Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Farm Service Agency
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Air Force Department
Army Department
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Land Management Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Antitrust Division
Drug Enforcement Administration
Labor Statistics Bureau
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Office of Personnel Management.
Final rule.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a final rule to implement provisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 that permit current and former employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to appeal the recoupment of awards, bonuses, or relocation expenses awarded or approved for these individuals. This regulation prescribes general procedures applicable to appeals to the Director of OPM regarding an order by the Secretary of the VA, or designee, directing the employee or former employee to repay the amount, or a portion of the amount, of any award, bonus, or relocation expenses paid to the employee.
Effective August 25, 2025.
Allen Brooks by email at
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017, Public Law 115-41 (June 23, 2017) (“Accountability Act” hereafter), authorizes the Secretary of the VA to issue an order directing a VA employee to repay, in whole or in part, any award or bonus paid on or after June 23, 2017, to an employee under title 5, United States Code, including chapters 45 or 53, or title 38, United States Code, if it is determined the employee engaged in misconduct or poor performance prior to the payment of the award or bonus, and the award or bonus would not have been paid, in whole or in part, had the misconduct or poor performance been known prior to payment. Furthermore, the law authorizes the Secretary of the VA to issue an order to an employee to repay the amount, or a portion of the amount, paid to or on behalf of an employee under title 5 for relocation expenses, including 5 U.S.C. 5724 and 5724a, or title 38, if it is determined the relocation expenses were paid on or after June 23, 2017, following an act of fraud or malfeasance that influenced the authorization of the relocation expenses. Finally, the law authorizes the Secretary of the VA to reduce retirement benefits of employees convicted of certain crimes and removed for performance or misconduct. In all cases, the law provides that, upon issuance of an order by the Secretary, the individual has the right to appeal the order to the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). However, this rulemaking only addresses appeals to the Director of OPM regarding recoupment of awards, bonuses, and relocation expenses. Appeals of orders regarding reduction of retirement benefits of employees convicted of certain crimes will be addressed in a future rulemaking.
Section 204 of Public Law 115-41 amended subchapter I of chapter 7 of title 38, United States Code, by adding a new section 721. Specifically, 38 U.S.C. 721 outlines procedural requirements for recoupment of awards or bonuses paid to VA employees. If the Secretary determines an individual has engaged in misconduct or poor performance prior to payment of the award or bonus and that such award or bonus would not have been paid, in whole or in part, had the misconduct or poor performance been known prior to payment, the Secretary must provide certain procedural protections before issuing an order for repayment. Before such repayment, the employee is afforded (A) notice of the proposed order; and (B) an opportunity to respond to the proposed order by not later than 10 business days after the receipt of such notice. If the individual responds to the proposed order, the Secretary will issue an order not later than five business days after receiving the individual's response. If the individual does not respond to the proposed order, the Secretary will issue an order not later than 15 business days after the Secretary provides notice to the individual. These procedures are outlined in VA policies
Section 205 of Public Law 115-41 amended subchapter I of chapter 7 of title 38, United States Code, by adding a new section 723. Specifically, 38 U.S.C. 723 outlines procedural requirements for recoupment of relocation expenses paid to or on behalf of VA employees. If the Secretary determines that relocation expenses were paid following an act of fraud or malfeasance that influenced the authorization of the relocation expenses, the Secretary must provide certain procedural protections before the Secretary decides to issue an order directing an individual to repay the amount, or a portion of the amount, paid to or on behalf of the individual for relocation expenses. Before such repayment, the employee is afforded (A) notice of the proposed order; and (B) an opportunity to respond to the proposed
OPM issued an interim final rule with request for comments, published at 90 FR 3601 on January 15, 2025, to establish a new part in the Code of Federal Regulations at 5 CFR part 755 with subparts A and B. Subpart A outlines appeal procedures for recoupment of awards and bonuses for all employees of the VA. Subpart B outlines appeal procedures for recoupment of relocation expenses for all employees of the VA. In addition to the statutory requirements guiding OPM in the development of the interim final rule, OPM was informed by the procedures established by the VA regarding recoupment of awards, bonuses, or relocation expenses outlined in VA Handbook 5017/20, Employee Recognition and Awards.
OPM received submissions from two individuals, one organization, and one national union during the 60-day public comment period for the interim final rule. At the conclusion of the comment period, OPM reviewed and analyzed the comments and responses provided to OPM's questions. In general, the comments express concern about OPM's rulemaking process and appeal procedures. The comments also demonstrate an interest in ensuring that VA employees have a fair opportunity for meaningful review of a VA recoupment order.
The next sections provide a brief description of new part 755 followed by a summary of the comments received and a discussion of the suggestions for revision that were considered and either adopted, adopted in part, or declined, and the rationale therefor.
The interim final rule adding a new 5 CFR part 755 implemented the appeals procedures for recoupment of awards, bonuses, and relocation expenses for employees of the VA. Part 755 is entitled “Appeal Procedures for Recoupment of Awards, Bonuses, or Relocation Expenses Awarded or Approved for All Employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs.” Subpart A outlines appeal procedures for recoupment of awards and bonuses for all employees of the VA. Subpart B outlines appeal procedures for recoupment of relocation expenses for all employees of the VA. OPM invited comments on the interim final rule and on additional topics for consideration for this final rule.
An individual questioned why VA employees should be allowed an appeals process and urged “[n]o appeals of any shape or form.” The individual alleged that there are VA employees who take advantage of their positions and authority and poor policy enforcement while the VA “unduly den[ies] benefits” to veterans.
OPM will not make any revisions based on this comment. The Accountability Act authorizes an appeal process for VA employees subject to the recoupment of an award, bonus, or relocation expenses under the statute. The law provides that, upon issuance of such a recoupment order by the VA Secretary, the individual has the right to appeal the order to the Director of the OPM. Thus, it is the law, not OPM's rulemaking, that provides appeal rights to VA employees. While the law does not require OPM to issue a regulation regarding the appeals process, OPM believes that doing so will help employees and the VA avoid confusion about how OPM will administer the appeals process. Providing clarity to the appeals process will also aide OPM in meeting its statutory deadline for issuing a decision within 30 business days after receiving an appeal.
Sections 755.102 and 755.202 describe the procedures for VA employees to follow when submitting an appeal regarding, respectively, a VA order for recoupment of an award or bonus under 38 U.S.C. 721 or recoupment of relocation expenses under 38 U.S.C. 723. The regulations also require that VA provide OPM a copy of the evidence file relied upon in proposing and deciding its recoupment order. The interim final rule specified that, if OPM requests that the VA provide information in addition to the evidence file, VA must also furnish to the employee a copy of any additional information requested by and provided to OPM.
An organization recommended that OPM revise §§ 755.102(a) and 755.202(a) to “clearly state that `good cause shown' for untimely filing of an appeal includes evidence that a delay occurred in the employee's receipt of notice from OPM.” The organization is concerned that, if VA opts to transmit a recoupment order through the U.S. Postal Service, postal delay in receipt of the order could prevent an employee from making a timely appeal. The organization thinks that OPM's appeals process could thus run afoul of Congress' due process intent.
OPM will not revise the rule based on this comment. OPM notes that the employee will receive notice of a recoupment order from VA, not OPM. OPM believes that it is unnecessary to detail in the regulatory text the circumstances that could excuse an untimely filing but meets the good cause standard. As stated in the interim final rule, OPM will apply the approach taken by the Merit Systems Protection Board in
The organization also recommended that OPM revise the regulations to provide employees a right of reply to the VA evidence file submissions required under §§ 755.102(c) and 755.202(c). The organization expressed concern that the VA may try to “unfairly game the OPM
For consistency in the treatment of VA submissions of the evidence file and additional information, OPM revises the final rule to state that VA will furnish a copy of both the evidence file and any additional information to OPM and the employee. The requirement to serve the employee and OPM the same submissions will promote transparency in the adjudicative process and provide a check on any attempt to raise new issues or withhold evidence or arguments submitted by the employee to the VA. However, OPM believes it is unnecessary to provide employees a right of reply to VA's submissions due to the limited nature of OPM's review of the VA order, as discussed in more detail below. Moreover, the VA will not have a right to respond to the employee's appeal to OPM. The employee and VA will have had an opportunity to present their respective positions on the propriety of the VA recoupment during VA's decision-making process.
Sections 755.103 and 755.203 provide that OPM will fulfill its statutory obligation to render a timely decision on any appeal of a VA recoupment order by basing the decision on the written record only, which will include the submissions by the employee and the agency. OPM's appeal decision regarding a VA recoupment order is limited to whether the procedures in VA's recoupment policies were followed, or, in the absence of such policies, whether the order was otherwise in compliance with 38 U.S.C. 721-723. OPM will accept the facts found by the VA regarding the disciplinary or adverse action, performance-based action, or other type of finding or action, if any, which was relied upon by the VA in making its recoupment decision.
OPM received a comment from an individual who stated that OPM's interim final rule lacked sufficient detail in §§ 755.103 and 755.203 about what a VA employee must establish to prove that a recoupment order is erroneous. The same commenter asked what will happen if the VA fails to adhere to a timeframe in its policies or states an incorrect award amount in its proposal notice. The individual went on to ask that OPM address whether the employee is required to prove that an error prejudiced the employee in some way.
OPM will not revise §§ 755.103 and 755.203 based on these comments. The regulatory text is sufficiently detailed for a VA employee to understand what is needed to prove that a recoupment order is erroneous. OPM does not require any particular form—only a “statement.” The statement must explain why the employee believes the recoupment order is in error. That statement will vary based on the specific facts of each case. In addition, the regulations specify that OPM's review is limited to whether the VA followed its procedures (or, in the absence of such procedures, the relevant statutory provision). Thus, the statement must explain how the VA erred in following its procedures. If an employee alleges that the VA erred in adhering to a timeframe or made a technical error in its proposal notice, OPM will consider whether the VA's error would result in a different outcome.
An individual commenter asserted that a procedural review will not provide an employee a meaningful opportunity to put forth an argument that the VA erred on a substantive issue in the recoupment process. In addition, an organization commented that OPM should expand the scope of its review under §§ 755.103 and 755.203 to remove “artificial” constraints that are not required by 38 U.S.C. 721(b) and 723(b). Specifically, the organization urged that OPM revise §§ 755.103 and 755.203 to add a substantive assessment of VA's exercise of its authority under sections 721(a)(1) and 723(a)(1). The organization also commented that §§ 755.103 and 755.203 should be revised to delete the language, “OPM will accept the facts found by the VA regarding the disciplinary or adverse action, or performance-based action, or other type of finding or action, if any, which was relied upon by the VA in making its recoupment decision.” The organization recommends a
A national union likened OPM's appeal procedures to “procedural rubber-stamping” that will deprive employees of “a meaningful, substantive right of appeal consistent with the legislative purpose and plain text of 38 U.S.C. 721-723.” The union argued that the statutory language in sections 721 and 723 places no limitation on the scope of an employee's appeal and OPM's standards of review. The union added that OPM's rule is not in accordance with law because OPM limits its review to procedural compliance with agency policy.
OPM disagrees with the commenters and will not expand the scope of OPM's review. Prior to a VA recoupment order, the VA renders a determination under section 721(a)(1) that the individual engaged in misconduct or demonstrated poor performance, or a determination under section 723(a)(1) that the individual engaged in fraud or malfeasance. Such determinations will involve factual findings that can be challenged and assessed through the response period afforded an employee, or if those factual findings are the basis for disciplinary or adverse action, a grievance, appeal, or other appropriate administrative process. Further, a reading of sections 721(b) and 723(b) requiring
In its own analysis of Congress' intent, the organization provided a brief discussion of the legislative history and argued that Congress did not indicate that it intended to limit OPM's review to whether VA followed its procedures. The organization pointed to legislative history that Congress intended to preserve minimal Constitutional due process and to allow for post-decisional appeal. The organization pointed to statements that Congress designed the recoupment process such that “each [employee] would receive pre-decisional due process and enough process after a decision to pass constitutional muster.” The organization cited that such constitutional muster “requires that an individual receive notice of an action affecting the individual's interests and a reasonable opportunity to contest that action.” The organization concludes that reading into the statute a solely procedural review is “contrary to the canon of avoidance of absurd result.”
OPM disagrees with the organization's argument that the legislative history indicates Congress' desire to require OPM review both substantive and procedural review of VA recoupment orders. The organization relies on legislative history that describes the constitutional minimum pre-decisional process required for every recoupment order—advance notice and an opportunity to respond to an order before the VA issues an order. The same legislative history did not, however, speak to OPM's post-decisional review. Nevertheless, OPM believes that its regulations provide the constitutional minimum consistent with Congress' intent and the statutory text.
Sections 755.105 and 755.205 establish that OPM's decision in a VA recoupment order appeal is final, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 721(b)(2) and 723(b)(2), respectively. In response to OPM's Request for Comment section of the interim final rule, both the national union and the organization responded that, yes, a VA employee may seek judicial review of an OPM appeal decision. The union and organization stated that OPM's regulations should clarify additional appeal rights available to employees.
The commenters stated that the statutory text in sections 721 and 723 does not preclude judicial review. To that point, the union and organization cited
In addition to “the constitutionality challenge discussed in
OPM declines the commenters' recommended modifications to the regulations to address further appeal rights. In 38 U.S.C. 714, Congress expressly provided for appeal rights to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or to any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. In 38 U.S.C. 713, Congress granted a right to judicial review for decisions to remove a covered senior executive from the civil service. Accordingly, in
Additionally, OPM notes that a recoupment action is not an adverse action under 38 U.S.C. 714 or chapter 75 of title 5. The applicability of judicial review for adverse actions may or may not be instructive for appeal decisions involving VA recoupment actions. The organization did not provide additional details about the other potential causes of action it identified and why those considerations favor an amendment to §§ 755.105 and 755.205. Accordingly, OPM is not persuaded to revise the regulatory text to add whether or where judicial review may occur.
The commenters also opined that OPM should affirmatively provide notice of available judicial review options to avoid prejudice to employees. Sections 721 and 723 do not require that OPM affirmatively provide notice of judicial review options in its appeal decision. In the absence of clear statutory entitlement to judicial review, OPM does not believe the lack of notice regarding possible further judicial review will prejudice an employee. Accordingly, OPM's decision notice to the employee will not include a statement of “appeal rights.”
In the next sections, we outline the specific amendments, provide a regulatory analysis and address related comments, and summarize and address responses to OPM's request for comment regarding additional considerations for the implementation and impact of this rule.
Under part 755, OPM added a new subpart A “Awards and Bonuses.” The provisions of subpart A, as revised in this final rule, are outlined below.
Subpart A applies to a current or former civil service employee of the VA. OPM has concluded that a “current employee” is an individual appointed in the civil service as outlined in 5 U.S.C. 2105 or under title 38 regarding VA civil service employees. This subpart does not apply to contractor employees performing work at the VA on behalf of a contractor because contractor employees are not appointed in the civil service. In recognition of the possibility that VA may issue a recoupment order after an employee has left the VA, for example through transfer to another agency, removal, resignation, or retirement from federal service, former VA employees are also covered by this appeal process.
Specifically, subpart A is limited to appeals filed pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 721 by an “employee” of the VA to the Director of OPM, or designee, regarding an order by the Secretary of the VA, or designee, directing the employee to repay the amount, or a portion of the amount, of any award or bonus paid to the employee under title 5, including chapters 45 or 53, or under title 38. OPM has determined this includes, among other provisions under title 5, awards and bonuses paid pursuant to 5 U.S.C. chapter 45 (Awards); 5 U.S.C. 5336 (Additional step increases, commonly known as Quality Step Increases); 5 U.S.C. 5384 (Performance awards in the Senior Executive Service); 5 U.S.C. 5753 and 5754 (Recruitment, relocation, and retention bonuses); and any title 38 authorities regarding awards and bonuses.
OPM's review on appeal is limited to whether the procedures in VA's policies on recoupment were followed or, in the absence of any such policies, the VA's order was otherwise in compliance with 38 U.S.C. 721. As discussed in more detail elsewhere in this rule (see,
To implement the statutory timeframes established by Congress, OPM is defining the term “business days” to mean weekdays, which are Monday through Friday, except when such a day is designated as a federal holiday by OPM, or the employee's assigned facility or OPM is closed for regular business,
This section describes the procedures for VA employees to follow when submitting an appeal regarding a VA order for recoupment of an award or bonus under 38 U.S.C. 721. An employee may file an appeal to the Director of OPM by U.S. mail or by email, within seven business days after the date of issuance of the order pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 721(a)(3). This time limit is established in law. Appeals which are untimely filed may be dismissed resulting in the VA's decision being upheld. OPM, for good cause shown, may accept an untimely appeal. OPM adopts the approach taken by the Merit Systems Protection Board in
If the employee elects to file by the U.S. mail, it must be addressed to Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Room 7H28 (Attention: Accountability and Workforce Relations), Washington, DC 20415. OPM will rely upon the postmark to determine timeliness for filing the appeal. If the employee elects to file by email, it must be sent to
The law does not specify the content for any appeal filed with OPM. Therefore, OPM has determined what information OPM needs to adequately consider the appeal. OPM is requiring that minimum information to be included in any appeal to reflect the narrow grant of authority 38 U.S.C. 721 gives to OPM. The appeal must be submitted in writing and must be signed by the employee or their representative. OPM is not requiring a specific form be used in filing the appeal, but any appeal must include the specified information for OPM to properly adjudicate the appeal. The written appeal must include (1) a copy of the notice of proposed order received pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 721(a)(2)(A); (2) a copy of the employee's response to the proposed order, if any; (3) a copy of the order received pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 721(a)(3); (4) a statement explaining why the employee believes the order received pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 721(a)(3) is in error; (5) the name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address of the employee and, if applicable, the same information for their representative; and (6) the name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address of the VA official who issued the order pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 721(a)(3). OPM will notify the VA upon receipt of a complete, timely appeal. The VA must provide OPM and the employee a copy of the evidence file relied upon in proposing and deciding its recoupment order as soon as possible but no later than five business days after OPM sends its notice to the VA. For OPM to make an appropriate decision, OPM must have all necessary facts and evidence relied upon by the VA when making its recoupment decision. If necessary, OPM may request VA provide information in addition to the evidence file. For example, OPM may need additional information to address the employee's belief the order by the VA was in error. Any additional information requested by OPM must be provided to OPM within five business days after OPM's request. VA must also furnish a copy of any additional information requested by and provided to OPM to the employee. VA's failure to provide the evidence file or any requested additional information to OPM and the employee will result in a finding against the VA.
An employee covered by this subpart is entitled to be represented by an attorney or other representative. OPM may disallow as an employee's representative an individual whose activities as representative would cause a conflict of interest or position, or an employee of any agency whose release from their official position would give rise to unreasonable costs or whose priority work assignments preclude their release. This is consistent with other complaint processes regulated by OPM (
The law provides that, upon the issuance of an order by the Secretary, an individual shall have an opportunity to appeal the order to the Director of OPM within seven business days after the date of such issuance. The law further provides that the Director shall make a final decision regarding the appeal within 30 business days after receiving the appeal. Therefore, due to this compressed timeline, OPM has determined the best way to fulfill its obligation to render a timely decision on any appeal is to base the decision on the written record only, which will include the submissions by the employee and
The burden is upon the employee to establish the timeliness of the appeal and to explain why the VA's order is in error. OPM may uphold the VA order if the employee or their designated representative fails to provide required information. As noted previously, OPM will also uphold the VA order if the appeal was untimely filed without good cause shown for the delay.
