the Exchange not to be significant and the Commission concurs in that determination, or unless the continued listing of that class of index options has been approved by the Commission under Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act.
The proposed maintenance listing standards are substantively similar to
The Exchange believes that the requirements in the proposed listing standards regarding, among other things, the minimum market capitalization, trading volume, and relative weightings of an underlying index's component stocks are designed to ensure that the markets for the index's component stocks are adequately capitalized and sufficiently liquid, and that no one stock dominates the index. The Exchange believes that these requirements minimize the potential for manipulating the underlying index.
The Exchange further believes that the requirement in proposed Exchange Rule 1802(f)(8) that the current underlying index value will be reported at least once every 15 seconds during the time the index options are traded on the Exchange, and the requirement in proposed Exchange Rule 1802(g)(6) that the current underlying index value will be reported at least once every 15 seconds during the time the index options are traded on the Exchange should provide transparency with respect to current index values and contribute to the transparency of the market for micro narrow-based index options. In addition, the Exchange believes that the requirement in proposed Exchange Rule 1802(f)(12) that cash settled index options are designated as A.M.-settled, rather than on closing prices, should help to reduce the potential impact of expiring index options on the market for the index's component securities.
The Exchange proposes to adopt Exchange Rule 1805B relating to position limits for micro narrow-based index options by incorporating by referencing the applicable rules of Cboe. Specifically, proposed Exchange Rule 1805B(a) states that Members
The Exchange proposes to incorporate by reference as MIAX rules certain rules of the Cboe. Specifically, MIAX Rule 1805B proposes to incorporate by reference the applicable rules of Cboe with respect to position limits for micro narrow-based index options traded on the Exchange and also on Cboe. Thus, if approved, for certain MIAX rules, Members will comply with the MIAX rules by complying with the Cboe rules referenced. Using its authority under Section 36 of the Act, the Commission has previously exempted certain self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) from the requirement to file proposed rule changes under Section 19(b) of the Act when incorporating another SRO's rules by reference.
In connection with this proposal, the Exchange respectfully requests, pursuant to Rule 240.0-12 under the Act,
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1807(a) to provide that exercise limits for micro narrow-based index options shall be equivalent to the position limits prescribed for micro narrow-based index options with the nearest expiration date in proposed Exchange Rule 1805B. The Exchange notes that this approach to the proposed exercise limits for micro narrow-based index options is consistent with
The Exchange represents that it has in place adequate surveillance procedures to monitor trading in micro narrow-based index options in order to ensure the maintenance of fair and orderly markets. The surveillance program includes real-time patterns for price and volume movements and post-trade surveillance patterns (
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes are consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposal to adopt the definition and listing and maintenance criteria for micro narrow-based indexes expand the Exchange's capability to introduce and trade both existing and new and innovative index products on the Exchange System. The added capability is consistent with the Act in that it should foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, specifically options on micro narrow-based indexes. The Exchange believes that there may be unmet market demand on the Exchange for exchange-listed options on micro narrow-based indexes and the listing and trading of options on micro narrow-based indexes on the Exchange is designed to attract both liquidity and order flow to the Exchange, all to the benefit of the marketplace as a whole.
The Exchange believes that the requirements in the proposed listing standards regarding, among other things, the minimum market capitalization, trading volume, and relative weightings of an underlying index's component stocks are designed to ensure that the markets for the index's component stocks are adequately capitalized and sufficiently liquid, and that no one stock dominates the index. These requirements are designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, by ensuring that unusual or extreme volatility in any single component of an index could not cause the entire index to become so volatile that it puts investors at undue and unplanned risk. These requirements also minimize the potential for manipulating the underlying index, which protects investors and the public interest.
The Exchange further believes that the requirement in proposed Exchange Rule 1802(f)(8) that the current underlying index value will be reported at least once every 15 seconds during the time the index options are traded on the Exchange, and the requirement in proposed Rule 1802(g)(6) that the current underlying index value will be reported at least once every 15 seconds during the time the index options are traded on the Exchange removes impediments to the perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system by providing transparency with respect to current index values and by contributing to the overall transparency of the market for index options. In addition, the Exchange believes that the requirement in proposed Rule 1802(f)(12) that cash settled index options are designated as A.M.-settled, rather than based on closing prices, should help to reduce the potential impact of expiring index options on the market for an index's component securities.