Since Congress did not provide OPM the authority to adjudicate decisions by the VA regarding any disciplinary or adverse action, or any performance-based action, OPM's review of the VA order is limited to whether the procedures in VA's policies on recoupment of awards and bonuses
Within 30 business days after receiving an appeal, OPM will make a decision on the employee's appeal. OPM will then send a written appeal decision to the employee or to the employee's representative, if any, advising whether the VA order is upheld by OPM. OPM will send the VA a copy of the appeal decision. This time limit is consistent with the statutory requirements.
Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 721(b)(2), the OPM decision on appeal is final. There will not be any further administrative review available within OPM, and thus this rule does not establish any process for requests for reconsideration. The law is silent regarding any statutory right to judicial review of an OPM appeal decision. Accordingly, although OPM will send its appeal decision to the employee, OPM will not provide an accompanying statement of “appeal rights.”
Under part 755, OPM added a new subpart B “Relocation Expenses.” These provisions of subpart B, as revised in this final rule, are outlined below.
Like subpart A, subpart B applies to a current or former civil service employee of the VA. OPM has concluded that a “current employee” is an individual appointed in the civil service as outlined in 5 U.S.C. 2105 or under title 38 regarding VA civil service employees. This subpart does not apply to contractor employees performing work at the VA on behalf of a contractor because contractor employees are not appointed in the civil service. In recognition of the possibility that VA may issue a recoupment order for relocation expenses after an employee has left the VA, for example through transfer to another agency, resignation from federal service, removal, or retirement from federal service, former VA employees are covered by this appeal process.
Specifically, subpart B is limited to appeals filed pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 723 by an “employee” of the VA to the Director of OPM, or designee, regarding an order by the Secretary of the VA, or designee, directing the employee to repay the amount, or a portion of the amount, paid to or on behalf of the employee for relocation expenses under title 5, including any expenses under section 5724 or 5724a of title 5, or under title 38.
OPM's review on appeal is limited to whether the procedures in VA's policies on recoupment of relocation expenses were followed or, in the absence of any such policies, whether the VA's order was otherwise in compliance with 38 U.S.C. 723. As discussed in more detail elsewhere in this rule (see,
OPM is defining “business days” to mean weekdays, which are Monday through Friday, except when such a day is designated as a federal holiday by OPM, or the employee's assigned facility or OPM is closed for regular business,
This section describes the procedures for VA employees to follow when submitting an appeal regarding a VA order for recoupment of relocation expenses as provided by 38 U.S.C. 723. An employee may file an appeal to the Director of OPM by U.S. mail or by email, within seven business days after the date of issuance of the order pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 723(a)(3). Like the time limit established for recoupment of awards and bonuses, this time limit is established in law. Appeals which are untimely filed may be dismissed resulting in the VA's decision being upheld. OPM, for good cause shown, may accept an untimely appeal. OPM adopts the approach taken by the Merit Systems Protection Board in
If the employee elects to file by the U.S. mail, it must be addressed to Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Room 7H28 (Attention: Accountability and Workforce Relations), Washington, DC 20415. OPM will rely upon the postmark to determine timeliness for filing the appeal. If the employee elects to file by email, it must be sent to
The law does not specify the content for any appeal filed with OPM. Therefore, OPM has determined what information OPM needs to adequately consider the appeal. OPM is requiring that minimum information to be included in any appeal to reflect the narrow grant of authority 38 U.S.C. 721 gives to OPM. The appeal must be submitted in writing and must be signed by the employee or their representative. OPM is not requiring a specific form be used in filing the appeal, but any appeal must include the specified information for OPM to properly adjudicate the appeal. The written appeal must include (1) a copy of the notice of proposed order received pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 723(a)(2)(A); (2) a copy of the employee's response to the proposed order, if any; (3) a copy of the order received pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 723(a)(3); (4) a statement explaining why the employee believes the order received pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 723(a)(3) is in error; (5) the name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address of the employee and the same information for their representative, if the employee has elected to be represented; and (6) the name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address of the VA official who issued the order pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 723(a)(3). OPM will notify the VA upon receipt of a complete, timely appeal. The VA must provide OPM and the employee a copy of the evidence file relied upon in proposing and deciding its recoupment order as soon as possible but no later than five business days after OPM sends its notice to the VA. For OPM to make an appropriate decision, OPM must have all necessary facts and evidence relied upon by the VA when making its recoupment decision. If necessary, OPM may request VA provide information in addition to the evidence file. For example, OPM may need additional information to address the employee's belief the order by the VA was in error. Any additional information requested by OPM must be provided to OPM within five business days after OPM's request. VA must also furnish a copy of any additional information requested by and provided to OPM to the employee. VA's failure to provide the evidence file or any requested additional information to OPM and the employee will result in a finding against the VA.
An employee covered by this subpart is entitled to be represented by an attorney or other representative. OPM may disallow as an employee's representative an individual whose activities as representative would cause a conflict of interest or position, or an employee of any agency whose release from their official position would give rise to unreasonable costs or whose priority work assignments preclude their release. This is consistent with other complaint processes regulated by OPM.
The law provides that, upon the issuance of an order by the Secretary, an individual shall have an opportunity to appeal the order to the Director of OPM within seven business days after the date of such issuance. The law further provides that the Director shall make a final decision regarding the appeal within 30 business days after receiving the appeal. Therefore, due to this compressed timeline, OPM has determined the best way to fulfill its obligation to render a timely decision on any appeal is to base the decision on the written record only, which will include the submissions by the employee and the agency. Like the appeal process for recoupment of awards and bonuses, there will be no formal hearing procedures for this appeal.
The burden is upon the employee to establish the timeliness of the appeal and to explain why the VA's order is in error under 38 U.S.C. 723. OPM may uphold the VA order if the employee or their designated representative fails to provide required information. As noted previously, OPM will also uphold the VA order if the appeal was untimely filed without good cause shown for the delay.
Since Congress did not provide OPM the authority to adjudicate decisions by the VA regarding any disciplinary or adverse action, or any performance-based action, OPM's review of the VA order is limited to whether the procedures in VA's policies on recoupment of relocation expenses
Within 30 business days after receiving an appeal, OPM will make a decision on the employee's appeal. OPM will then send a written appeal decision to the employee or to the employee's representative, if any, advising whether the VA order is upheld by OPM. OPM will send the VA a copy of the appeal decision. This time limit is consistent with the statutory requirements.
Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 723(b)(2), the OPM appeal decision is final. There will not be any further administrative review available within OPM, and thus this rule does not establish any process for requests for reconsideration. Like appeals of recoupment of awards and bonuses, the law is silent regarding any statutory right to judicial review of an
Given the unique nature of OPM's responsibility for adjudicating employee appeals on matters specific only to the VA, OPM requested comment on the implementation and impact of the interim final rule. In the paragraphs that follow, OPM restates the questions and discusses the responses from three commenters.
• If a disciplinary or adverse action, or performance-based action, relied upon by the VA in recoupment of an award, bonus, or relocation expense is subject to a grievance or appeal in a separate process and the grievance or appeal is still pending, how should this impact any decision by OPM? What if the disciplinary or adverse action, or performance-based action, relied upon by the VA is later overturned in the separate process after any decision by OPM regarding the recoupment by the VA?
The national union stated that, if the VA seeks recoupment while the disciplinary or adverse action, or performance-based action is still in litigation, OPM should stay its adjudication of the employee appeal pending resolution of the litigation. The union suggested that OPM should reverse the VA's recoupment order through its appeal process if the underlying disciplinary or adverse action, or performance-based action, relied upon by the VA in recoupment is overturned, rescinded, vacated or otherwise undone. The organization also recommended that OPM stay VA's recoupment action pending litigation of any underlying adverse personnel action. Additionally, the organization made a similar suggestion that, if the underlying adverse personnel action is undone, then the recoupment should also be undone.
An individual also responded to OPM's request for comments regarding how any pending appeal would impact a decision by OPM. The individual suggested that OPM's decision on a VA recoupment order should not be implemented until any pending grievance or appeal of the underlying action is resolved. As to OPM's request for comments regarding the impact of an overturned personnel action on OPM's decision, the individual recommended that OPM's decision is issued and implemented only if the decision reverses the VA recoupment order.
OPM thanks the commenters for their responses. However, OPM will not make any revisions based on these comments. After careful consideration, OPM has concluded that a decision by OPM should not be impacted by a grievance or appeal in a separate process in a disciplinary or adverse action, or performance-based action, relied upon by the VA in recoupment of an award, bonus, or relocation expense. Congress afforded OPM only 30 business days to adjudicate an appeal filed seven business days after the date of an order. Such a limited timeframe indicates that Congress intended for OPM to conduct a limited review of the Secretary's order and issue a prompt decision on the employee's appeal. In addition, Congress did not authorize OPM to stay a decision on a recoupment appeal pending the outcome of collateral litigation. Further, even if, after OPM makes its decision, a tribunal overturns a disciplinary or adverse action, or performance-based action that was relied upon by the VA, Congress did not authorize OPM to reopen or revisit its decisions on recoupment appeals. Finally, allowing for OPM to stay or revisit its decisions based on underlying substantive matters is incongruent with OPM's conclusion that its review under 38 U.S.C. 721(a) and 723(a) is limited to VA's compliance with its internal policy or, in the absence of such policy, compliance with the law.
• May VA bargaining unit employees use the negotiated grievance process under 5 U.S.C. 7121 to challenge a VA recoupment order in lieu of filing an appeal with OPM? Or do 38 U.S.C. 721 and 723 provide the sole method to challenge a VA recoupment order?
The national union put forth that the plain text of sections 721 and 723 “does not supersede 5 U.S.C. 7121, and therefore, cannot be interpreted to exclude or otherwise prohibit a grievance being filed under the negotiated grievance procedure.” The commenting organization provided a similar rationale, noting that no provision in sections 721 and 723 expressly excludes coverage by a negotiated grievance procedure. The organization also stated that the terms of the applicable collective bargaining agreement would decide whether a covered employee can grieve a recoupment order. Both the national union and organization stated that sections 721 and 723 cannot be read to mean that an OPM appeal is the sole method to contest a VA recoupment order. They concluded that the statute should be interpreted instead to mean that an employee may file a negotiated grievance or an appeal to OPM, but not both.
As stated in the interim final rule, it was unclear to OPM whether the appeal rights to OPM are the exclusive process for bargaining unit employees to challenge a VA order on recoupment of awards or bonuses or whether VA bargaining unit employees may file a grievance under any applicable negotiated grievance procedure which ends in binding arbitration. After consideration of these comments, it is not clear to OPM that Congress intended to exclude VA bargaining unit employees from pursuing a grievance under a negotiated grievance procedure concerning a recoupment award issued under 38 U.S.C. 721(a) or 723(a). However, it is unnecessary for OPM to decide this question of statutory interpretation as such issues are more appropriate for resolution through the procedures established by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. However, OPM agrees with the commenters' arguments that an employee could not both file grievance and a recoupment appeal. Accordingly, OPM is revising §§ 755.102 and 755.202 to collect information related to any grievance as part of the appeal and to clarify that an employee must elect to pursue either an appeal to OPM or negotiated grievance procedures.
• Does coverage by the negotiated grievance procedure depend on whether the award or bonus was paid under title 5 authority or by title 38 authority?
The national union responded that the authority, whether title 5 or title 38, for the award is irrelevant. The union pointed to 38 U.S.C. 7422(a), stating that the statute entitles bargaining unit employees to collective bargaining and negotiated grievance procedures. The union noted that an employee who contests a VA recoupment is not challenging the award itself but rather the recoupment of the award. Such a challenge, in the union's view, is not excluded by 38 U.S.C. 7422(b). Lastly, the union stated that relocation expenses are similar to payments for travel and training, which the VA has previously found under 38 U.S.C. 7422(d) are not matters that would be excluded from negotiated grievance procedures by 38 U.S.C. 7422(b). The organization shared a perspective similar to the national union's and posited that the “sole limitation” is whether coverage is excluded by 38 U.S.C. 7422.
• OPM appreciates the commenters’ feedback on this question but will not make changes to the regulations based on the feedback. Because the Secretary of Veterans Affairs retains exclusive
As discussed in the sections about comments on §§ 755.105 and 755.205, both the national union and the organization responded that, yes, a VA employee may seek judicial review of an OPM appeal decision. The commenters stated that OPM should clarify in its regulations additional appeal rights available to employees. In addition, the comments recommended that OPM should affirmatively provide notice of available judicial review options to avoid prejudice to employees. For the reasons provided in the comment discussion for §§ 755.105 and 755.205, OPM declines the recommendation to modify the regulations to address further appeal rights.
• Should OPM publish its appeal decisions and make them publicly available?
The national union and the organization both believe OPM should publish its appeal decisions and make them publicly available, in the same manner that OPM makes publicly available OPM's decisions on compensation and leave claims. The commenters recommended that OPM protect the employee's privacy by identifying the cases by an OPM case number and pseudonym or redacted name.
OPM appreciates the responses and will take them under advisement in developing internal procedures.
OPM issued an interim final rule because it determined that, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), it would be impracticable to delay a final regulation until a public notice and comment process had been completed. A national union asserted that OPM's issuance of the interim final rule was without good cause, in violation of the APA, and done in haste. The union recommended that OPM rescind the interim final rule and issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit public comment consistent with the APA and the Accountability Act. The union averred that, as far as the union was aware, the VA had not exercised its recoupment authority. In support of its claim, the union included a copy of a negative June 2022 VA response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records related to the recoupment of awards or bonuses under 38 U.S.C. 721.
OPM disagrees with the union's assertion that the interim final rule was without good cause and in violation of the APA. As the union noted, VA finalized its internal policies regarding implementation of the authority to recoup awards, bonuses, and relocation expenses on January 29, 2024. Following the issuance of that policy, VA began using the authority to pursue recoupment actions. Therefore, it was imperative that OPM prepare to receive and adjudicate appeals from VA employees. In fact, two VA recoupment orders were appealed to OPM shortly before publication of the interim final rule, and the appeals were adjudicated during the comment period. The fact that VA began ordering recoupment of awards prior to OPM's publication of the interim final rule confirms that OPM's waiver of notice and comment was prudent and in the public interest.
Although OPM has statutory authority to hear appeals, the public is better served to have clear, established procedures that are easily accessible in the Code of Federal Regulations than for OPM to operate under uncodified procedures that could be variable or haphazard pending a final rule. Accordingly, to ensure the regulations accurately reflect the current state of the law and to provide clear procedures for an employee seeking OPM review of a VA recoupment order, OPM correctly determined that good cause existed to waive the general notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
The national union also asserted that OPM violated the APA by not affording the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process as required by 5 U.S.C. 553(c). OPM disagrees. Given that OPM reasonably found that good cause existed pursuant to section 553(b)(B), OPM was not required to allow for public comment prior to publication of a final rule. Nonetheless, OPM gave interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking through public comment as part of the interim final rule. OPM welcomed comment on the provisions codified in its interim final rule and on a number of additional procedural topics that OPM expressly sought to address before finalizing its appeal procedures. OPM has now solicited and responded to comment, thus fulfilling all of the procedural requirements under the APA.
Regarding the union's perspective that OPM acted in haste, OPM determined that, after the VA finalized its internal policy, expeditious issuance of an interim final regulation was required to prevent confusion and promote fairness as VA exercises its statutory authority resulting in appeals to OPM. We note that OPM developed its interim final rule after review of VA's policies and procedures, consideration of legal and policy options, and in consultation with VA. OPM developed procedures only after it had a better understanding of what process VA would provide and what record would be available for OPM review.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), OPM found that good cause existed to waive the 30-day delay in effective date for the interim final rule and made those interim procedural regulations effective upon publication. The delay in effective date was waived because the provisions of the law regarding recoupment of bonuses, awards, or relocation expenses (
The national union characterized OPM's interim final rule as lacking an explanation for its delay in rulemaking and speculative regarding the potential impact if OPM were to adhere to the 30-day delay in effective date. For these reasons, the union believed the interim final rule was arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
OPM notes that the union has described OPM's rulemaking as both hasty and unjustifiably delayed. Neither is the case, and nor was the interim final rule arbitrary and capricious. As explained in the interim final rule, OPM considered the VA's internal procedures, first, to ensure it designed an effective and efficient process for adjudicating appeals given the limited period of time afforded OPM by sections 721(b) and 723(b) to issue a decision. To issue a rule before VA established its internal procedures would have been unworkable and may have created inefficiencies that would either delay or rush OPM in reaching a decision; both of which would unnecessarily prejudice VA employees and the VA.
As noted above, after VA finalized its policy, the VA began exercising its authority under this statute. Subsequent to the union's 2022 FOIA request, the VA informed OPM that it had issued several recoupment orders. Therefore, OPM's justification for waiving the
The interim final rule implemented portions of sections 204 and 205 of the Accountability Act, which provides VA employees certain appeal rights to the Director of OPM regarding decisions by the VA to recoup awards, bonuses, or relocation expenses. These sections of the Accountability Act amend chapter 7 of title 38, United States Code. Under these authorities, OPM prescribed additional details of the appeal process to provide consistency and transparency.
After consideration of public comments about the interim final rule, OPM determined that minor changes to the appeal procedures were needed. OPM added provisions to § 755.102(b) and § 755.202(b) that require an employee to disclose information concerning any grievance concerning the recoupment award. OPM also added a requirement in § 755.102(c) and § 755.202(c) for the VA provide to the VA employee copies of information provided to OPM. OPM also added new subparagraphs (e) to both § 755.102 and § 755.202 that preclude OPM from asserting jurisdiction over an appeal of a recoupment award where the employee first elects to challenge a recoupment award through a negotiated grievance process.
An alternative to this final rule was to rescind the provisions of the interim final rule and publish a new notice of proposed rulemaking, as suggested by one commenter. As discussed in the section “Waiver of Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Related Comments,” VA began exercising its authority under 38 U.S.C. 721 and 723 in 2024. OPM's rescission of the interim final rule would result in confusion regarding how OPM will administer the appeals process as the law only outlines the right to appeal to the Director of OPM; the time limit for a VA employee to file an appeal; and a time limit for the Director to issue a decision regarding any appeal. To leave VA employees without any procedures for appealing those decisions would not be in their interest. Accordingly, OPM determined that this was not an appropriate course of action.
Another alternative was for OPM to refrain from publishing this final rule. OPM found good cause to adopt interim regulations prior to receiving public comment; however, OPM sought public input to ensure that it had considered a range of viewpoints and concerns prior to finalizing those processes. Although OPM is only making minor changes in response to public comments, OPM believes that the changes made in this rule will better guide VA employees through the appeals process.
OPM is issuing this final rule to provide consistency and transparency regarding appeals by VA employees involving orders by the VA to recoup awards, bonuses, or relocation expenses previously paid to these employees. Congress provided VA employees appeal rights regarding such orders by the VA. OPM's final rule provides more clarity regarding this appeal process. It provides VA employees with structure and an explanation of what to expect and provides employees with security that they will receive fair, consistent treatment in the consideration of an appeal.
The costs associated with this final rule are de minimis. OPM estimates that the final rule would result in costs of about $7,100 to OPM for each appeal filed with OPM. This estimate is slightly larger than the $6,937.20 estimated in the interim final rule. The difference between the two estimates is attributed to the difference between salary rates used to estimate labor costs. The interim final rule used the 2024 salary rates. This final rule used the 2025 salary rates.
As already noted, this final rule specifies that VA will provide both OPM and the employee a copy of the evidence file for the appeal process. OPM anticipates a negligible cost to VA for providing the requested file to the employee in addition to OPM. While VA may incur some costs regarding decisions it makes regarding recoupment of awards, bonuses, or relocation expenses, such matters are not covered by this final rule and are covered by VA policies.
OPM does not expect the changes in this final rule to result in any costs to VA employees that were not accounted for in the interim final rule.
This final rule will benefit VA employees. This rule will provide consistency and transparency regarding the procedures OPM will follow when processing appeals by VA employees regarding decisions by the VA regarding recoupment of awards, bonuses, or relocations expenses. This final rule provides clarity regarding the procedural protections Congress has provided VA employees on such matters.
OPM has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public, health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for rules that have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. This rulemaking does not reach that threshold but has otherwise been designated as a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because it is does not impose any more than de minimis regulatory costs.
The Acting Director of OPM certifies this regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will apply only to Federal agencies and individuals (Federal employees and former employees).
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that would impose spending costs on State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector, in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold is currently approximately $206 million. This rulemaking will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, in excess of the threshold. Therefore, no written assessment of unfunded mandates is required.
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 of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Case records are subject to the Privacy Act and are covered by OPM System of Records Notice (SORN) “OPM/Internal-29, VA Recoupment and Reduction Appeals to OPM” (90 FR 3970).
Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, OPM amends 5 CFR part 755 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 1103; 38 U.S.C. 721 and 723.
(b)
(1) A copy of the notice of proposed order received pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 721(a)(2)(A);
(2) A copy of the employee's response to the proposed order, if any;
(3) A copy of the order received pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 721(a)(3);
(4) A copy of any grievance filed by the employee under a negotiated grievance procedure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7121 seeking to reverse a recoupment order;
(5) A statement explaining why the employee believes the order received pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 721(a)(3) is in error and whether the employee filed a grievance under a negotiated grievance procedure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7121 seeking to reverse a recoupment order;
(6) The name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address of the employee and their representative (if applicable); and
(7) The name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address of the VA official who issued the order pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 721(a)(3).
(c)
(e)
(b)
(1) A copy of the notice of proposed order received pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 723(a)(2)(A);
(2) A copy of the employee's response to the proposed order, if any;
(3) A copy of the order received pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 723(a)(3);
(4) A copy of any grievance filed by the employee under a negotiated grievance procedure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7121 seeking to reverse a recoupment order;
(5) A statement explaining why the employee believes the order received pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 723(a)(3) is in error and whether the employee filed a grievance under a negotiated grievance procedure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7121 seeking to reverse a recoupment order;
(6) The name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address of the employee and their representative (if applicable); and
(7) The name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address of the VA official who issued the order pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 723(a)(3).
(c)
(e)
Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Final rule; notice of approval of Information Collection Request (ICR).
The final rule entitled Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP) Stage 1 was published on July 10, 2025. The Office of Management and Budget cleared the associated information collection requirements (ICR) on July 1, 2025. This document announces approval of the ICR.
The ICR associated with the final rule published in the
Kathy Sayers; telephone: (202) 720-6870; email:
The information collection request has been approved by OMB under the control number of 0503-0028; Expiration Date: 10/31/2027. FSA will use data already on file with FSA or RMA to generate pre-filled applications for producers and verify eligibility using the following forms: CCC-901, CCC-902E, CCC-902I, and FSA-510. In addition, for the information collection changes related to the existing approval under 0503-0028, the agency is seeking to use FSA-526 and a letter to producers with this data collection. The FSA-526 and letter to producers are the only new data collection activities associated with this request; the pre-filled applications are generated with data previously collected and already on file, with no additional burden to producers. The total annual burden hours for this information collection is 183,445. This final rule is a one-time announcement of SDRP Stage 1 federal financial assistance funding.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal Airways V-38, V-133, and V-144; and revokes VOR Federal Airway V-214. The FAA is taking this action due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Zanesville, OH (ZZV), VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigational aid (NAVAID). The Zanesville VOR is being decommissioned in support of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.
Effective date 0901 UTC, October 2, 2025. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations Group, Policy Directorate, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20597; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the National Airspace System (NAS) as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.
The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2024-2591 in the
Subsequent to publication of the NPRM, the FAA separately published a final rule for Docket No. FAA-2024-2512 in the
VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11J, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending VOR Federal Airways V-38, V-133, and V-144, and revoking VOR Federal Airway V-214 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Zanesville, OH, VOR/DME NAVAID. The airway changes are described below.
All NAVAID radials listed in the airway descriptions in the regulatory text of this final rule are unchanged and stated in degrees True north.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action amending VOR Federal Airways V-38, V-133, and V-144, and revoking VOR Federal Airway V-214 qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321,
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Moline, IL; INT Moline 082° and Peotone, IL, 281° radials; Peotone; Fort Wayne, IN; to INT Fort Wayne 091° and Rosewood, OH, 334° radials. From Parkersburg, WV; Elkins, WV; Gordonsville, VA; Richmond, VA; Harcum, VA; to INT Harcum 100° and Norfolk, VA, 026° radials.
From INT Charlotte, NC, 305° and Barretts Mountain, NC, 197° radials; Barretts Mountain; to Charleston, WV. From Saginaw, MI; Traverse City, MI; Escanaba, MI; Sawyer, MI; to Houghton, MI. From International Falls, MN; to Red Lake, ON, Canada. The airspace within Canada is excluded.
From Fort Wayne, IN; to Appleton, OH. From Morgantown, WV; Kessel, WV; to Linden, VA.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Temporary scheduling order; extension.
The Acting Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is issuing this temporary scheduling order to extend the temporary schedule I status of five designer benzodiazepines—clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam. In an order dated July 26, 2023, DEA temporarily placed these five substances in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. This temporary order will extend the temporary scheduling of five designer benzodiazepines for one year, or until the permanent scheduling action for these substances is completed, whichever occurs first. As a result of this order, the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to schedule I controlled substances will continue to be imposed on persons who handle (manufacture, distribute, reverse distribute, import, export, engage in research, conduct instructional activities or chemical analysis with, or possess) or propose to handle these five specified controlled substances.
This temporary scheduling order, which extends schedule I control of five specific substances covered by an order (88 FR 48112, July 26, 2023), is effective July 26, 2025, and expires on July 26, 2026. If DEA publishes a final rule making this scheduling action permanent, this order will expire on the effective date of that rule, if the effective date is earlier than July 26, 2026.
Terrence L. Boos, Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (571) 362-3249.
In this order, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) extends the temporary scheduling of the following five controlled substances in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), including their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation:
• clonazolam (6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1-methyl-8-nitro-4
• diclazepam (7-chloro-5-(2-chlorophenyl)-1-methyl-1,3-dihydro-2
• etizolam (4-(2-chlorophenyl)-2-ethyl-9-methyl-6
• flualprazolam (8-chloro-6-(2-fluorophenyl)-1-methyl-4
• flubromazolam (8-bromo-6-(2-fluorophenyl)-1-methyl-4
On July 26, 2023, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), DEA published an order in the
Proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of the scheduling of any drug or other substance under 21 U.S.C. 811(a) may be initiated by the Attorney General (delegated to the Administrator of DEA pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100) on her own motion, at the request of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), or on the petition of any interested party.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2), the Acting Administrator orders that the temporary scheduling of these five benzodiazepines—clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam—and their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible, be extended for one year, or until the permanent scheduling proceeding is completed, whichever occurs first.
The CSA provides for an expedited temporary scheduling action where such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.
To the extent that 21 U.S.C. 811(h) directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued and extended, the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),
In the alternative, even if this action were subject to 5 U.S.C. 553, the Acting Administrator finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3) to forgo the notice-and-comment requirements and the delayed effective date requirements of such section, as any further delays in the process for extending the temporary scheduling order would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in view of the manifest urgency to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety that these substances would present if scheduling expired, for the reasons expressed in the temporary scheduling order.
Further, DEA believes that this order extending the temporary scheduling action is not a “rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2) and, accordingly, is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, DEA is not required by section 553 of the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Therefore, in this instance, since DEA believes this temporary scheduling action is not a “rule,” it is not subject to the requirements of the RFA when issuing this temporary action.
In addition, in accordance with the principles of Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563, this action is not a significant regulatory action. E.O. 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity). E.O. 13563 is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review as established in E.O. 12866. E.O. 12866, sec. 3(f), provides the definition of a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget. Because this is not a rulemaking action, this is not a significant regulatory action as defined in section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. DEA scheduling actions are not subject to either E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, or E.O. 14294, Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations.
This action 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. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
As noted above, this action is an order, not a rule. Accordingly, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) is inapplicable, as it applies only to rules. However, if this were a rule, pursuant to the CRA, “any rule for which an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the federal agency promulgating the rule determines.”
It is in the public interest to maintain the temporary placement of these five substances in schedule I because they pose a public health risk. These substances are clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam, including their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers. The temporary scheduling action was taken pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h), which is specifically designed to enable DEA to act in an expeditious manner to avoid
Nonetheless, DEA has submitted a copy of this temporary order to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General, although such filing is not required under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional Review Act), 5 U.S.C. 801-808 because, as noted above, this action is an order, not a rule.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on July 22, 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
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection non-substantive changes under OMB Control Numbers 3060-0609 and 3060-0685, the discontinuance of OMB Control Numbers 3060-0607, 3060-0601, 3060-0594 and 3060-0688, and the effective date for amendments adopted by the Report and Order, FCC 25-33, 90 FR 31145 (Order), which were delayed. This document is consistent with the Order, which states that the Media Bureau will publish a document in the
Amendatory instructions 2 (47 CFR 1.1204), 3 (47 CFR 1.1206), 5 (47 CFR 76.911), 6 (47 CFR 76.922), 10 (47 CFR 76.934), 15 (47 CFR 76.944), and 21 (47 CFR 76.990), published at 90 FR 31145 on July 14, 2025, are effective August 13, 2025.
For additional information on this proceeding, contact Katie Costello, Policy Division, Media Bureau at
This document announces that OMB approved the modifications to the information collection requirements in 47 CFR 76.934, the discontinuance of the information collection requirements in § 76.922, and the discontinuance of information collection requirements associated with discontinued FCC Forms 1200, 1220 and 1235 on July 15, 2025. This document also announces that OMB approved the discontinuance of information collection requirements for discontinued FCC Form 1210 on July 17, 2025. These forms were discontinued and these rule sections were modified in the Order, FCC 25-33, published at 90 FR 31145 on July 14, 2025. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of August 13, 2025 for 47 CFR 1.1204, 1.1206, 76.911, 76.922, 76.934, 76.944 and 76.990.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approvals on July 15, 2025 for the information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 76.934, the discontinuance of information collection requirements in 47 CFR 76.922 and the discontinuance of information collection requirements for obsolete FCC Forms 1200, 1220 and 1235 and on July 17, 2025 for the discontinuance of information collection requirements for FCC form 1210. Further the FCC is notifying the public that revisions to 47 CFR 1.1204, 1.1206. 76.911, 76.922, 76.934, 76.944 and 76.990 are effective August 13, 2025. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers are 3060-0601, 3060-0594, 3060-0688, 3060-0607, 3060-0609 and 3060-0685.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget has approved new information collection requirements under OMB Control Number 3060-1334, as adopted in the Federal Communications Commission's Second Report and Order and Order on
Amendatory instructions 5 (47 CFR 73.3526), 6 (47 CFR 73.3527), 9 (47 CFR 74.1204), and 10 (47 CFR 74.1206), published at 89 FR 100868 on Dec. 13, 2024, are effective July 25, 2025.
Cathy Williams, Office of the Managing Director, Federal Communications Commission, at (202) 418-2918 or
This document announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the information collection requirements in 47 CFR 73.3526, 73.3527, 74.1204, and 74.1206, and FCC Form 2100, Schedule 336, on July 14, 2025. These rule sections were adopted in the Second Report and Order, FCC 24-121. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date for these amended rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams,
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the Commission is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on July 14, 2025, for the information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.3526, 73.3527, 74.1204, and 74.1206, and FCC Form 2100, Schedule 336. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for the information collection requirements in 47 CFR 73.3526, 73.3527, 74.1204, and 74.1206, and FCC Form 2100, Schedule 336, is 3060-1334.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
FM boosters are low power, secondary stations that operate in the FM broadcast band. They must be licensed to the same broadcaster and on the same frequency as the primary station, and rebroadcast that primary station's signal within its protected contour. Until this proceeding, FM boosters were traditionally used only as a means to enhance weak signals of a primary FM station and could not originate programming. With advances in technology it is now possible for FM broadcasters to customize the content delivered to different parts of their service areas by using boosters to air programming different from their primary FM station. Since the April 2024 adoption of the First Report and Order in this proceeding, MB Docket Nos. 20-401, 17-105, FCC 24-35, the Commission has allowed the use of program originating FM boosters on a temporary, experimental basis. The Second Report and Order now establishes specific processing, licensing, and service rules and permanently authorizes broadcasters to originate programming on FM boosters without the need for an experimental authorization.
To facilitate the rollout of this service, the Commission directed the Media Bureau to create a notification form and consistent with this directive, the Media Bureau created the FM Booster Program Origination Notification, FCC Form 2100, Schedule 336.
In addition to the standard general contact information, the FM Booster Program Origination Notification, FCC Form 2100, Schedule 336 includes the following elements:
(1) The call sign and facility identification number of the program originating FM booster station;
(2) If applicable, the date on which the program originating FM booster station will commence (or has terminated) originating content;
(3) The name and telephone number of a technical representative the Commission or the public can contact in the event of interference;
(4) A certification that the program originating FM booster station complies with all Emergency Alert System (EAS) requirements contained in part 11 of our rules;
(5) A certification that the program originating FM booster station will originate programming for no more than three minutes of each broadcast hour; and
(6) A certification that the program originating FM booster minimizes interference to the primary station through synchronization or terrain shielding.
To implement this new information requirement contained in the Second Report and Order, the Commission added new § 74.1206 to the rules.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Regulatory review; request for comments.
Pursuant to the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (EGRPRA), the OCC, Board, and FDIC (collectively, the agencies) are reviewing agency regulations to identify outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulatory requirements on insured depository institutions and their holding companies. Since February 2024, the agencies published three
Written comments must be received no later than October 23, 2025.
Comments should be directed to:
•
Go to
•
•
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this action by the following method:
•
Go to
The docket may be viewed after the close of the comment period in the same manner as during the comment period.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Section 2222 of EGRPRA
Consistent with its approach during the first and second EGRPRA reviews, NCUA will separately issue documents and requests for comment on its rules. The CFPB is required to review its significant rules and publish a report of its review no later than five years after they take effect.
The EGRPRA also requires the FFIEC or the agencies to publish in the
The EGRPRA regulatory review provides an opportunity for the public and the agencies to evaluate groups of related regulations and to identify opportunities for burden reduction.
The EGRPRA review also provides the agencies and the public with an opportunity to consider how to reduce the impact of regulations on community banks or their holding companies. The agencies are aware of the role that these institutions play in providing consumers and businesses across the nation with essential financial services and access to credit. The agencies are especially concerned about the impact of requirements for these smaller institutions. The agencies understand that when a new regulation is issued or a current regulation is amended, smaller institutions may have to devote a significant amount of their resources to determine if and how the regulation will
Burden reduction must be compatible with consumer protection and the safety and soundness of insured depository institutions, their affiliates, and the financial system as a whole. Burden reduction also must be consistent with the agencies' statutory mandates, many of which require the issuance of regulations. EGRPRA recognizes that effective burden reduction may require statutory changes. Accordingly, as part of this review, the agencies specifically ask the public to comment on the relationship among burden reduction, regulatory requirements, policy objectives, and statutory mandates. The agencies also seek quantitative data about the impact of rules, where available.
The agencies note that they must consider regulatory burden each time an agency proposes, adopts, or amends a rule. For example, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Taken together for purposes of the EGRPRA review process, the agencies' regulations covering insured depository institutions encompass more than 100 subjects.
To carry out the EGRPRA review, the agencies have now published four
To assist the public's understanding of how the agencies have organized the EGRPRA review, the agencies have prepared a chart that lists the categories of regulations for which the agencies are requesting comments. The chart's left column divides the categories into specific subject-matter areas. The headings at the top of the chart identify the types of institutions affected by the regulations.
The agencies will review the comments received and determine whether further action is appropriate with respect to the regulations. The agencies will consult and coordinate with each other and expect generally to make this determination jointly, as appropriate, in the case of rules that have been issued on an interagency basis. Similarly, as appropriate, the agencies will coordinate to amend or repeal those rules on an interagency basis. For rules issued by a single agency, the issuing agency will review the comments received and independently determine whether amendments to or repeal of its rules are appropriate.
Further, as part of the EGRPRA review, the agencies are holding a series of public outreach meetings to provide an opportunity for bankers, consumer and community groups, and other interested parties to present their views directly to senior management and staff of the agencies. More information about the outreach meetings can be found on the agencies’ EGRPRA website,
The agencies are requesting comment on regulations in the Banking Operations, Capital, and the Community Reinvestment Act categories to identify outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome requirements for insured depository institutions and their holding companies. The agencies seek comment on all rules finalized by the agencies as of July 25, 2025. In addition to comments on regulations in these categories generally, the agencies are requesting comments on certain specific regulations described below within these categories issued since the last EGRPRA review. Where possible, the agencies ask commenters to cite to specific regulatory language or provisions. The agencies also welcome suggested alternative provisions or language in support of a comment, where appropriate. The agencies will consider comments submitted anonymously.
The agencies specifically invite comment on the following issues as they pertain to the agencies’ Banking Operations, Capital, and the Community Reinvestment Act rules addressed in this document. The agencies have asked these same questions for each document issued in connection with the EGRPRA process and invite comments on these questions for the categories in the previous EGRPRA documents.
•
○
○
•
○
○
•
○
○
○
•
○
•
○
○
•
○
•
○
○
•
○
○
○
○
•
○
○
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The agencies also invite comment on the following questions regarding the agencies' rules in any of the 12 categories of regulations in this current notice and previous EGRPRA documents.
○
○
○
○
○
Consistent with past practice, the agencies will use the EGRPRA review to satisfy their respective obligations under section 610 of the RFA.
The FDIC identified one rule pertaining to Capital that requires review under the RFA. The agencies did not identify any additional rules in the categories of Banking Operations, Capital, and Community Reinvestment that require review under the RFA. Accordingly, the agencies will consider public comments submitted through the EGRPRA review process and agency experience to identify regulations where the agencies can reduce burdens that have a significant impact on a substantial number of small, insured depository institutions.
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
By order of the Board of Directors.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class D airspace and establish Class E airspace extending upward from the surface above Langley Air Force Base (AFB), Hampton Roads, VA, as the air traffic control tower will shift to part-time operations. This action also proposes to update the geographic coordinates of the airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.