The Exchange's proposal to adopt Exchange Rule 1805B relating to position limits for micro narrow-based index options is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, by limiting investors' levels of concentration in a single index position. Not only would an investor be at undue risk by assuming such a position, but the market for the affected index option could be disproportionately affected by the trading activities of that single investor with an unusually large long or short position. The Exchange proposes to mitigate this risk by incorporating by reference the applicable rules of Cboe with respect to position limits for micro narrow-based index options traded on the Exchange and also on Cboe, which rules are designed for the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is substantively similar to other option exchanges' rules regarding position limits for micro narrow-based index options.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Exchange Rule 1807 relating to exercise limits for micro narrow-based index options is designed to remove
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the hierarchical headings in the Exchange Rule 1801 and the cross reference in Exchange Rule 1802(a) will promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed rule changes will provide consistency and clarity in the Rulebook regarding the definitions and rule filing requirements that are applicable to index options. It is in the public interest for the Exchange's Rulebook to accurate.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed change will not impose any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as the proposed rule change is substantively similar to rules already in place governing the listing and trading of options on micro narrow-based indexes at other exchanges.
The Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will enable the Exchange to compete for order flow in options on micro narrow-based indexes with other exchanges that currently have rules and functionality in place to list and trade options on micro narrow-based indexes. The proposal would enhance competition by providing investors with additional investment vehicles, in a fully-electronic trading environment, through which investors can gain and hedge exposure to micro narrow-based indexes. The Exchange notes that other options exchanges provide similar requirements for options on a micro narrow-based index.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes to the hierarchical headings in Exchange Rule 1801 and the cross reference in Exchange Rule 1802(a) will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed changes will not impose any burden on intra-market because the rules of the Exchange apply to all Members equally. The proposed rule changes to the hierarchical headings and the cross reference will have no impact on inter-market competition as they are not designed to address any competitive issue but rather are designed to provide added clarity to the Rulebook regarding the definitions and rule filing requirements that are applicable to index options.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Section 17(a)(1) of the Exchange Act provides that broker-dealers registered with the Commission must make and keep records, furnish copies of the records, and make and disseminate reports as the Commission, by rule, prescribes. Pursuant to this authority, the Commission adopted Rule 17a-5 (17 CFR 240.17a-5), which is one of the primary financial and operational reporting rules for broker-dealers.
The Commission estimates that there are approximately 3,470 broker-dealers registered with the Commission. As noted above, all broker-dealers registered with the Commission are required to file Form Custody with their DEA once each calendar quarter. Based on staff experience, the Commission estimates that, on average, it would take a broker-dealer approximately 12 hours to complete and file Form Custody, for an annual industry-wide reporting burden of approximately 166,560 hours.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the SEC, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the SEC's estimate of the burden imposed by the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated, electronic collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
2:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 10, 2025.
The meeting will be held via remote means and at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.
For further information, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) to restructure the description of the Manual Billable Rebate Program. The Exchange proposes to implement this change effective June 26, 2025.
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.
The purpose of this filing is to modify the Fee Schedule to restructure the description of the Manual Billable Rebate Program (the “Rebate Program”) to improve the readability of the Fee Schedule.
The Rebate Program is available to participants in the Floor Broker Fixed Cost Prepayment Incentive Program (the “FB Prepay Program”), which is an incentive program that allows Floor Brokers to that prepay certain of their annual Eligible Fixed Costs to be eligible for the Rebate Program.
FB Prepay Participants receive a “base” rebate on manual billable volume of ($0.08) per billable side, plus a “bonus” rebate of ($0.02) per billable side if they achieve more than 500,000 billable sides in a month, payable back to the first billable side.
In addition to the base and bonus rebates, FB Prepay Participants may earn another rebate tied to “Submitting Broker QCC Credits.”
• A ($0.01) rebate per billable side if they achieve QCC Tier 2, plus execute manual billable sides equal to at least 10% of the QCC Tier 2 volume requirement (
• A ($0.02) rebate per billable side if they achieve QCC Tier 2, plus execute manual billable sides equal to at least 20% of the QCC Tier 2 volume requirement (
A Floor Broker may only receive one of these two rebates tied to QCC Tier 2, retroactive to the first billable side.
Currently, the Exchange describes the Rebate Program, including the base and bonus rebates, in an introductory paragraph that is followed by a visual representation of these same rebates in a table titled “Manual Billable Rebate Program” (the “Table”). To reduce potential investor confusion, the Exchange proposes to remove the title of the Table (as redundant and unnecessary); to remove from the Table text that repeats the description of rebates already included in the introductory paragraph; and to correct a typographical error as described below.
First, because the base and bonus rebates are described in both the introductory paragraph and the Table, the Exchange proposes remove the repetitive title of the Table together with the rows that (again) describe the base and bonus rebates.
The Exchange also proposes to modify the Table by capitalizing each word in the column setting forth the “Rebate per Billable Side” and, in that latter column, removing the word “Additional” in reference to the rebates associated with achieving QCC Tier 2.
Finally, regarding the table setting forth the “Additional Submitting Broker QCC Credits,” the Exchange proposes to relocate that text so that it appears as the title of the table rather than as a column heading and to re-name that column “Qualifying Volume,” which would add clarity, transparency, and internal consistency to the Fee Schedule. The Exchange believes these streamlining changes will add clarity and transparency to the Fee Schedule making it easier for investors to navigate and understand.
The Exchange is not proposing any substantive change to the FB Prepay Program or the Rebate Program.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to restructure the presentation of the Rebate Program by deleting repetitive text and correcting a typographical error, is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because such change would reduce the potential for investor confusion regarding rebates available to Floor Brokers participating in the FB Prepay Program, thus improving the readability of the Fee Schedule.
The proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would impact all similarly situated market participants (
The Exchange is not proposing any substantive change to the FB Prepay Program or the Rebate Program.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the proposed change relates solely to restructuring the description of the Rebate Program and, accordingly, would not have any impact on intramarket or intermarket competition. The proposed change is designed to improve the readability of the Fee Schedule and to reduce (or avoid) any potential confusion regarding rebates available to Floor Brokers participating in the FB Prepay Program.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) of the Act, under sections 6(c) and 23(c) of the Act for an exemption from rule 23c-3 under the Act, and for an order pursuant to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end investment companies to issue multiple classes of shares and to impose early withdrawal charges and asset-based distribution and/or service fees.
Hamilton Lane Private Assets Fund, Hamilton Lane Private Infrastructure Fund, Hamilton Lane Private Secondary Fund, Hamilton Lane Venture Capital and Growth Fund, Hamilton Lane Credit Income Fund and Hamilton Lane Advisors, L.L.C.
The application was filed on May 22, 2025 and amended on June 17, 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:
Trace W. Rakestraw, Senior Special 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 June 17, 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.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 15c3-5 under the Exchange Act requires brokers or dealers with access to trading directly on an exchange or alternative trading system (“ATS”), including those providing sponsored or direct market access to customers or other persons, to implement risk management controls and supervisory procedures reasonably designed to manage the financial, regulatory, and other risks of this business activity.
The rule requires brokers or dealers to establish, document, and maintain certain risk management controls and supervisory procedures as well as regularly review such controls and procedures, and document the review, and remediate issues discovered to assure overall effectiveness of such controls and procedures. Each such broker or dealer is required to preserve a copy of its supervisory procedures and a written description of its risk management controls as part of its books and records in a manner consistent with Rule 17a-4(e)(7) under the Exchange Act. Such regular review is required to be conducted in accordance with written procedures and is required to be documented. The broker or dealer is required to preserve a copy of such written procedures, and documentation of each such review, as part of its books and records in a manner consistent with Rule 17a-4(e)(7) under the Exchange Act, and Rule 17a-4(b) under the Exchange Act, respectively.
In addition, the Chief Executive Officer (or equivalent officer) is required to certify annually that the broker or dealer's risk management controls and supervisory procedures comply with the rule, and that the broker-dealer conducted such review. Such certifications are required to be preserved by the broker or dealer as part of its books and records in a manner consistent with Rule 17a-4(b) under the Exchange Act. Compliance with Rule 15c3-5 is mandatory.
Respondents consist of broker-dealers with access to trading directly on an exchange or ATS. The Commission estimates that there are currently 500 respondents. To comply with Rule 15c3-5, these respondents will spend a total of approximately 80,000 hours per year (160 hours per broker-dealer × 500 broker-dealers = 80,000 hours). At an average internal cost per burden hour of approximately $447.92, the resultant total related internal cost of compliance for these respondents is $35,833,500 per year (80,000 burden hours multiplied by approximately $447.92/hour). In addition, for hardware and software expenses, the Commission estimates that the average annual external cost would be approximately $20,500 per broker-dealer, or $10,250,000 in the aggregate ($20,500 per broker-dealer × 500 brokers and dealers = $10,250,000).