Comments must be received on or before September 8, 2025.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2025-2037 and Airspace Docket No. 25-AEA-14 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11J Airspace Designations and Reporting Points and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Marc Ellerbee, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone: (404) 305-5589.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Operations office (see
Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000 and 6002 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11J, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the
This action proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend Class D airspace for Langley AFB, Hampton Roads, VA, as the air traffic control tower will no longer be full-time. During the periods when the tower is not in operation, Class E airspace would be activated. This action also proposes to update the geographic coordinates of the airport. Lastly, this action also proposes to establish Class E surface airspace over Langley AFB, Hampton Roads, VA, at the request of the Department of the Air Force. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321,
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL within a 4.4-mile radius of Langley AFB. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL within a 4.4-mile radius of Langley AFB. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Drug Enforcement Administration proposes placing clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam and their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation, as identified in this proposed rule, in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. These five substances were temporarily scheduled in an order dated July 26, 2023, and subsequently extended until July 26, 2026, pursuant to an extension published elsewhere in this issue of the
Comments must be submitted electronically or postmarked on or before August 25, 2025.
Interested persons may file a request for a hearing or waiver of hearing pursuant to 21 CFR 1308.44 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1316.47 and/or 1316.49, as applicable. Requests for a hearing and waivers of an opportunity for a hearing or to participate in a hearing, together with a written statement of position on the matters of fact and law asserted in the hearing, must be received on or before August 25, 2025.
Interested persons may file written comments on this proposal in accordance with 21 CFR 1308.43(g). The electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period. To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. DEA-989” on all electronic and written correspondence, including any attachments.
Dr. Terrence L. Boos, Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Telephone: (571) 362-3249.
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed rule may be found in the docket for this rulemaking at
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) proposes to permanently schedule the following five controlled substances in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), including their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation:
• clonazolam (6-(2-chlorophenyl)-1-methyl-8-nitro-4
• diclazepam (7-chloro-5-(2-chlorophenyl)-1-methyl-1,3-dihydro-2
• etizolam (4-(2-chlorophenyl)-2-ethyl-9-methyl-6
• flualprazolam (8-chloro-6-(2-fluorophenyl)-1-methyl-4
• flubromazolam (8-bromo-6-(2-fluorophenyl)-1-methyl-4
All comments received in response to this docket are considered part of the public record. DEA will make comments available for public inspection online at
Commenters submitting comments which include personal identifying information (PII), confidential, or proprietary business information that the commenter does not want made publicly available should submit two copies of the comment. One copy must be marked “CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION” and should clearly identify all PII or business information the commenter does not want to be made publicly
For easy reference, an electronic copy of this document and supplemental information to this proposed scheduling action are available at
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this action is a formal rulemaking “on the record after opportunity for a hearing.” Such proceedings are conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551-559.
(1) state with particularity the interest of the person in the proceeding;
(2) state with particularity the objections or issues concerning which the person desires to be heard; and
(3) state briefly the position of the person with regard to the objections or issues.
Any interested person may file a waiver of an opportunity for a hearing or to participate in a hearing in conformity with the requirements of 21 CFR 1308.44(c), together with a written statement of position on the matters of fact and law involved in any hearing.
All requests for a hearing and waivers of participation, together with a written statement of position on the matters of fact and law involved in such hearing, must be sent to DEA using the address information provided above. The decision whether a hearing will be needed to address such matters of fact and law in the rulemaking will be made by the Administrator. If a hearing is needed, DEA will publish a notice of hearing on the proposed rulemaking in the
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811 and 812, the purpose of a hearing would be to determine whether clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam meet the statutory criteria for placement in schedule I, as proposed in this rulemaking.
The CSA provides that proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of the scheduling of any drug or other substance may be initiated by the Attorney General (delegated to the Administrator of DEA pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100) on her own motion, at the request of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), or on the petition of an interested party.
In addition, the United States is a party to the 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971 Convention), Feb. 21, 1971, 32 U.S.T. 543, 1019 U.N.T.S. 175, as amended. Procedures respecting changes in drug schedules under the 1971 Convention are set forth in 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(2)-(4). When the United States receives notification of a scheduling decision pursuant to Article 2 of the 1971 Convention indicating that a drug or other substance has been added to a schedule specified in the notification, the Secretary of HHS,
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) and (2), the Attorney General (as delegated to the Administrator of DEA) may, by rule, and upon the recommendation of the Secretary, add to such a schedule or transfer between such schedules any drug or other substance, if she finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by 21 U.S.C. 812(b) for the schedule in which such drug or other substance is to be placed.
On May 7, 2020, the Secretariat of the United Nations advised the Secretary of State of the Unites States that the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), during its 63rd Session on March 4, 2020, voted to place etizolam and flualprazolam in Schedule IV of the 1971 Convention (CND Decisions 63/12, 63/13). On June 10, 2021, the Secretariat advised the Secretary of State that the CND, during its 64th Session, voted to place clonazolam, diclazepam, and flubromazolam in Schedule IV of the 1971 Convention (CND Decisions 64/6, 64/7, 64/8). As a signatory party to this international treaty, the United States is required, by scheduling under the CSA, to place appropriate controls on the five designer benzodiazepines to meet the requirements of this treaty.
To meet the minimum requirements of this treaty and to confront these emerging substances, DEA published an order in the
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2), the temporary scheduling of a substance expires at the end of two years from the date of issuance of the scheduling order, except that DEA may extend temporary scheduling of that substance for up to one year during the pendency of proceedings under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) with the respect to the temporarily controlled substance. The temporary control of these five substances is set to expire on July 26, 2025. DEA is publishing a temporary scheduling order to extend the temporary schedule I status of these five substances elsewhere in this issue of the
The Acting Administrator, on his own motion pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), is initiating proceedings to permanently schedule clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam, including their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation. DEA gathered and reviewed the available information regarding the pharmacology, chemistry, trafficking, actual abuse, pattern of abuse, and the relative potential for abuse for these substances. On March 17 and 24, 2022, in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(b), the former Administrator submitted a request to the former Assistant Secretary to provide DEA with a scientific and medical evaluation of available information and a scheduling recommendation for these five substances.
On June 18, 2025, the Acting Assistant Secretary submitted HHS's scientific and medical evaluation, entitled “Basis for the Recommendation to Control Clonazolam, Diclazepam, Etizolam, Flualprazolam, and Flubromazolam, and Their Salts, in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act,” and scheduling recommendation to the Acting Administrator. Following consideration of the eight factors and findings related to these substances' abuse potential, legitimate medical use, and dependence liability, HHS recommended that clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam and their salts be controlled in schedule I of the CSA under 21 U.S.C. 812(b).
As discussed in the background section, the Acting Administrator is initiating proceedings, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), to permanently add clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam, including their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation, to schedule I. In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(c), upon receipt of the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation from HHS, DEA reviewed the documents and all other relevant data and conducted its own eight-factor analysis of the abuse potential of these five substances. Included below is a brief summary of each factor as analyzed by HHS and DEA and as considered by DEA in its proposed scheduling action. Please note that both DEA and HHS analyses are available in their entirety under “Supporting Documents” of the public docket for this proposed rule at
In addition to considering the information HHS provided in its scientific and medical evaluation document for clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam, DEA also considered all other relevant data regarding actual or relative potential for abuse of these five substances. The term “abuse” is not defined in the CSA; however, the legislative history of the CSA suggests that DEA consider the following criteria when determining whether a particular drug or substance has a potential for abuse:
(a) There is evidence that individuals are taking the drug or drugs containing such a substance in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health or to the safety of other individuals or to the community; or
(b) There is significant diversion of the drug or drugs containing such a substance from legitimate drug channels; or
(c) Individuals are taking the drug or drugs containing such a substance on their own initiative rather than on the basis of medical advice from a practitioner licensed by law to administer such drugs in the course of his professional practice; or
(d) The drug or drugs containing such a substance are new drugs so related in their action to a drug or drugs already listed as having a potential for abuse to make it likely that the drug will have the same potentiality for abuse as such drugs, thus making it reasonable to assume that there may be significant diversions from legitimate channels, significant use contrary to or without medical advice, or that it has a substantial capability of creating hazards to the health of the user or to the safety of the community.
Toxicological and epidemiological data, as well as numerous case reports and U.S. poison center data, indicate that individuals are taking the five designer benzodiazepines in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health, the safety of other individuals, or the community. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam under the FD&C Act, and thus, these five substances not legally marketed as drugs in the United States. Therefore, HHS has not identified significant diversion of these substances from legitimate drug channels in the United States and is not aware of any research or legitimate manufacturing activities in the United States from which these substances can be diverted. These substances are thus presumed to be obtained from clandestine manufacturing or diverted from international countries for nonmedical use, on an individual's own initiative, rather than on the basis of medical advice from a licensed practitioner.
In addition, law enforcement data indicate that clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam have been encountered in the U.S. illicit drug market. DEA's National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS) registered a collective total of 50,015 reports, from all 50 states and Washington, DC, pertaining to the trafficking, distribution, and abuse of the five designer benzodiazepines.
Lastly, based on available data, these five designer benzodiazepines are structurally and pharmacologically related to classical benzodiazepines (
Published scientific data on the functional activity of the five designer benzodiazepines is limited; however, in vitro binding and animal behavioral studies demonstrate that the pharmacological mechanisms of action of these five substances are similar to those of the benzodiazepine drug class. These substances bind to the GABA
Clinical studies have not been conducted to evaluate the pharmacological effects of clonazolam, diclazepam, flualprazolam, or flubromazolam. However, a few clinical studies exist for etizolam, which select countries have approved for limited use. According to HHS, these studies compared the therapeutic effects of etizolam to known benzodiazepines, such as alprazolam, but did not address the abuse potential of the drug. In addition, trip reports on user forums indicate that these five substances produce CNS depression and sedative-hypnotic effects, similar to other benzodiazepines. These data, collectively with the extensive clinical studies on classical benzodiazepines, strongly suggest that these five designer benzodiazepines have pharmacological effects similar to those of other known benzodiazepines.
The five designer benzodiazepines share structural similarities with other substances of the benzodiazepine class. Benzodiazepines are named after their parent structure, which is formed from the fusion of two ring systems—the benzene ring and diazepine ring. Diclazepam contains this parent structure and is further modified with the addition of a methyl and keto group. Clonazolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam are considered to be part of the class of benzodiazepines known as triazolobenzodiazepines because they contain the parent structure and the addition of a triazole ring fused to the diazepine ring. Etizolam is considered to be a thienotriazolodiazepine because it contains the triazolo-diazepine fused rings, but with a thiophene ring replacing the benzene ring. Although etizolam is structurally different from a classical benzodiazepine, etizolam has similar pharmacological and chemical properties and thus considered to be an analog of benzodiazepines.
Classical benzodiazepines have been extensively prescribed in the United States; however, these medications have also been used non-therapeutically and recreationally, with initial reports of abuse soon after pharmaceutical development (Loveridge, 1981; Woody et al., 1975). Unlike these classical benzodiazepines that have FDA approval, clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam have no legitimate channel as marketed drug products in the United States. Despite this, available data from user reports, toxicological cases, scientific literature, and law enforcement seizures indicate that each of these substances appear on the illicit drug market and are trafficked for their psychoactive effects. Based on these available data, the five designer benzodiazepines are often used alone or in combination with other substances, such as fentanyl, traditional and NPS benzodiazepines, NPS opioids, and stimulants. The five designer benzodiazepines substances have been encountered in various forms (
The misuse and abuse of benzodiazepines have been demonstrated and are well-characterized.
Law enforcement data, including data from DEA's NFLIS, indicate that the abuse of the five designer benzodiazepines have become increasingly widespread across the United States. NFLIS-Drug
In addition, HHS evaluated reports of human exposure to benzodiazepines to U.S. poison centers and included data over a 10-year period (2012-2021). According to HHS, among the five designer benzodiazepines, etizolam had the highest number of total exposure cases (n = 878) and total abuse cases (n = 377), followed by clonazolam (n = 343 and n = 162, respectively), flubromazolam (n = 96; n = 47), diclazepam (n = 78; n = 32), and flualprazolam (n = 67; n = 30).
The increase in benzodiazepine-related overdoses in the United States has been exacerbated by the availability of NPS benzodiazepines on the illicit drug market. Public health risks associated with clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam abuse relate to their pharmacological similarities with known benzodiazepines. These similarities result in similar adverse reactions in humans and expectedly include CNS depressant-like effects, such as slurred speech, ataxia, altered mental state, and respiratory depression. Abuse of clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam—both alone and in combination with other substances—have resulted in adverse effects, including impaired driving, unintentional overdose, emergency department visits, and fatalities, within the United States and in other countries. Thus, these data collectively indicate that the abuse of clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam pose increased risks to public health.
Published scientific data on the dependence liability of the five designer benzodiazepines is limited; however, collective data from preclinical studies, trip reports on user forums, and case studies strongly suggest that the five designer benzodiazepines produce both psychic and physiological dependence that are consistent with the known dependence produced by classical benzodiazepines. According to HHS, every benzodiazepine that has been studied in a nonclinical or clinical model of dependence has been shown to produce physical dependence—a conclusion that the scientific and medical community generally accepts. Data from preclinical studies demonstrate that the pharmacological
The five designer benzodiazepines—clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam—are not known to be immediate precursors of any controlled substance of the CSA, as defined by 21 U.S.C. 802(23).
After considering the scientific and medical evaluation and accompanying recommendation of HHS, and DEA's own eight-factor analysis, DEA finds that these facts and all relevant data constitute substantial evidence of potential for abuse of clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam. As such, DEA proposes to permanently schedule these five designer benzodiazepines as controlled substances under the CSA.
The CSA establishes five schedules of controlled substances known as schedules I, II, III, IV, and V. The CSA also outlines the findings required to place a drug or other substance in any particular schedule.
(1) Clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam have a high potential for abuse. These five designer benzodiazepines are pharmacologically similar to classical benzodiazepines (
(2) Clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. According to HHS, FDA has not approved a marketing application for clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, or flubromazolam. In addition, there are no adequate and well-controlled clinical studies for any of these substances, and there are no well-defined finished dosage forms for any of these substances. Furthermore, these five substances have no known therapeutic applications in the United States. Thus, these five substances have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(3) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam under medical supervision. As stated by HHS, because these five substances have no approved medical use and have not been investigated as new drugs, their safety for use under medical supervision has not been determined. Therefore, there is a lack of accepted safety for use of these five substances under medical supervision.
Based on these findings, the Acting Administrator of DEA concludes that clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam, including their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation, warrant continued control in schedule I of the CSA.
As discussed above, these five designer benzodiazepines are currently subject to a temporary scheduling order adding them to schedule I under the CSA. If this rule is finalized as proposed, clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam would be subject, on a permanent basis, to the CSA's schedule I regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, importing, exporting, research, and conduct of instructional activities, including the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this proposed scheduling action is subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing,” which are conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. The CSA sets forth the criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Such actions are exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to section 3(d)(1) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and the principles reaffirmed in E.O. 13563. DEA scheduling actions are not subject to either E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, or E.O. 14294, Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations.
This proposed regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.
This proposed rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of E.O. 13132. The proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications warranting the application of E.O. 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects 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 Acting Administrator, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has reviewed this proposed rule and, by approving it, certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
On July 26, 2023, DEA published an order to temporarily place five designer benzodiazepines, as defined in the order, in schedule I of the CSA pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(h). DEA estimates that all entities handling or planning to handle clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, or flubromazolam have already established and implemented systems and processes required to handle these substances. DEA proposes placing clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, and flubromazolam, including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, in schedule I on a permanent basis.
According to HHS, these five designer benzodiazepines have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and lack accepted safety for use under medical supervision. There appear to be no legitimate sources for clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, or flubromazolam as a marketed drug in the United States, but DEA notes that these substances are available for purchase from legitimate suppliers for scientific research. There is no evidence of significant diversion of these five substances from legitimate suppliers. Therefore, DEA has concluded that this proposed rule, if finalized, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
If finalized, this action would impose the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to schedule I controlled substances on persons who handle (manufacture, distribute, reverse distribute, import, export, engage in
Based
Additionally, DEA expects that the number of researchers working with clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, or flubromazolam is small, because each of these substances is not approved for medical use and has a substantial capability to be a hazard to the health of the user and to the safety of the community. Also, DEA believes that the researchers working with clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, or flubromazolam may also work with other controlled substances; hence, these researchers are likely already registered with DEA and are qualified to handle controlled substances. For these reasons, DEA believes the number of affected researchers that are small entities is not a substantial number of small entities in the 541715 and 622310 industries.
In summary, the small entities affected by this proposed rule are those in 325412—Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing, 424210—Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers, and 424690—Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers. The affected small entities account for less than 0.73 percent of the small businesses and are not likely to manufacture or carry inventory of clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, or flubromazolam, including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers. As such, the proposed rule, if finalized, is not expected to result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501
This proposed rule would not impose a new collection or modify an existing collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out above, DEA proposes to amend 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), 956(b), unless otherwise noted.
The addition reads as follows:
(e) * * *
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on July 22, 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
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Intent to establish negotiated rulemaking committees.
We announce our intention to establish two negotiated rulemaking committees to prepare regulations for the Federal student financial assistance programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as amended (Title IV, HEA programs). One committee will consider changes to the Federal student loan programs and the other committee will consider changes to institutional and programmatic accountability, the Pell Grant Program, and other changes to the Title IV, HEA programs.
This rulemaking is necessary to implement recent statutory changes to the Title IV, HEA programs included in Pub. L. 119-21, known as the
Prior to submitting draft regulations to the negotiated rulemaking process, the Department invites the public to provide advice and recommendations addressing the implementation of the changes to the Title IV, HEA programs included in Pub. L. 119-21 during a virtual public hearing that will be held on August 7, 2025, from 9:00 a.m. to noon and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern time. As part of the hearing record, the Department will also accept written comments providing advice and recommendations on the implementation of the changes to the Title IV, HEA programs included in Pub. L. 119-21 through August 25, 2025.
The dates, times, and locations for the virtual public hearing and the schedule for negotiations are listed under the
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Information on using
For general information about negotiated rulemaking, see the Frequently Asked Questions section of the Negotiated Rulemaking Process for Title IV regulations website at:
For information about the virtual public hearing, or for additional information about negotiated rulemaking,
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
We will hold a virtual public hearing on August 7, 2025, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. with a one-hour recess from noon to 1:00 p.m. for interested parties to provide advice and recommendations on the implementation of the changes to the Title IV, HEA programs enacted in Pub. L. 119-21, as well to implement other Administration priorities. Further information on the public hearing is available at
Individuals who would like to speak at the virtual public hearing must register in advance by sending an email message to
The Department will notify registrants of the time slot reserved for them to speak and will provide information on how to log in to the hearing as a speaker. An individual may make only one presentation at the virtual hearing. If we receive more registrations than we are able to accommodate, the Department reserves the right to reject the registration of an entity or individual that is affiliated with an entity or individual that is already scheduled to speak, and to select among registrants to ensure a broad range of entities and individuals is allowed to present. If all time slots are not filled before the day of the hearing, we will accept registrations for any remaining time slots on a first-come, first-served basis beginning at 8:00 a.m. on the day of the virtual hearing at
Registration is also required to view the virtual hearing. American Sign Language translation and closed captioning will be provided for the virtual hearing. We will post registration links for attendees who wish to observe on our website at
The Department will accept written comments providing advice and recommendations via the Federal eRulemaking portal through August 25, 2025. See the
We announce our intent to develop proposed Title IV, HEA program regulations by following the negotiated rulemaking procedures in section 492 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1098a). That section requires that, after obtaining advice and recommendations from individuals and representatives of groups involved in the Title IV, HEA programs and before publishing any proposed regulations to implement programs authorized under Title IV of the HEA, the Secretary prepare draft regulations and submit such regulations to a negotiated rulemaking process. We intend to choose members for two rulemaking committees from individuals nominated by groups involved in the Title IV, HEA programs. We will select participants with demonstrated experience in the relevant subjects under negotiation, in accordance with section 492(b)(1) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1098a).