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.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the SEC, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the SEC's estimate of the burden imposed by the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated, electronic collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Delegation of Authority.
The State Department is publishing a Delegation of Authority signed by the Assistant Secretary of Administration, pursuant to Department of State Delegations of Authority.
Effective June 27, 2025.
Alice Kottmyer, Attorney-Adviser, Office of Management, 202-647-2199.
José E.V. Cunningham, Assistant Secretary for Administration, signed the following document on June 27, 2025. The State Department maintains the original document.
By virtue of the authority delegated to the Under Secretary of State for Management by the laws of the United States, as delegated by Department of State Delegations of Authority No. 514 and No. 575, I hereby re-delegate to the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, to the extent authorized by law, the authority to invoke the law enforcement privilege with respect to information relating to security vetting of visa applicants and visa holders to the United States.
This re-delegation of authority does not revoke or otherwise affect any other delegation of authority currently in effect. The authority re-delegated herein may also be exercised, to the extent authorized by law, by the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, the Deputy Secretary for Management Resources, and the Under Secretary for Management.
This re-delegation will be published in the
Signed José E.V. Cunningham, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Administration, Department of State.
In consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I hereby revoke the designation of al-Nusrah Front, also known as Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (and other aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization pursuant to section 219(a)(6)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(6)(A)).
This determination shall be published in the
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to September 8, 2025.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents to John Ferguson, who may be reached on (202) 647-0511 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be
The collection of the information requested on the DS-1838 and DS-7783 is necessary to comply with:
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12) was issued August 27, 2004 to set policy for a common, reliable, and secure identification standard for federal employees and contractors for accessing federally controlled facilities and federal information systems. In order to keep Federal and other facilities where there is potential for terrorist attacks secure, wide variations in the quality and security of forms of identification need to be eliminated.
Federal Information Processing Standard Publication 201 (FIPS 201) is a United States federal government standard that specifies Personal Identity Verification (PIV) requirements for Federal employees and contractors. The NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) Computer Security Division initiated a new program for improving the identification and authentication of Federal employees and contractors for access to Federal facilities and information systems.
All Department employees and contractors are required to submit application for a Personal Identification Card (DS-1838 domestically or DS-7783 overseas) at the time of hire.
Information is collected by a form (obtained from MyData forms) or automated badge request (ABR) online.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of intent to rule on request to release airport property for land disposal.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the release and disposal of two parcels of land at the Waterloo Regional Airport (ALO), Waterloo, Iowa.
Comments must be received on or before August 7, 2025.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Amy J. Walter, Airports Land Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-620G, 901 Locust, Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to: Steven Kjergaard, Director of Aviation, Waterloo Regional Airport, 2790 Livingston Lane, Waterloo, IA 50703, (515) 291-4483.
Amy J. Walter, Airports Land Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-620G, 901 Locust, Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106, (816) 329-2603,
The request to release property may be reviewed, by appointment, in person at this same location.
The FAA invites public comment on the request to release approximately 12.84-acres of airport property at the Waterloo Regional Airport (ALO) under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). The Director of Aviation has requested from the FAA two parcels totaling 12.84-acres of airport property be released from obligations and sold. The FAA determined the request to release and sell this property at the Waterloo Regional Airport (ALO) submitted by the Sponsor meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration and the release and sale of the property does not and will not impact future aviation needs at the airport. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no sooner than thirty days after the publication of this Notice.
The following is a brief overview of the request:
Waterloo Regional Airport (ALO) is proposing the release and sale of 12.84-acres of airport property. The release of land is necessary to comply with Federal Aviation Administration Grant Assurances that do not allow federally acquired airport property to be used for non-aviation purposes. The sale of the subject property will result in the release of land and surface rights at the Waterloo Regional Airport (ALO) from the conditions of the AIP Grant Agreement Grant Assurances. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and (iii), the airport will receive fair market value when the parcel is sold.
Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled, “Identity Theft Red Flags and Address Discrepancies under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003.” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be received by August 7, 2025.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should also be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection following the close of the 30-day comment period for this notice by the method set forth in the next bullet.