We have identified the following constituency groups involved in the Title IV, HEA program regulations being negotiated by each committee. We will choose participants for each constituency group on the committee from individuals nominated by various organizations within each of these constituency groups involved in the Title IV, HEA programs.
Constituency groups which will be represented on the Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) Committee addressing loan issues will consist of the following:
• Student loan borrowers, including borrowers in school, deferment, forbearance, delinquent, default, and currently in repayment.
• Student loan borrowers who are veterans, U.S. military service members, or groups representing them.
• Legal assistance organizations that represent students and borrowers, consumer advocates, and civil rights groups that represent students.
• State officials, including state student grant agencies, state higher education executive officers, and representatives of state authorizing agencies.
• Public institutions of higher education, including institutions eligible to receive Federal assistance under Title III and Title V of the HEA, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
• Private nonprofit institutions of higher education, including institutions eligible to receive Federal assistance under Title III and Title V of the HEA, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
• Proprietary institutions of higher education, as defined in 34 CFR 600.5.
• Student loan servicers, collection agencies, lenders, and guaranty agencies.
• Organizations representing taxpayers and the public interest.
Nominations for committee members serving on the RISE Committee may be sent to the following email address:
The constituency groups for the Accountability in Higher Education and Access through Demand-driven Workforce Pell (AHEAD) Committee addressing institutional and program accountability, Pell Grants, and other issues will include the following:
• Students who are currently enrolled and receiving assistance from the Title IV, HEA programs.
• Students who are veterans, U.S. military service members or groups representing them.
• Employers and groups representing the business community, including small, medium, and large businesses.
• Legal assistance organizations that represent students, consumer advocates, and civil rights groups that represent students.
• Public institutions of higher education, including institutions eligible to receive Federal assistance under Title III and Title V of the HEA, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
• Private nonprofit institutions of higher education including institutions eligible to receive Federal assistance under Title III and Title V of the HEA, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
• Proprietary institutions of higher education, as defined in 34 CFR 600.5.
• State workforce agencies and workforce development boards.
• State grant agencies, and other state and non-profit higher education financing organizations.
• State higher education executive officers, State authorizing agencies, and other State regulators.
• Accrediting agencies recognized by the Secretary of Education.
• Organizations representing taxpayers and the public interest.
Nominations for committee members serving on the AHEAD Committee may be submitted to the following email address:
A participant chosen by the Department is expected to represent the interests of their constituency group and to participate in the negotiations in a manner consistent with the goal of developing proposed regulations on which the committee will reach consensus, which means no member of the committee dissents from the proposed regulations.
We request nominations include the information described in this section.
(1) The name of the nominee;
(2) The name of the constituency (or constituencies) for which the nominee is being nominated (see Constituency Groups for Negotiator Nominations);
(3) The nominee's place of employment or institution at which they are or were enrolled and, if different, the organization the nominee represents;
(4) A resume or evidence of the nominee's expertise and experience in the topics proposed for negotiations;
(5) The nominee's contact information, including email address, telephone number, and mailing address; and
(6) Committee nominated to—the RISE Committee or the AHEAD Committee.
If you wish to nominate the same person for both committees, you will need to submit two nominations, one to each email address.
Please see the
The RISE Committee will meet in-person for two multi-day sessions on the following dates:
Session 1: September 29, September 30, October 1, October 2, and October 3, 2025.
Session 2: November 3, November 4, November 5, November 6, and November 7, 2025.
The AHEAD Committee will meet in-person for two multi-day sessions on the following dates:
Session 1: December 8, December 9, December 10, December 11, and December 12, 2025.
Session 2: January 5, January 6, January 7, January 8, and January 9, 2026.
The committees will meet each day from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern time. During these times, the committees may temporarily recess for caucuses or work sessions to develop new regulatory language for consideration by the full committee.
The meetings will be conducted in person and be available for the public to watch in person or via livestream on the internet. Registration is required to observe the meetings in person or via livestream. Space may be limited for the in-person meetings. We will post a registration link on our website at
We intend to prepare draft regulations implementing changes to the Title IV, HEA programs included in Public Law 119-21 and any other topics presented at the public hearing, and to submit such regulations to the negotiated rulemaking process in each committee prior to publishing proposed regulations in the
The proposed issues for negotiation in the RISE Committee include:
1. Phase-out of graduate and professional PLUS Loans.
2. Establishment of new annual loan limits for graduate and professional students and parent borrowers, and implementation of new lifetime borrowing caps.
3. Simplification of student loan repayment plans into a standard repayment plan and a single income-based Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP) for new borrowers, elimination of the Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR) plan, and streamlining requirements for Income-Based Repayment plans for existing borrowers.
4. Institutional flexibility to apply lower annual limits for student and parent borrowers for selected programs of study.
5. Modifications to loan rehabilitation, including allowing defaulted borrowers to rehabilitate their loans a second time and setting
6. Other provisions included in Public Law 119-21 that are effective upon enactment, on July 1, 2026, on July 1, 2027, or on July 1, 2028.
The proposed issues for negotiation in the AHEAD Committee include:
1. Changes in institutional and programmatic accountability measures, including loss of Direct Loan eligibility for certain programs with low earnings outcomes for 2 out of 3 years, and Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment.
2. Establishment of program eligibility requirements for a new Workforce Pell Grant for students enrolled in programs that last a duration of 8-15 weeks, are transferable to a recognized postsecondary credential or degree, are approved by the state governor, and have strong outcomes.
3. Exclusion of Pell Grant assistance for students who receive grant or scholarship aid covering their entire cost of attendance or for students with a Student Aid Index in excess of twice the maximum Pell Grant award.
4. Other provisions included in Public Law 119-21 that are effective upon enactment, on July 1, 2026, on July 1, 2027, or on July 1, 2028.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public of our decision to deregulate light brown apple moth (LBAM) for fruit imported from New Zealand into the United States. Currently, fruit imported from New Zealand into the United States must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that the fruit is free of LBAM. Based on the findings of a commodity import evaluation document, which we made available to the public for review and comment through a previous notice, we are removing the requirement for the additional declaration. Accordingly, we are revising the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Agricultural Commodity Import Requirements database regarding LBAM requirements for fruit imported from New Zealand into the United States. This change will harmonize our domestic and import requirements.
The articles covered by this notification may be authorized for importation under the revised requirements after July 25, 2025.
Ms. Julie Orr, Regulatory Policy Specialist IRM-PEIP-PPQ-APHIS, 1400 Independence SW, Washington, DC 20250; (240) 946-0542;
Under the regulations in “Subpart L—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-12, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States.
Section 319.56-4 of the regulations provides the requirements for authorizing the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States, as well as revising existing requirements for the importation of fruits and vegetables. Paragraph (c) of that section provides that the name and origin of all fruits and vegetables authorized importation into the United States, as well as the requirements for their importation, be listed on the USDA's APHIS Agricultural Commodity Import Requirements (ACIR) database (
The light brown apple moth (LBAM),
However, since 2007, APHIS has developed pest risk assessments (PRAs) for a number of LBAM hosts and established that standard commercial production practices are sufficient to remove any risk from the spread of LBAM in commercially produced commodities. As a result, APHIS has determined that due to both the absence of significant damage in commercial agriculture and the availability of effective treatments, Federal involvement to regulate LBAM as a pest of quarantine significance for these commodities appears to be no longer necessary.
Currently, fruit from New Zealand imported into the United States must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration that the fruit is free of LBAM. However, under International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures 20,
In accordance with the requirements of § 319.56-4, we published a notice
We proposed to no longer require the additional declaration of LBAM freedom for the following commodities imported from New Zealand into the United States:
If consignments of the above fruits are not precleared, the consignment will need to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO) of New Zealand.
Additionally, consignments of citrus (
We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days ending January 24, 2025. We received two comments by that date, one from a New Zealand industry organization and one from a New Zealand government ministry. Both commenters expressed support for the notice. One commenter, from the government ministry, requested assurances that, upon arrival, inspections of non-precleared consignments will be commensurate with risk, and that the higher sampling rates specific for LBAM host commodities are removed from the inspection manual.
We note that no port-of-entry inspection procedures target LBAM specifically. Rather, the inspection procedures employed on fruits and vegetables from New Zealand match those for agricultural commodities from numerous other countries and have been developed to detect quarantine pests as well as hitchhikers, weeds, and soil. After the deregulation of LBAM, the inspection procedures at the port of entry will remain the same for the listed agricultural commodities from New Zealand if they have not been pre-cleared in the country of origin.
Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in § 319.56-4(c), we are announcing our decision to deregulate LBAM for fruit imported from New Zealand into the United States subject to the phytosanitary measures identified in the CIED that accompanied the initial notice.
The conditions will be listed in the ACIR database. In addition to these specific measures, fruit from New Zealand will be subject to the general requirements listed in § 319.56-3 that are applicable to the importation of all fruits and vegetables.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this notice, please contact
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Request for revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of poultry meat and other poultry products from Sinaloa and Sonora and for pork and poultry products transiting the United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before September 23, 2025.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the importation of poultry meat and other poultry products from Sinaloa and Sonora, Mexico; poultry and pork transiting the United States, contact Dr. Nathaniel J. Koval, VS, APHIS, 69 Thomas Johnson Drive, Frederick, MD, 21702, or at 301-851-3434. For more information on the information collection process, email
Disease prevention is the most effective method for maintaining a healthy animal population and for enhancing the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS') ability to allow U.S. animal producers to compete
APHIS currently places certain restrictions on the importation and in-transit movement of fresh (chilled or frozen) pork and pork products from Mexico because of the presence of classical swine fever (CSF) in some areas of Mexico. However, the regulations in § 94.15 allow pork and pork products from certain Mexican States to transit the United States, under seal, for export to another country.
In addition, the regulations in § 94.6 provide the requirements for, among other things, the importation of poultry carcasses, parts, products, and eggs (other than hatching eggs) from regions where Newcastle disease (ND) is considered to exist. However, § 94.15 also allows poultry carcasses, parts, products, and eggs (other than hatching eggs) that do not qualify for entry into the United States to transit the United States via land ports, for immediate export, from Mexican States that Mexico considers to be free of ND.
APHIS believes that allowing such in-transit movements presents a negligible risk of introducing CSF or ND into the United States while simultaneously avoiding unnecessary restrictions on trade.
APHIS also currently has regulations in place that restrict the importation of poultry meat and other poultry products from Mexico due to the presence of ND in that country. However, under the regulations in § 94.30, APHIS allows the importation of poultry meat and poultry products from the Mexican States of Sinaloa and Sonora, if imported according to APHIS' requirements, because APHIS has determined that poultry meat and products from these two Mexican States pose a negligible risk of introducing ND into the United States.
To ensure these commodities are safe for importation, APHIS requires that certain information collection activities take place such as foreign meat inspection certificates, serially numbered seals, emergency action notification, and pre-arrival notifications.
We are asking OMB to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of public meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the Illinois Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a public business meeting via Zoom at 2:00 p.m. CT on Wednesday, August 6, 2025. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss potential civil rights topics of study for the Committee's first project.
Wednesday, August 6, 2025, from 2:00 p.m.-3:30 p.m. Central Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom Webinar.
Ana Victoria Fortes, Designated Federal Officer, at
This committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email Liliana Schiller, Support Services Specialist, at
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of public meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the Georgia Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a public business meeting via Zoom. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss civil rights concerns in the state for potential study.
Tuesday, August 12, 2025, from 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom Webinar.
Mallory Trachtenberg, Designated Federal Officer, at
This Committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested members of the public may attend this meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make oral statements as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the scheduled meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Sarah Villanueva at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website,
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders with June anniversary dates. In accordance with Commerce's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.
Applicable July 25, 2025.
Brenda E. Brown, AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.
Commerce has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various AD and CVD orders with June anniversary dates. All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, comments, or actions by Commerce discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.
In the event that Commerce limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, Commerce intends to select respondents based either on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the period of review (POR) or questionnaires in which we request the quantity and value (Q&V) of sales, shipments, or exports during the POR. Where Commerce selects respondents based on CBP data, we intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice. Where Commerce selects respondents based on Q&V data, Commerce intends to place the Q&V questionnaire on the record of the review within five days of publication of the initiation notice. In either case, we intend to make our respondent selection decision within 35 days of the
In the event that Commerce decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the following guidelines regarding collapsing of companies for purposes of respondent selection will apply. In general, Commerce has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Q&V questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general, each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding where Commerce considered collapsing that entity, complete Q&V data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.
With respect to AD administrative reviews, we intend to rescind the review where there are no suspended entries for a company or entity under review and/or where there are no suspended entries under the company-specific case number for that company or entity. Where there may be suspended entries, if a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the POR, it may notify Commerce of this fact within 30 days of publication of this initiation notice in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that Commerce may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. Determinations by Commerce to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Section 504 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 amended the Act by adding the concept of a particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of constructed value under section 773(e) of the Act.
Neither section 773(e) of the Act nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v) set a deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of initial responses to section D of the questionnaire.
In proceedings involving non-market economy (NME) countries, Commerce begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single AD deposit rate. It is Commerce's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, Commerce analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise. In accordance with the separate rates criteria, Commerce assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both
All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a Separate Rate Application or Certification, as described below. In addition, all firms that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews of AD orders in which a Q&V questionnaire is issued must complete, as appropriate, either a Separate Rate Application or Certification, and respond to the Q&V questionnaire.
For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, Commerce requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on Commerce's website at
Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding
Exporters and producers must file a timely Separate Rate Application or Certification if they want to be considered for individual examination. Furthermore, exporters and producers who submit a Separate Rate Application or Certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.
Commerce may establish a certification process for companies whose exports to the United States could contain both subject and non-subject merchandise. Companies under review that were deemed to not be eligible to participate in the certification program of that proceeding may submit a Certification Eligibility Application to establish that they maintain the necessary systems to track their sales to the United States of subject and non-subject goods.
All firms listed below that are not currently eligible to certify but wish to establish certification eligibility are required to submit a Certification Eligibility Application. The Certification Eligibility Application will be available on Commerce's website at
Certification Eligibility Applications must be filed according to Commerce's regulations and are due to Commerce no later than 30 calendar days after the publication of the
Exporters and producers that are not currently eligible to certify, who submit a Certification Eligibility Application, and are subsequently selected as mandatory respondents must respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents for Commerce to consider their Certification Eligibility Application.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following AD and CVD orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than June 30, 2026.
During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an AD order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), Commerce, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant “gap” period of the order (
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with the procedures outlined in Commerce's regulations at 19 CFR 351.305. Those procedures apply to administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in any of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (
Commerce's regulations identify five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). These regulations require any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The regulations, at 19 CFR 351.301, also provide specific time limits for such factual submissions based on the type of factual information being submitted. Please review the
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information using the formats provided at the end of the
Parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by Commerce.
These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable July 25, 2025.
Shane Subler or Henry Wolfe at (202) 482-6241 or (202) 482-0574, respectively, (Algeria); Lingjun Wang at (202) 482-2316 (Egypt); and Christopher Williams at (202) 482-5166 (the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam)); AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On June 24, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated countervailing duty (CVD) investigations of imports of steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from Algeria, Egypt and Vietnam.
Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) the petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.
On July 14, 2025, the petitioner
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner has stated the reasons for requesting a postponement of the preliminary determinations, and Commerce finds no compelling reason to deny the request. Therefore, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, Commerce is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations to no later than 130 days after the date on which these investigations were initiated,
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received scope ruling applications, requesting that scope inquiries be conducted to determine whether identified products are covered by the scope of antidumping duty (AD) and/or countervailing duty (CVD) orders and that Commerce issue scope rulings pursuant to those inquiries. In accordance with Commerce's regulations, we are notifying the public of the filing of the scope ruling applications listed below in the month of June 2025.
Applicable July 25, 2025.
Yasmin Bordas, AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-3813.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(d)(3), we are notifying the public of the following scope ruling applications related to AD and CVD orders and findings filed in or around the month of June 2025. This
Aluminum Lithographic Printing Plates from Japan (A-588-881); Flexographic Printing Plates;
Certain Walk-Behind Lawn Mowers and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China (China) (A-570-129/C-570-130); Walk-Behind Lawn Mowers;
Stainless-Steel Flanges from India (A-533-877/C-533-878); Ring-Shaped Components;
This list of scope ruling applications is not an identification of scope inquiries that have been initiated. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(d)(1), if Commerce has not rejected a scope ruling application nor initiated the scope inquiry within 30 days after the filing of the application, the application will be deemed accepted and a scope inquiry will be deemed initiated the following day—day 31.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(m)(2), if there are companion AD and CVD orders covering the same merchandise from the same country of origin, the scope inquiry will be conducted on the record of the AD proceeding. Further, please note that pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(m)(1), Commerce may either apply a scope ruling to all products from the same country with the same relevant physical characteristics, (including chemical, dimensional, and technical characteristics) as the product at issue, on a country-wide basis, regardless of the producer, exporter, or importer of those products, or on a company-specific basis.
For further information on procedures for filing information with Commerce through ACCESS and participating in scope inquiries, please refer to the Filing Instructions section of the Scope Ruling Application Guide, at
Please note that this notice of scope ruling applications filed in AD and CVD proceedings may be published before any potential initiation, or after the initiation, of a given scope inquiry based on a scope ruling application identified in this notice. Therefore, please refer to the case segment on ACCESS to determine whether a scope ruling application has been accepted or rejected and whether a scope inquiry has been initiated.
Interested parties who wish to be served scope ruling applications for a particular AD or CVD order may file a request to be included on the annual inquiry service list during the anniversary month of the publication of the AD or CVD order in accordance with
Interested parties are invited to comment on the completeness of this monthly list of scope ruling applications received by Commerce. Any comments should be submitted to Scot Fullerton, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, via email to
This notice of scope ruling applications filed in AD and CVD proceedings is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(d)(3).
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
Issuance of an incidental take authorization (Authorization) under MMPA section 101(a)(5)(A) (through issuance of a Letter of Authorization following issuance of incidental take regulations) or 101(a)(5)(D) (through issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization) requires three sets of information collection: (1) a complete application for an Authorization, as set forth in NMFS' implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104, which provides the information necessary to make the required statutory determinations, including estimates of take and an assessment of impacts on the affected species and stocks; (2) information relating to required monitoring; and (3) information related to required reporting. As required by the MMPA, these collections of information enable NMFS to: (1) prospectively evaluate the proposed activity's impact on marine mammals; (2) arrive at the appropriate determinations required by the MMPA and other applicable laws prior to issuing the Authorization; and (3) monitor impacts of activities for which Authorizations have been issued to determine if predictions regarding impacts on marine mammals remain valid.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public hybrid meeting (in person/virtual).
The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC) will hold the 187th public hybrid meeting to address the items contained in the tentative agenda included in the
The 187th CFMC public hybrid meeting will be held on August 12, 2025, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., AST. A closed session will be held on August 12, 2025, from 4:45 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., AST, to discuss personnel matters. The Council will reconvene on August 13, 2025, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., AST.
The 187th CFMC meeting will be held at Embassy Suites Hotel, Tartak Street, Carolina, Puerto Rico.
You may join the 187th CFMC public hybrid meeting via Zoom, from a computer, tablet or smartphone by entering the following address:
In case there are problems, and we cannot reconnect via Zoom, the meeting will continue using GoToMeeting.
You can join the meeting from your computer, tablet, or smartphone
Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, PR 00918-1903; telephone: (787) 398-3717.
The following items included in the tentative agenda will be discussed:
Other than starting time and dates of the meetings, the established times for addressing items on the agenda may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the agenda items. To further accommodate discussion and completion of all items on the agenda, the meeting may be extended from or completed before the date established in this notice. Changes in the agenda will be posted to the CFMC website, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram as practicable.
Financial disclosure forms are available for inspection at this meeting, as per 50 CFR part 601.
The order of business may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the completion of agenda items. The meeting will begin on August 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., AST, and will end on August 13, 2025, at 5:00 p.m., AST. Other than the start time on the first day of the meeting, interested parties should be aware that discussions may start earlier or later than indicated in the agenda, at the discretion of the Chair.
For any additional information on this public hybrid meeting, please contact Diana Martino, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, PR, 00918-1903; telephone: (787) 226-8849.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Fishery Data Collection and Research Committee (FDCRC) and FDCRC Technical Subcommittee to discuss and make recommendations on fishery management issues in the Western Pacific Region.
The meetings will be held on Tuesday, August 5, 2025, and Wednesday, August 6, 2025. For specific times and agendas, see
The Council will hold its FDCRC Technical Subcommittee meeting will be held by web conference via WebEx. Specific information on joining the meeting, connecting to the web conference and providing oral public comments will be posted on the Council website at
The FDCRC meeting will be held as a hybrid meeting for members and the public, with a remote participation option available via Webex. In-person attendance for the FDCRC meeting will be hosted at the Council Office, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813.
Contact Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; phone: (808) 522-8220.
The FDCRC Technical Subcommittee meeting will be held between 12 p.m. and 5 p.m. (Hawaii Standard Time [HST]) on Tuesday, August 5, 2025. The FDCRC meeting will be held between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. (HST) on Wednesday, August 6, 2025.
Public Comment periods will be provided in the agendas. The order in which the agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee will hold a public meeting.
The meeting will be held on Monday, August 4, 2025, from 3 p.m.-5 p.m. For agenda details, see
The meeting will be held via webinar. Connection information will be posted to the Council's calendar prior to the meeting at
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee will meet via webinar on Monday, August 4, 2025, from 3 p.m. until 5 p.m. The purpose of this meeting is for the Monitoring Committee to develop recommendations regarding the framework adjustment action to modify spiny dogfish fishery accountability measures, including catch overage paybacks. More information on this action is available at
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shelley Spedden, (302) 526-5251 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Groundfish Subcommittee of the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will convene an in-person meeting to review 2025 groundfish stock assessments. The full SSC will convene an advance virtual meeting to review the recommendations of the SSC Groundfish Subcommittee for a subset of 2025 groundfish stock assessments, in addition to those reviewed during the September Pacific Council meeting. Both the full SSC and the SSC Groundfish Subcommittee meetings are open to the public with a web broadcast that provides the opportunity for remote listening and public comment.
The SSC Groundfish Subcommittee's meeting will be held Tuesday, August 12, 2025, from 8 a.m. Pacific Time until business for the day is completed, and reconvenes Wednesday, August 13, 2025, from 8 a.m. Pacific Time until business for the day has been completed. The SSC meeting will be held Wednesday, September 3, 2025, from 1 p.m. Pacific Time until 5 p.m. or until business for the day is completed.
The SSC Groundfish Subcommittee meeting will be held at the University of Washington, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences (SAFS) Room 203, 1122 NE Boat Street, Seattle, WA 98195; telephone: (206) 543-4270.
The full SSC meeting will be held virtually with an opportunity for remote public comment.
Specific meeting information, materials, and instructions for how to connect to these meetings remotely will be provided in the meeting announcement on the Pacific Council's website (see
Please send an email to Kris Kleinschmidt (
Marlene A. Bellman, Staff Officer, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2414;
The SSC's Groundfish Subcommittee will review full benchmark assessments and stock assessment review (STAR) reports for yellowtail rockfish in the area North of 40°10′ N latitude, quillback rockfish off California, chilipepper rockfish, rougheye/blackspotted rockfish, and sablefish. They will also review two update stock assessments for yelloweye rockfish and widow rockfish. Lastly, catch-only projections for petrale sole, canary rockfish, shortspine thornyhead, darkblotched rockfish, black rockfish off Oregon, and bocaccio will be reviewed. The SSC Groundfish Subcommittee will prepare their recommendations for the SSC and Pacific Council consideration at their meetings in September.
During the online meeting September 3, 2025, the SSC will review 2025 full benchmark assessments and stock assessment review (STAR) reports for yellowtail rockfish in the area North of 40°10′ N latitude, quillback rockfish off California, and chilipepper rockfish. The remainder of the 2025 full and update stock assessments and catch-only projections will be reviewed by the SSC at the September 2025 Council meeting in Spokane, WA.
Assessment recommendations may include endorsing these new stock assessments for management use or requesting further analyses to be reviewed at the late September Supplemental Review panel (this process is outlined in the Pacific Council's Terms of Reference for the Groundfish Stock Assessment Review Process for 2025-2026 which can be found at
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agendas may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kris Kleinschmidt
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS Marine Mammal Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115 (Responsible Party: John Bengtson, Ph.D.), has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on pinnipeds.
Written comments must be received on or before August 25, 2025.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species home page,
Written comments on this application should be submitted via email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request via email to
Sara Young or Shasta McClenahan, Ph.D., (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant proposes to take six species of pinnipeds, including ESA-listed Guadalupe fur seals (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
The purpose of this collection is to enable TraCSS users (spacecraft operators and national governments) to register and receive spaceflight safety services from the system. The registration information will include organizational contact information, a list of spacecrafts associated with that user, and additional attributes associated with that spacecraft. Spacecraft operators will also provide an operational point of contact. In addition to information provided as part of the registration process, spacecraft operators will provide additional information, such as ephemerides with covariance and maneuver plans, on an ongoing basis. The provision of this information enables TraCSS to provide spaceflight safety services to users.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Notice.
In conformance with the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announces the appointment of persons to serve as members of its Performance Review Board (PRB). The PRB reviews and makes recommendations concerning proposed performance appraisals, ratings, bonuses, pay adjustments, and other appropriate personnel actions for incumbents of Senior Level and Senior Executive Service positions at the USPTO.
Office of Human Resources, USPTO, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Carolyn Schad, Acting Director, Human Capital Management, USPTO, at 571-272-7003.
The membership of the USPTO's PRB is as follows:
U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, agencies are required to publish a Notice in the
Comments must be received by August 25, 2025.
Comments and requests for copies of the subject information collection may be sent by any of the following methods:
•
•
Agency Submitting Officer: Deborah Papadopoulos, (202) 357-3979.
The agency received no comments in response to the sixty (60) day notice published in
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.
Notice of intent.
The Department of the Air Force (DAF) is issuing this Notice of Intent (NOI) to advise the public of its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the potential environmental consequences associated with the proposed beddown of two squadrons of F-35A aircraft at Moody Air Force Base (AFB), Lowndes and Lanier Counties, Georgia. This EIS is prepared to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. The Unique Identification Number for this Draft EIS is EISX-007-57-14Y-1741608578.
A public scoping period will run through August 25, 2025. The DAF will hold two public scoping meetings virtually on Tuesday, August 12, 2025, from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (eastern time), and on Thursday, August 14, 2025, from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (eastern time). Although comments can be submitted to the DAF at any time during the EIS process, scoping comments are requested by August 24, 2025, to ensure full consideration in the draft EIS.
The meeting links for the two virtual public scoping meetings identified in the
For questions regarding the Proposed Action, scoping, and EIS development, please contact Victoria Hernandez, Moody AFB Public Affairs Office, at (229) 257-4146 or at
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to expand DAF's fifth-generation operational fighter fleet, including the F-35A aircraft, and beddown two F-35A squadrons at a current Active Duty operational A-10 Installation not already provisionally identified for mission recapitalization. The Proposed Action is needed to maintain combat capability and mission readiness of existing fighter squadrons following the scheduled divestment (
Under the Proposed Action, the DAF would beddown two F-35A squadrons at Moody AFB. The proposed beddown includes aircraft operations, the necessary personnel to support those operations, and associated facility and infrastructure demolition, construction, and renovation. The planned divestment of A-10C aircraft at Moody AFB will occur before the first F-35A aircraft would arrive. DAF anticipates that F-35A aircraft would be operational at Moody AFB by October 2030.
The No Action Alternative would not beddown F-35A aircraft at Moody AFB. No proposed F-35A aircraft mission activities (
The EIS will analyze the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative. Key resources of concern, for which adverse impacts could occur, include noise, biological resources, cultural resources, and socioeconomics. An assessment of potential impacts on all relevant resource areas will be included in the EIS, including an analysis of environmental effects that are reasonably foreseeable and have a close causal relationship to the Proposed Action.
Potential permits that may be required include, but are not limited to, General Construction Permit; State of Georgia, Environmental Protection Division Land Disturbance Permit; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Notification of Demolition under the Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Stormwater Permit; Synthetic Minor Permit Modification; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Jurisdictional Determination; and Clean Water Act 404/401 Permits. Additionally, the DAF will consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act as well as Georgia and Florida State Historic Preservation Offices and federally recognized tribes regarding Section 106 consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act.
To effectively define the full range of issues and alternatives to be evaluated in the EIS, the DAF invites the public, stakeholders, and other interested parties to attend the virtual scoping meetings. Please provide comments on alternatives or impacts on relative information, studies, or analyses with respect to the Proposed Action. Comments regarding this proposal can be submitted during the scoping meetings, through the website, or by mail as identified in the
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 23, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Headquarters, United States Air Force (HQ USAF), Integrated Resilience Directorate (A1Z), 1410 Air Force Pentagon, Room 4D950 Washington, DC 20330-1410, ATTN: Dr. Lucas Keefer (
The respondents include all Service Members of the Air Force and Space Force. Airmen and Guardians will voluntarily respond to help the DAF better understand ISDV-related issues. Specifically, they will help the DAF better understand their knowledge, skills, abilities, beliefs, and experiences related to ISDV-related risk and protective factors.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of availability.
The Department of the Army (Army) is making its
Consideration will be given to all comments on the Army Program Comment Plan that are received within 30 days following the date of this publication.
Written comments identified by “Army Program Comment Plan” should be submitted to: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment, ATTN: DASA-ESOH (Dr. David Guldenzopf), 110 Army Pentagon, Room 3E464, Washington, DC 20310, or by email to
Dr. David Guldenzopf, Department of the Army Federal Preservation Officer, (703) 459-7756,
Program Comment Plan for Army Warfighting Readiness and Associated Buildings, Structures, and Landscapes.
On 30 May 2025, the Department of the Army Federal Preservation Officer notified the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) of the Army's intent to request a Program Comment for Army Warfighting Readiness and Associated Buildings, Structures, and Landscapes in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 54 U.S.C. 306108, and 36 CFR 800.14(e). The goal of the Program Comment is to provide the Army compliance with the NHPA for Army warfighting readiness activities by means of the procedures in 36 CFR 800.14(e), in lieu of conducting individual projects reviews under 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.7.
The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (OASD(HA)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice; withdrawal.
On Monday, July 21, 2025, DoD published a notice in the
This withdrawal is effective July 25, 2025.
Aaron T. Siegel, 571-372-0488.
On Monday, July 21, 2025, DoD published a notice in the
In the same
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (OUSD(A&S)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 23, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment, 3400 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3400, POC: Angela Major, 571-372-5201.
The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (OASD(HA)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice; withdrawal.
On Monday, July 21, 2025, DoD published a notice in the
This withdrawal is effective July 25, 2025.
Aaron T. Siegel, 571-372-0488.
On Monday, July 21, 2025, DoD published a notice in the
In the same
Missile Defense Agency (MDA), Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of availability (NOA).
The MDA, as the lead agency, has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Enhanced Integrated Air and Missile Defense (EIAMD) System on Guam. The United States (U.S.) Army (USA), U.S. Navy (USN), U.S. Air Force (USAF), and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are cooperating agencies in the development of the Final EIS. The Final EIS includes an analysis of the potential environmental impacts that may result from the Proposed Action to construct, deploy, and operate and maintain the EIAMD system to defend Guam against advanced missile threats. The Final EIS was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and in accordance with MDA, USA, USN, USAF, and FAA's implementing procedures. The procedures followed in the development of the Final EIS also supports compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and its implementing regulations.
The MDA and USA will not issue a final decision on the proposed action until 30 days after the date that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)-issued NOA is published in the
Mr. Mark Wright, MDA Public Affairs, at 571-231-8212, or by email:
A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published in the
The MDA held two Draft EIS public meetings on November 14, 2024, and November 15, 2024, to inform the public and stakeholders about the Proposed Action and the findings of the EIS, answer questions, and solicit comments on the Draft EIS and the project's potential to affect historic properties.
The public was able to submit comments via an electronic comment form on the project website, via email, in person at the public meetings (written or oral via a court reporter), or via U.S. postal mail. The MDA received 72 comments during the Draft EIS public review and comment period. Comments on the Draft EIS were considered, incorporated, and responded to as appropriate into the Final EIS. Comments resulted in the addition of clarifying text and updated information.
Within the context of homeland defense, Guam is a key strategic location for sustaining and maintaining U.S. capabilities, deterring adversaries, responding to crises, and maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific. As a U.S. territory, an attack on Guam would be considered a direct attack on the U.S. and would be met with an appropriate response. Currently U.S. forces are capable of defending Guam against today's regional ballistic missile threats. However, regional missile threats to Guam continue to increase and advance technologically. U.S. Indo-Pacific Command identified a requirement for a 360-degree EIAMD system on Guam as soon as possible to address the rapid evolution of adversary missile threats.
In the Final EIS, MDA, in coordination with cooperating agencies, evaluated the potential environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action as well as a No Action Alternative. The Proposed Action is to construct, deploy, and operate and maintain a comprehensive, persistent, 360-degree EIAMD system to defend the people, infrastructure, and territory of Guam against the rapidly evolving threats of advanced cruise, ballistic, and hypersonic missile attacks from regional adversaries. The proposed system includes a combination of components from MDA, USA, and USN that would be integrated for air and missile defense. These components include missile defense radars, sensors, missile launchers and missile interceptors, and command and control systems.
The MDA and USA need to strategically locate and integrate the various system components at multiple sites around Guam. The MDA and USA identified 16 proposed sites to operate and maintain the EIAMD system on DoD properties on Guam. A limited number of the proposed sites would require real estate actions on non-DoD properties for access, or where safety zone arcs encroach on non-DoD properties. If the decision is made to proceed with the Proposed Action, site preparation and construction would span approximately 10 years beginning in 2025. The EIAMD operational capability would be phased in as each site completes construction, testing, and final system checks of the installed components. Following final construction, testing, and final system-wide checks, the EIAMD system would become fully operational.
The MDA and cooperating agencies analyzed the potential direct and indirect impacts the Proposed Action may have on airspace management, health and safety, cultural resources, terrestrial biological resources, socioeconomics, protection of children, land use and recreation, transportation, visual quality, utilities, air quality, greenhouse gases, noise, water, and geology and soils. Mitigation measures that could avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action are also proposed in the Final EIS.
The MDA invites all interested members of the public, as well as Federal and territorial agencies, to view the Final EIS. The Final EIS is available on the MDA public website at
The Missile Defense Agency's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Procedures, Para. 4.(c) (August 8, 2014) (79 FR 46410) allow for the publication of notices in the
United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 25, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (OASD(HA)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice; withdrawal.
On Monday, July 21, 2025, DoD published a notice in the
This withdrawal is effective July 25, 2025.
Aaron T. Siegel, 571-372-0488.
On Monday, July 21, 2025, DoD published a notice in the
In the same
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (USD(A&S)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 23, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Defense Logistics Agency, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 14G07-01, Alexandria, VA 22350, ATTN: Sarah Pahl, (269) 961-4267.
Department of the Navy, Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 23, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Headquarters Marine Corps Records, Reports, Directives, and Forms Management Section, 3000 Marine Corps, Pentagon Rm. 2B253, ATTN: Mr. Mark Kazzi, or call 571-256-8883.
The NAVMC Form 10469 is used to verify a potential officer candidate's academic background and standardized test scores. During their initial interview with an OSO, applicants provide information about the colleges or universities they have attended. The OSO emails the NAVMC Form 10469 to the Registrar's office of the institutions identified by the applicant. The school Registrar's office completes the form with information regarding the student's degree plan, major, credit hours, and grades. The respondent will then digitally sign the form and return it to the OSO via email. It is then uploaded into the potential officer's application via the Marine Corps Recruiting Command's Automated Commissioning Package (ACP) database.
The NAVMC 10064 is completed by the five-character references provided by potential applicants during the Marine Corps Officer Candidate application process. The OSO will contact the references and provide the PIQ via email for completion. Once a reference has completed the form, they will sign it electronically and return it to the OSO via email. In limited cases, the respondent may request to hand deliver their response to the OSO or receive/return the PIQ via the U.S. Postal Service. A prepaid envelope is provided to the respondent if required. The PIQ is used by the OSO and the selection board to assess the personal and moral character of an applicant and as a tool to better assess the possibility of them becoming a Marine Corps Officer.
Department of the Navy, Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 23, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Headquarters Marine Corps Records, Reports, Directives, and Forms Management Section, 3000 Marine Corps, Pentagon Rm. 2B253, ATTN: Mr. Mark Kazzi, or call 571-256-8883.
The ASIST basic course is a two-day in person workshop that teaches participants to recognize someone at-risk of suicide and then provide a skilled intervention and develop a safe plan with the at-risk individual. The efficiency and effectiveness of the ASIST program for the Marine Corps has never been evaluated. To assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the ASIST program for the Marine Corps, the Marine Corps has contracted CNA to gather data from current and past course participants. Questions in the ASIST Basic survey ask participants about expected outcomes of the ASIST course: knowledge, attitudes, and confidence in suicide intervention. ASIST participants that choose to become ASIST trainers attend ASIST Training for Trainers (T4T). T4T is a five-day in-person training that prepares participants to become ASIST trainers by teaching them skills to conduct the ASIST 2-day workshop. Questions in the ASIST T4Tsurvey ask questions about the sufficiency of the T4T course and the ability of trainers to adapt the course to the Marine Corps population. At the completion of the study, CNA will provide a report to the Chaplain of the Marine Corps detailing findings from the surveys and interviews. Only aggregate data will be reported. We expect that ASIST course participants will respond to the survey to be active participants in shaping future Marine Corps programming.