•
• For assistance in navigating
Shaquita Merritt, Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Guidelines for financial institutions and creditors regarding identity theft with respect to their account holders and customers. (In developing the guidelines, the Agencies are required to identify patterns, practices, and specific forms of activity that indicate the possible existence of identity theft. The guidelines must be updated as often as necessary and cannot be inconsistent with the policies and procedures required under section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act, (31 U.S.C. 5318(l));
• Regulations that require each financial institution and each creditor to establish reasonable policies and procedures for implementing the guidelines to identify possible risks to account holders or customers or to the safety and soundness of the institution or customers; and
• Regulations generally requiring credit and debit card issuers to assess the validity of change of address requests under certain circumstances.
Section 315 of the FACT Act
• Enable a user to form a reasonable belief that it knows the identity of the person for whom it has obtained a consumer report; and
• Reconcile the address of the consumer with the CRA if the user establishes a continuing relationship with the consumer and regularly and, in the ordinary course of business, furnishes information to the CRA.
As required by section 114 of the FACT Act, appendix J to 12 CFR part 41 contains guidelines for financial institutions and creditors that are national banks, Federal savings associations, Federal branches or agencies of a foreign bank, or any of their operating subsidiaries that are not functionally regulated to use in identifying patterns, practices, and specific forms of activity that may indicate the existence of identity theft. In addition, 12 CFR 41.90 requires each financial institution or creditor that is a national bank, Federal savings association, Federal branch or agency of a foreign bank, and any of their operating subsidiaries that are not functionally regulated, to establish an Identity Theft Prevention Program (Program) designed to detect, prevent, and mitigate identity theft in connection with covered accounts. Pursuant to § 41.91, credit card and debit card issuers that are national banks, Federal savings associations, Federal branches or agencies of a foreign bank, or any of their operating subsidiaries that are not functionally regulated must establish and implement reasonable policies and procedures to assess the validity of a request for a change of address under certain circumstances.
Section 41.90 requires each OCC-regulated financial institution or creditor that offers or maintains one or more covered accounts to develop and implement a Program. In developing a
As required by section 315 of the FACT Act, 12 CFR 1022.82
Section 1022.82 requires each user of consumer reports to develop and implement reasonable policies and procedures designed to enable the user to form a reasonable belief that a consumer report relates to the consumer about whom it requested the report when it receives a notice of address discrepancy from a CRA. A user of consumer reports also must develop and implement reasonable policies and procedures for furnishing a customer address that the user has reasonably confirmed to be accurate to the CRA from which it receives a notice of address discrepancy when the user can: (1) form a reasonable belief that the consumer report relates to the consumer about whom the user has requested the report; (2) establish a continuing relationship with the consumer; and (3) establish that it regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to the CRA from which it received the notice of address discrepancy.
Comments continue to be invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
July 10, 2025, 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., Eastern Time.
This meeting will be accessible via conference call and via Zoom Meeting and Screenshare. Any interested person may call (i) 1-929-205-6099 (US Toll) or 1-669-900-6833 (US Toll), Meeting ID: 946 7762 4553, to listen and participate in this meeting. The website to participate via Zoom Meeting and Screenshare is
This meeting will be open to the public.
The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Dispute Resolution Subcommittee (the “Subcommittee”) will conduct a meeting to continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement. The subject matter of this meeting will include:
The UCR Dispute Resolution Subcommittee Chair will welcome attendees, call the meeting to order, call roll for the Subcommittee, confirm whether a quorum is present, and facilitate self-introductions.
The UCR Executive Director will verify the publication of the meeting notice on the UCR website and distribution to the UCR contact list via email followed by the subsequent publication of the notice in the
The Subcommittee Agenda will be reviewed, and the Subcommittee will consider adoption.
Draft minutes from the August 13, 2024 Subcommittee meeting will be reviewed. The Subcommittee will consider action to approve.
The UCR Dispute Resolution Subcommittee Chair and UCR Plan Legal Counsel will lead a discussion and review of the Dispute Resolution Procedure, a document that sets forth the procedures for processing and handling disputes and was last amended in January 2024.
The UCR Dispute Resolution Subcommittee Chair will call for any
The UCR Dispute Resolution Subcommittee Chair will adjourn the meeting.
The agenda will be available no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern time, July 2, 2025, at:
Elizabeth Leaman, Chair, Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors, (617) 305-3783,