Office of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy.
Amended record of decision.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is amending its August 5, 1996, Record of Decision (ROD) for the
This Amended ROD, the HEU EIS, the SRS SNF EIS, and related National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents are available on the DOE NEPA website at
For further information on HEU blend down to HALEU at SRS, please contact Mr. Jeffrey Bentley as listed above. For information on DOE's NEPA process, please contact Mr. William Ostrum by mail: NEPA Compliance Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, EM-4.13, Washington, DC 20585; by telephone: (202) 586-2513; or by email:
DOE's purpose and need for action, as described in the HEU EIS (DOE/EIS-0240), is as follows:
The Department of Energy proposes to blend down surplus HEU
Comprehensive disposition actions are needed to ensure that surplus HEU is converted to proliferation-resistant forms consistent with the objectives of the President's nonproliferation policy. These proposed actions would essentially eliminate the potential for reuse of the material in nuclear weapons and would demonstrate the U.S. commitment to dispose of surplus HEU and encourage other nations to take similar actions toward reducing stockpiles of surplus HEU. The proposed actions would begin to reduce DOE's HEU inventory and costs associated with storage, accountability, and security rather than depending upon indefinite storage of all such material.
In the HEU EIS, DOE proposed to blend down surplus HEU from the weapons program to 4 weight percent U-235 LEU to eliminate the risk of diversion for nuclear proliferation purposes and, where practical, to reuse the resulting LEU in peaceful, beneficial ways that recover its commercial value. The HEU EIS assessed the disposition of a nominal 200 MT of surplus HEU. Material that could not be economically recovered would be blended to 0.9 weight percent U-235 for disposal as low-level radioactive waste (LLW).
The HEU EIS analyzed four alternatives that represented different proportions of the resulting LEU being used in commercial reactor fuel or disposed of as LLW. The Preferred Alternative was Alternative 5, the Maximum Commercial Use Alternative, which represented blending about 85 percent of the material to 4 weight percent U-235 LEU for use in nuclear reactor fuel (170 MT) and about 15 percent (30 MT) of the material to 0.9 weight percent U-235 for disposal as LLW. The HEU EIS analyzed the blending of HEU using three different processes at four potential sites including SRS. Three blending technologies were analyzed including uranyl nitrate hexahydrate (UNH) blending at SRS. The transportation of UNH was also analyzed. DOE issued the Final HEU EIS in June 1996 and issued a ROD on August 5, 1996 (61 FR 40619), selecting the Preferred Alternative, which was also the environmentally preferrable alternative.
Between 2003 and 2011, the H-Area facilities at SRS blended down 14.9 MT of HEU to produce 301 MT of 4.95 weight percent uranium-235 LEU. The LEU was sent to commercial facilities for fabrication into reactor fuel and was subsequently used in Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) reactors to produce electricity.
HALEU
The DOE regulations for compliance with NEPA, 10 CFR 1021.314(c), direct that, “[w]hen it is unclear whether or not an EIS supplement is required, DOE shall prepare a Supplement Analysis” to assist in making that determination. In accordance with the DOE NEPA regulations, DOE prepared the
Because the Proposed Action activities would be a small subset of HEU blend down activities evaluated in the HEU EIS, the potential environmental consequences of the Proposed Action would be similar to, or less than, those evaluated in the HEU EIS. In the SRS HALEU SA, these effects were determined to be small, and would not result in releases to the environment, or radiation doses or risks to members of the public or workers that would be substantially larger than those evaluated in the HEU EIS.
Because this HEU will be blended down for use in reactor fuel, it will not be sent to the SRS liquid HLW management system for disposal as described in the 2022 Amended ROD (87 FR 23504) for the SRS SNF EIS. Therefore, the environmental effects will be less than those described in the
DOE concluded in the SRS HALEU SA that the proposed change and new information is not a substantial change relative to the proposal analyzed in the HEU EIS and the SRS SNF EIS, and thus, that no further NEPA documentation is required.
DOE has decided to implement the Proposed Action as described in the SRS HALEU SA. DOE will not send the 2.2 MT of HEU (as uranyl nitrate liquid) to the SRS liquid HLW management system for disposal and instead will blend the HEU with natural uranium (as uranyl nitrate liquid) to produce HALEU (as uranyl nitrate liquid) at H-
In the ROD for the HEU EIS (61 FR 40619; August 5, 1996), DOE identified the Preferred Alternative as the environmentally preferable alternative; this has not changed. No environmental effects resulting from operations under this amended decision would require specific mitigation measures. DOE will continue its current practices and policies and has adopted all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm, including effects to workers when implementing the actions described herein. For example, DOE will continue to evaluate and implement, as appropriate, physical modifications to the H-Area facilities and administrative practices, that would reduce personnel exposure, facility effluents, and waste generation.
The blending down of 2.2 MT of HEU to HALEU as described in the SRS HALEU SA (DOE/EIS-0240-SA-02, 2024) and this amendment to DOE's HEU EIS ROD (61 FR 40619) and SRS SNF EIS Amended ROD (87 FR 23504), takes advantage of existing processes in existing facilities. As described in the SRS HALEU SA, the activities encompassed by this amended decision will not incur potential health or environmental effects substantially different from those analyzed in existing NEPA reviews. Further, the actions resulting from this Amended ROD, would help satisfy the nation's short-term needs for HALEU until other commercial initiatives can begin production.
This document of DOE was signed on April 18, 2025, by Roger A. Jarrell II, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Office of Environmental Management, 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 the 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 DOE. The administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
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 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
On May 30, 2025, Bevill Hydroelectric, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of a hydropower project to be located at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Tom Bevill Lock and Dam, on the Tennessee Tombigbee Waterway, near the City of Pickensville, Pickens County, Alabama. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed Tom Bevill Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project would consist of the following: (1) a 50-foot-wide, 50-foot-long intake structure; (2) a 50-foot-wide, 190-foot-long reinforced concrete powerhouse located adjacent to western abutment within the spillway, containing one 12.5-megawatt, pit style turbine generator; (3) a 50-foot-long, 50-foot-wide dredged tailrace channel that would direct flow to the river downstream from the dam; and (4) a 1.3 mile-long, 69-kilovolt transmission line. The proposed project would have an estimated annual generation of 59.6 gigawatt-hours.
The deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 15, 2025. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system 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
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed, or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's website at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community 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 Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company 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 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
The following item was adopted by the Commission on July 18, 2025 and deleted from the list of items scheduled for consideration at the Thursday, July 24, 2025, Open Meeting. The item was previously listed in the Commission's Sunshine Notice on Thursday, July 17, 2025.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before August 25, 2025.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Subsequent developments generated additional changes to the instructions, reporting template, and certification form. First, in September 2022, the Commission adopted the
Second, on January 5, 2023, President Biden signed into law the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act of 2022, Public Law 117-338, Stat. 6156, § 2(a)(2), (b) (the Martha Wright-Reed Act or the Act), which expanded the Commission's statutory authority over communications between incarcerated people and the non-incarcerated, including “any audio or video communications service used by inmates . . . regardless of technology used.” The new Act also amended section 2(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to make clear that the Commission's authority extends to intrastate as well as interstate and international communications services used by incarcerated people.
The Martha Wright-Reed Act directed the Commission to “promulgate any regulations necessary to implement” the Act, including its mandate that the Commission establish a “compensation plan” ensuring that all rates and charges for IPCS “are just and reasonable,” not earlier than 18 months and not later than 24 months after the Act's January 5, 2023 enactment date. Pursuant to that directive, the Commission adopted the
On August 3, 2023, the Bureaus released a Public Notice, seeking comment on proposed revisions to the instructions and templates for the Annual Reports and annual certifications.
In July 2024, the Commission adopted the
Pursuant to this updated delegated authority, on September 11, 2024, the Bureaus released a Public Notice seeking to “expand and refresh the record on revisions to the Annual Reports instructions, templates, and certification form, in addition to those proposed in the
On January 8, 2025, the Bureaus released an Order in which they revised the instructions, reporting templates, and certification form for the Annual Reports that IPCS providers are required to submit.
With this Notice, we seek comment on the paperwork burdens associated with the specific revisions to the instructions, reporting templates, and certification form adopted in the
We note that on April 1, 2025, the Commission submitted for OMB review proposed revisions to this collection associated with the rules, other than the Annual Reports rule, that the Commission adopted in the
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before September 23, 2025. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than August 11, 2025.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Mark Nagle, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291. Comments can also be sent electronically to
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice; request for public comments.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a revision of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding Federal Supply Schedule Solicitation Information.
Submit comments on or before: August 25, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Mr. Thomas O'Linn, Procurement Analyst, General Services Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, by phone at 202-445-0390 or by email at
This information requirement consists of information used by contracting officers awarding GSA Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) (also known as Federal Supply Schedule (FSS)) contracts in the review and evaluation of offers.
The annual total annual public hour burden for this information collection is estimated to be 41,658 total hours. Annual reporting burdens include the estimated respondents with one (1) submission per respondent multiplied by preparation hours per response to get the total response burden hours.
GSAR clause 552.238-84, Discounts for Prompt Payment. This clause requests an offeror to identify in their offer any discounts for early payment.
GSAR clause 552.238-87, Delivery Prices. This clause requests an offeror to identify in their offer whether or not prices submitted cover delivery f.o.b. destination in Alaska, Hawaii, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
GSAR clause 552.238-95, Separate Charge for Performance Oriented Packaging (POP)**. This clause requests an offeror, if applicable, to identify any hazardous material item (
GSAR clause 552.238-96, Separate Charge for Delivery within Consignee's Premises**. This clause requests an offeror, as applicable, to identify any separate charge(s) for shipping when the delivery is within the consignee's premises (inclusive of items that are comparable in size and weight).
GSAR clause 552.238-97, Parts and Service. This clause requests an offeror, if applicable, to include in their offer the names and addresses of all supply and service points maintained in the geographic area in which the offeror would perform under the GSA FSS contract (if awarded one). Additionally, requests an offeror to indicate whether or not a complete stock of repair parts for the items being offered is carried at that point, and whether or not mechanical service is available.
GSAR clause 552.238-99, Delivery Prices Overseas. This clause requests an offeror to identify the intended geographic area(s)/countries/zones which are covered by their offer.
GSAR clause 552.238-111, Environmental Protection Agency Registration Requirement**. This clause requests offerors, if applicable, to identify the manufacturer's and/or distributor's name and EPA Registration Number for each item offered that requires registration with the EPA.
** This clause applies to specific GSA MAS solicitation large categories.
GSAR provision 552.238-118, Single-use Plastic (SUP) Free Packaging Identification. The provision applies when the resulting contract includes supplies or products. The provision provides the option for offerors to submit information about SUP free brand packaging and SUP free shipping packaging.
GSAR clause 552.238-119, Single-use Plastic (SUP) Free Packaging Availability. The clause provides the option for contractors to submit information about SUP free brand packaging and SUP free shipping packaging.
A 60-day notice was published in the
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice; request for comments.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension to the information collection requirement regarding the Contractor Information Worksheet; GSA Form 850.
Submit comments on or before: August 25, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Mr. Thomas O'Linn, Procurement Analyst, General Services Acquisition Policy
The U.S. Government conducts criminal checks to establish that applicants or incumbents working for the Government under contract may have unescorted access to federally controlled facilities. GSA uses GSA Form 850, Contractor Information Worksheet, and digitally captured fingerprints to conduct an FBI National Criminal Information Check (NCIC) for each contractor's physical access determination to GSA-controlled facilities and/or logical access to GSA-controlled information systems. Manual fingerprint card SF-87 is used for exception cases such as contractor's significant geographical distance from fingerprint enrollment sites.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidance M-05-24 for Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 12, authorizes Federal departments and agencies to ensure that contractors have limited/controlled access to facilities and information systems. GSA Directive CIO P 2181.1 Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12, Personal Identity Verification and Credentialing (available at
Contractors' Social Security Number is needed to keep records accurate, because other people may have the same name and birth date. Executive Order 9397, Numbering System for Federal Accounts Relating to Individual Persons, also allows Federal agencies to use this number to help identify individuals in agency records.
A 60-day notice was published in the
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, GSA invites the public to comment on an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding OMB Control No. 3090-0308, Construction-Manager-as-Constructor Contracting.
Submit comments on or before August 25, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Ms. Amy Lara, 816-589-3783, General Services Acquisition Policy Division, by email at
The information collected is used by PBS to evaluate construction-related actions for approval of the contracting officer as required by the contract. As this information is still currently required, GSA seeks to have this information collection extended for three years.
Public reporting burden for GSAR 552.236-72,
The annual reporting burden is estimated as follows:
A 60-day notice was published in the
Federal Acquisition Service (Q), General Services Administration (GSA).
Meeting notice.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, GSA is hereby giving notice of one (1) open public meeting of the Federal Secure Cloud Advisory Committee (FSCAC). Information on attending and providing public comment is under the
The open public meeting will be held virtually on Thursday, August 14, 2025, from 1:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time (ET).
The meeting will be accessible via webcast. Registration is required and will be made available prior to the meeting online at
Ryan Hoesing, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), FSCAC, GSA, 202-577-1938,
GSA, in compliance with the FedRAMP Authorization Act of 2022 (the Act), established the FSCAC, a statutory advisory committee in accordance with the provisions of FACA, as amended (5 U.S.C. 10). The Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) within GSA is responsible for providing a standardized, reusable approach to security assessment and authorization for cloud computing products and services that process unclassified information used by agencies.
The FSCAC will provide advice and recommendations to the Administrator of GSA and the FedRAMP Director, the FedRAMP Board, and agencies on technical, financial, programmatic, and operational matters regarding the secure adoption of cloud computing products and services. The FSCAC will ensure effective and ongoing coordination of agency adoption, use, authorization, monitoring, acquisition, and security of cloud computing products and services to enable agency mission and administrative priorities. The purposes of the Committee are:
• To examine the operations of FedRAMP and determine ways that authorization processes can continuously be improved, including the following:
○ Measures to increase agency reuse of FedRAMP authorizations.
○ Proposed actions that can be adopted to reduce the burden, confusion, and cost associated with FedRAMP authorizations for cloud service providers (CSPs).
○ Measures to increase the number of FedRAMP authorizations for cloud computing products and services offered by small businesses concerns (as defined by section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)).
○ Proposed actions that can be adopted to reduce the burden and cost of FedRAMP authorizations for agencies.
• Collect information and feedback on agency compliance with, and implementation of, FedRAMP requirements.
• Serve as a forum that facilitates communication and collaboration among the FedRAMP stakeholder community.
The FSCAC will meet no fewer than three (3) times a calendar year. Meetings shall occur as frequently as needed, called, and approved by the DFO.
The August 14, 2025, public meeting will be dedicated to advice and recommendations for reducing the burden and cost of managing Plans of Action and Milestones (POA&Ms) for cloud services and agencies and to develop recommendations for an updated standard. FSCAC is to propose key elements of this standard by addressing at least the following questions:
1. What are the major pain points with the current POA&M implementation for CSPs and agencies?
2. What are the security gaps and increased risks (including missed opportunities) that result from the current model?
3. What are the benefits of the current model?
4. What would a new set of POA&M requirements for FedRAMP that addresses the major pain points, and gaps while maintaining or increasing the benefits of such a process for all parties look like?
Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide oral public comments during this meeting, and may also submit public comments in writing prior to this meeting by completing the public comment form on our website,
This virtual meeting is open to the public. The meeting materials, registration information, and agendas for the meetings will be made available prior to the meetings online at
For information on services for individuals with disabilities, or to request accommodation for a disability, please email the FSCAC staff at
Members of the public attending will have the opportunity to provide oral public comment during the FSCAC meeting. Written public comments can be submitted at any time by completing the public comment form on our website,
Office of Community Services (OCS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice for public comment.
ACF OCS announces a preliminary determination that funds from the federal fiscal year 2024 (FY24) Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) are available for reallotment to states, territories, tribes, and tribal organizations that received FY25 direct LIHEAP awards. The purpose of this proposed action is to redistribute FY24 annual LIHEAP funds that recipients were unable to obligate or carry over to FY25. No sub-recipients of these recipients or other entities may apply for these funds.
Comments are due by: August 25, 2025.
Comments may be submitted to: Raessa Singh, Senior Advisor, Office of Community Services, Administration for Children and
Kate Thomas, Energy Assistance Program Specialist, Office of Community Services, 330 C Street SW, 5th Floor; Mail Room 5425; Washington, DC 20201. Telephone: 202-690-5737; email:
After receiving Carryover and Reallotment Reports (CRRs), ACF has determined that $2,425,645 in FY24 LIHEAP funds may be available for reallotment for FY25. This determination was based on the reports of unobligated balances of 22 recipients. LIHEAP recipients submitted the FY24 CRRs to OCS, as required by regulations applicable to LIHEAP at 45 CFR 96.81(b).
The LIHEAP statute allows recipients who have funds unobligated at the end of the FY to request permission to carry over up to 10 percent of their full-year allotments to the next FY (42 U.S.C. 8626(b)(2)). Funds in excess of this amount must be returned to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and are subject to reallotment under 42 § U.S.C. 8626(b)(1).
In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 8626(b)(3), beginning the week of May 19, 2025, ACF began notifying each of the 22 recipients with unobligated funds above their carryover caps. In these notices, ACF informed each recipient of the amount that, according to the recipients' reports, the recipient needed to return for de-obligation and redistribution to FY25 recipients as part of the reallotment. It also gave each recipient 30 calendar days to provide comments directly to ACF.
All LIHEAP recipients that receive a portion of these funds will be notified of the final reallotment amount redistributed to them for FY25. This decision will also be published in the
The FY24 LIHEAP funds ACF preliminarily expects to become available for reallotment determination, come from the following recipients in the following amounts:
If funds are realloted, they will be allocated in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 8623 and must be treated by LIHEAP recipients as funds appropriated for FY25. As FY25 funds, they will be subject to all requirements of the LIHEAP statute, including 42 U.S.C. 8626(b)(2), which requires that a recipient obligate at least 90 percent of its total block grant allocation for a FY by the end of the FY for which the funds are appropriated; that is, by September 30, 2025. Furthermore, recipients that receive these funds may use these funds for any purpose authorized under LIHEAP and must add them to their total LIHEAP funds payable for FY25 for purposes of calculating statutory caps on administrative costs, carryover, Assurance 16 activities, and weatherization assistance.
Additionally, all recipients of these funds must (1) ensure that these funds are included in the amounts on Lines 1.1 of their FY24 CRRs; (2) reconcile these funds, to the extent that they received them, on their corresponding FFRs; and (3) record, on their FY25 Household Reports, households that receive benefits at least partly from these funds. State recipients must also ensure that these funds are included in the Grantee Survey sections of their FY25 LIHEAP Performance Data Forms.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice; request for information.
FDA and USDA (we) are requesting data and information to help develop a uniform definition of ultra-processed foods (UPF or UPFs) for human food products in the U.S. food supply. A uniform UPF definition, developed as part of a joint effort by federal agencies, would allow for consistency in research and policy to pave the way for addressing health concerns associated with the consumption of UPFs.
Either electronic or written comments on the notice must be submitted by September 23, 2025.
You may submit comments and information as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” We will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
The United States faces a growing epidemic of preventable diet-related chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes, which are leading causes of death and disability in the U.S. (Ref. 1). Improving nutrition is therefore one of the most important public health interventions for reducing chronic illnesses and premature death, and for helping make Americans healthier.
Over the last decade, concerns have grown significantly about the increased availability and consumption of foods that researchers have termed “ultra-processed.” Researchers have found links between consumption of these foods and a range of negative health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, obesity, and certain cancers (see,
In May 2025, the President's Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission released “The MAHA Report: Make Our Children Healthy Again: Assessment” (MAHA Report) (Ref. 7). Among other topics, the MAHA Report highlights the prevalence of certain processed foods in the U.S. food system and notes the health concerns associated with their consumption (Ref. 7; see also Refs. 8, 9). FDA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have also announced plans to invest in gold standard science through the new NIH-FDA Nutrition Regulatory Science Program to help better understand how and why consumption of ultra-processed foods can harm people's health (Ref. 10).
There is no single, universally accepted definition of UPFs, and the definition of such foods has varied considerably over time (see,
The most common classification, developed by Brazilian researchers in 2009, is the “Nova” system (Ref. 14). In its latest iteration, the Nova system classifies foods into four food categories: group 1, unprocessed or minimally processed foods; group 2, processed culinary ingredients; group 3, processed foods; and group 4, ultra-processed foods (Ref. 15). The Nova system identifies ultra-processed foods (group 4) based on multiple factors; these factors include things like the use of certain ingredients and substances (such as emulsifiers, bulking agents, or thickeners), industrial processing technologies, as well as sophisticated packaging, that result in a palatable and appealing product (Refs. 15, 16, 17).
However, concerns have been raised about the full ability of UPF classification systems to accurately capture the characteristics of UPFs that may impact health. For example, on one hand, there is overlap between foods considered to be ultra-processed and foods that are high in added sugars, sodium, and saturated fat, which independently are recommended to be limited by the
Recently, some U.S. states have sought to establish their own definitions of “ultra-processed foods,” with proposed definitions varying. These proposed state definitions include, among others:
• Proposals to define UPFs as foods that include substances intended to have a certain effect on food (such as stabilizers and thickeners, coloring or flavoring agents) (see,
• Proposals to define UPFs as foods that have undergone certain processing steps (such as hydrogenation of oils or hydrolysis of proteins) (see,
• Proposals to define UPFs as foods that include one of anywhere between 10 and 15 listed ingredients (see,
Additionally, some third-party organizations are starting to develop their own definitions for UPFs.
There is a clear need for a uniform definition of UPFs to allow for consistency in research and policy. With this Request for Information, we seek data and information that would enable us, as part of a joint federal agency effort, to define UPFs.
We invite comment on the questions below. Please explain your answers and provide references and data, if possible. To the extent that you rely on an existing definition of UPFs (or a facet of such definition) to inform your responses, please state which specific definition it is.
(1) What, if any, existing classification systems or policies should we consider in defining UPFs? What are the advantages and challenges in applying these systems (or aspects of them) to classify a food as ultra-processed? What are characteristics that would or would not make a given system (or aspect of the system) particularly suitable for the U.S. food supply? Please provide supporting data and explain your rationale in your response.
(2) FDA-required ingredient labeling provides important information to consumers about what is in packaged foods. The ingredient declaration on a food label lists each ingredient by its common or usual name (21 CFR 101.4(a)(1)). This ingredient name sometimes provides information on specific forms of the ingredient used, such as “flour” versus “whole grain flour.” Additionally, ingredients are declared in descending order of predominance by weight (21 CFR 101.4(a)), which may help a consumer determine the relative proportion of whole versus processed ingredients. For certain types of ingredients, such as flavorings, colorings, and chemical preservatives, labeling must also provide the function of the ingredient (see 21 CFR 101.22). The following questions focus on the ingredient list on the labeling of packaged foods.
a. In considering ingredients that appear toward the beginning of an ingredient list (that is, ingredients that likely form most of a finished food by weight), what types of ingredients (
b. Ingredients that appear toward the end of an ingredient list may contribute minimally to the overall composition and weight of a finished food (for example, ingredients may sometimes be listed as containing 2% or less by weight of the finished food (21 CFR 101.4(a)(2))). What types of these less prominent ingredients (
Further, ingredients that function as flavorings are either natural flavors or artificial flavors; colorings are either certified (for instance, “FD&C Red No. 40”) or non-certified (for instance, “colored with beet juice”) (21 CFR 101.22). Should these various types of flavors and colors be considered separately when characterizing a food as ultra-processed? Please provide supporting data and explain your rationale in your response.
c. To what extent, if any, should the relative amount of an ingredient used in a food influence whether the food should be characterized as ultra-processed? Please provide supporting data and explain your rationale in your response.
d. What, if any, other ingredients or ingredient-related criteria not discussed previously should or should not be used to characterize a food as ultra-processed? Please provide supporting data and explain your rationale in your response.
(3) FDA defines “manufacturing/processing,” in part, to mean making food from one or more ingredients, or synthesizing, preparing, treating, modifying, or manipulating food, including food crops or ingredients (21 CFR 117.3; see also 21 U.S.C. 321(gg) for the statutory definition of “processed food”). Certain FDA regulations, such as standards of identity, may prescribe methods of production or formulation (see,
a. Processing a food through physical means may include cutting, extracting juice by an application of force, heating, freezing, extrusion, and other physical manipulations. What physical processes might be used to characterize a food as ultra-processed? Please provide supporting data and explain your rationale in your response.
b. Processing a food through biological means may include non-alcoholic fermentations of the food by microorganisms (for example, bacteria and yeasts), enzymatic treatment, and other biological manipulations. What biological processes might be used to characterize a food as ultra-processed?
c. Processing a food through chemical means may include pH adjustment and other chemical manipulations. What chemical processes might be used to characterize a food as ultra-processed? Please provide supporting data and explain your rationale in your response.
d. What, if any, other processing-related techniques should or should not be used to characterize a food as ultra-processed? Please provide supporting data and explain your rationale in your response.
(4) Is the term “ultra-processed” the best term to use, or is there other terminology that would better capture the concerns associated with these products? If there is another term to consider, please name and define that term and provide specific scenarios and citations (if available) to support its use.
(5) FDA and USDA are aware of ongoing research on nutrition and other attributes relating to the health outcomes associated with consumption of UPFs. As noted in the background, FDA is also initiating a joint effort with NIH to answer questions such as how and why UPFs can harm people's health.
a. In considering nutritional attributes (such as information presented on the Nutrition Facts label), to what extent, if any, and how, should nutritional composition or the presence of certain nutrients be incorporated in a definition of UPFs? Please provide supporting data and explain your rationale in your response.
b. What other attributes, such as energy density or palatability, might be used to characterize a food as ultra-processed? Please provide supporting data and explain your rationale in your response. If relevant to your answer, please also provide suggestions on how these attributes can be measured and/or potentially be incorporated into a definition of UPFs, if they are not readily apparent on the food labeling.
(6) FDA and USDA are exploring whether and how to incorporate various factors, such as the ones discussed in the questions above, into a uniform definition of UPFs. How might these factors be integrated in the classification of a food as ultra-processed in a way that can be systematically measured and applied to foods sold in the U.S.? And what considerations should be taken into account in incorporating such a classification in food and nutrition policies and programs?
The following references marked with an asterisk (*) are on display at the Dockets Management Staff (see
Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Program Projects: NIA Program Project Applications (P01) Review, August 12, 2025, 9:00 a.m. to August 12, 2025, 12:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
The meeting is cancelled due to the re-assignment of applications.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until September 23, 2025.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0105 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2008-0037. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, John R. Pfirrmann-Powell, Acting Chief, telephone number (240) 721-3000 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Public Land Order (PLO).
This Order withdraws, subject to valid existing rights, approximately 285 acres of Federal lands from settlement, sale, location, and entry under the general land laws, including the United States mining laws, mineral leasing laws, and geothermal leasing laws, for a period of 3 years for use by the Department of the Navy for border security purposes. This withdrawal also transfers administrative jurisdiction of the lands to the Department of the Navy.
This PLO takes effect on July 22, 2025.
Lucas Lucero, Southwest Border Coordinator, AZ, telephone: 480-268-1387, email:
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services for contacting Mr. Lucero. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1714, and in accordance with subsection 204(e) of that Act, it is determined that an emergency situation exists and that extraordinary measures must be taken to preserve values that would otherwise be lost. It is therefore ordered as follows:
1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described Federal lands are hereby withdrawn from settlement, sale, location, and entry under the general land laws, including the United States mining laws, mineral leasing laws, and geothermal leasing laws, and jurisdiction over such lands is hereby transferred to the Department of the Navy for border security purposes.
A strip of land of the uniform width of 60 feet, lying contiguous to and parallel with the international border between the United States and Mexico, currently subject to Presidential Proclamation No. 758, 35 Stat. 2136 (May 27, 1907), (commonly known as the “Roosevelt Reservation”), located in the County of Yuma, State of Arizona, and situate in the following described locations:
The area described above contains approximately 285 acres of Federal lands in Yuma County, derived from GIS data located in the BLM Arizona State Office.
2. This withdrawal will expire 3 years from the effective date of this Order, unless it is extended in accordance with subsections (c)(1) or (d), whichever is applicable, and (b)(1) of section 204 of FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1714.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) is proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 25, 2025.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to William Frankel, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1849 C Street NW, Room 4547 MIB, Washington, DC 20240, or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact William Frankel or by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
A
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the agency; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the agency enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the agency minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. 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.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Notice is hereby given that, on May 29, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, KERIS, Dong-gu, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; Udemy, San Francisco, CA; Cisco, San Jose, CA; Swedish National Agency for Education (Statens skolverk), Solna, KINGDOM OF SWEDEN; Partners4Results, Waukesha, WI; Switch Energy Alliance, Austin, TX; and Siemens, Munich, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and 1EdTech Consortium intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 7, 2000, 1EdTech Consortium filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on March 17, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on May 27, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and DSAA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On August 1, 2023, DSAA filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on December 9, 2024. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 16, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, JIL NZ LLC, Chevy Chase, MD; and ZCTS LLC, Arlington, VA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and ADC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 11, 2021, ADC filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on March 6, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on May 29, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, SingleStore, San Francisco, CA, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Bytecode Alliance Foundation intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 20, 2022, Bytecode Alliance Foundation filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on March 19, 2025. A notice was published in the
On November 4, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Taha Dias, M.D., of Frostproof, Florida (Registrant). OSC, at 1; Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration No. BD9971208, alleging that Registrant has committed such acts as would render its registration inconsistent with the public interest. OSC, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1); 824(a)(4)).
More specifically, the OSC alleged that between July 2022 and December 2023, Registrant repeatedly violated federal and Florida state law by issuing prescriptions for controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice and for other than a legitimate medical purpose, in violation of 21 CFR 1306.04(a); and Fla. Stat. § 456.44(3).
On February 7, 2025, the Government submitted a request for final agency action (RFAA) requesting that the Agency issue a default final order revoking Registrant's registration. RFAA, at 1. After carefully reviewing the entire record and conducting the analysis as set forth in more detail below, the Agency grants the Government's request for final agency action and revokes Registrant's registration.
Under 21 CFR 1301.43, a registrant entitled to a hearing who fails to file a timely hearing request “within 30 days after the date of receipt of the [OSC] . . . shall be deemed to have waived their right to a hearing and to be in default” unless “good cause” is established for the failure. 21 CFR 1301.43(a) & (c)(1). In the absence of a demonstration of good cause, a registrant who fails to timely file an answer also is “deemed to have waived their right to a hearing and to be in default.” 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(2). Unless excused, a default is deemed to constitute “an admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC].” 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
Here, the OSC notified Registrant of his right to file a written request for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default. RFAAX 1, at 4-6 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). According to the Government's RFAA, Registrant failed to request a hearing. RFAA, at 1. Thus, the Agency finds that Registrant is in default and therefore has admitted to the factual allegations in the OSC. 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
As the Supreme Court stated in
The OSC/ISO's allegations concern the CSA's “statutory and regulatory provisions . . . mandating . . . compliance with . . . prescription requirements” and, therefore, go to the heart of the CSA's “closed regulatory system” specifically designed “to conquer drug abuse and to control the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances,” and “to prevent the diversion of drugs from legitimate to illicit channels.”
According to the CSA's implementing regulations, prescriptions may only be issued by an individual practitioner who is “[a]uthorized to prescribe controlled substances by the jurisdiction in which he is licensed to practice his profession” and has either been issued a DEA registration or is exempted from registration under DEA regulations. 21 CFR 1306.03. Furthermore, a lawful controlled substance order or prescription is one that is “issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice.” 21 CFR 1306.04(a). A “practitioner must establish and maintain a
Moreover, Florida law requires a practitioner to, among other things: (1) prescribe controlled substances only after conducting a complete medical history and physical examination; (2) document the presence of one or more recognized medical indications for the use of a controlled substance; (3) create a written treatment plan with goals and objectives; (4) discuss the risks and benefits of the use of controlled substances with the patient; (5) see the patient at regular intervals and conduct periodic reviews of the effectiveness of the treatment; (6) assess patient risk for aberrant drug-related behavior, continue to monitor that risk on an ongoing basis, and provide special attention to patients at risk for abusing their medication; and (7) maintain accurate, current, and complete records that are accessible and readily available for review. Fla. Stat. § 456.44;
Florida law also requires that medical records have “sufficient detail to clearly demonstrate why the course of treatment was undertaken” and “contain sufficient information to identify the patient, support the diagnosis, justify the treatment and document the course and results of treatment accurately.” Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 64B8-9.003.
In light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are deemed admitted. 21 CFR 1301.43(e). Accordingly, Registrant admits that between July 5, 2022, and December 4, 2023, he issued numerous controlled substance prescriptions without conducting medical examinations, establishing bona fide physician-patient relationships, and maintaining proper medical records.
Specifically, Registrant admits that he issued nine prescriptions for promethazine with codeine (a Schedule V opioid) to nine individuals,
Registrant also admits that between December 9, 2022, and December 4, 2023, he issued nine prescriptions for controlled substances to M.S., including prescriptions for oxycodone (a Schedule II opioid), alprazolam (a Schedule IV benzodiazepine), and promethazine with codeine. RFAAX 1, at 11. Registrant issued these prescriptions to M.S.—who was confined in a correctional facility at the time—without conducting a medical examination or evaluation or establishing a bona fide physician-patient relationship.
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that Registrant issued at least 18 prescriptions that lacked a legitimate medical purpose, and that Registrant issued these prescriptions outside the usual course of professional practice in Florida.
When the CSA's requirements are not met, the Attorney General “may deny, suspend, or revoke [a] registration if . . . the [registrant's] registration would be `inconsistent with the public interest.' ”
(A) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or professional disciplinary authority.
(B) The [registrant's] experience in dispensing, or conducting research with respect to controlled substances.
(C) The [registrant's] conviction record under Federal or State laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances.
(D) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws relating to controlled substances.
(E) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety.
21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(A-E).
The five factors are considered in the disjunctive.
Moreover, while the Agency is required to consider each of the factors, it “need not make explicit findings as to each one.”
The Government has the burden of proof in this proceeding. 21 CFR 1301.44(e).
While the Agency has considered all the public interest factors of 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1),
Here, as found above, Registrant is deemed to have admitted and the Agency finds that Registrant issued 18 prescriptions that lacked a legitimate medical purpose and were issued outside the usual course of professional practice. Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that Registrant violated 21 CFR 1306.04(a) and Fla. Stat. § 456.44. The Agency further finds that after considering the factors of 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), Registrant's continued registration is “inconsistent with the public interest.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). Accordingly, the Government satisfied its
Where, as here, the Government has met the burden of showing that Registrant's continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest, the burden shifts to Registrant to show why he can be entrusted with a registration.
Here, Registrant did not timely request a hearing, or timely or properly answer the allegations, and was therefore deemed to be in default. 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(1), (e), (f)(1); RFAA, at 1. To date, Registrant has not filed a motion with the Office of the Administrator to excuse the default. 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(1). Registrant has thus failed to answer the allegations contained in the OSC and has not otherwise availed himself of the opportunity to refute the Government's case. As such, Registrant has not accepted responsibility for the proven violations, has made no representations regarding his future compliance with the CSA, and has not demonstrated that he can be trusted 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) and 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. BD9971208 issued to Taha Dias, 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 Taha Dias, M.D. to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Taha Dias, M.D. for registration in Florida. This Order is effective August 25, 2025.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on July 21, 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
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Drug Enforcement Administration, 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 60 days until September 23, 2025.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Benjamin Inks, Writer/Editor, Office of Compliance, Policy Administration Section 700 Army Navy Drive Arlington VA 22202, telephone: 571-672-4524, email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning
1.
2.
3.
4. The affected public includes federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement personnel seeking access to the ESP. The obligation to respond is required to obtain access to the system.
5. The estimated number of respondents for this form is 1,000. The time per response is 7 minutes.
6.
Total Burden Hours
Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section (DRS) Department of Justice 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 23, 2025.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact: Roberta Kirkendall, Special Litigation Counsel, Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, by mail at 4CON, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20530; send an email to
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:
The Disability Rights Section (DRS), Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice is seeking to extend its information collection arising from a regulatory provision that requires covered movie theaters to disclose information to the public regarding the availability of closed movie captioning and audio description for movies exhibited in a digital format (digital movies) shown in their auditoriums.
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), at 42 U.S.C. 12182, prohibits public accommodations from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. The existing ADA title III regulation, at 28 CFR 36.303(a)-(g), requires covered entities to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities. The title III regulation clarifies that movie theaters that provide captioning or audio description for digital movies must ensure “that all notices of movie showings and times at the box office and other ticketing locations, on websites and mobile apps, in newspapers, and over the telephone, inform potential patrons of the movies or showings that are available with captioning and audio description.” 28 CFR 36.303(g)(8). This requirement does not apply to any third-party providers of films, unless they are part of or subject to the control of the public accommodation.
1.
2.
3.
4.
This information collection is required to comply with statutory and regulatory obligations under title III. Under 42 U.S.C. 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii), public accommodations must take steps to ensure that individuals with disabilities are not denied services because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, unless doing so would result in an undue burden or fundamental alteration. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12186(b), the Attorney General is authorized to issue regulations to carry out title III. The Department's implementing regulation at 28 CFR 36.303(g)(8) requires covered movie theaters to provide information to the public about the availability of closed movie captioning and audio description for digital movies. This public disclosure obligation is the basis for this Information Collection Request (ICR).
5.
The Department's initial PRA request for this collection relied on U.S. Census Bureau data from 2012 and estimated that there was a total of 1,876 firms owning one or more movie theaters in the United States that were potentially subject to this disclosure.
The Department acknowledges that the amount of time it will take a respondent to comply with this requirement may vary depending on the number of digital movies that the respondent is showing at any given time. Based on information gathered during the initial rulemaking process, the Department estimates that respondents will take an average of up to 10 minutes each week to update existing notices of digital movie showings and times with closed captioning and audio description information. Therefore, the Department estimates that each firm owning one or more theaters offering digital movies with closed captioning or audio description will spend approximately ((10 minutes/week × 52 weeks/year) ÷ 60 minutes/hour) 8.7 hours each year to comply with this requirement.
The Department anticipates that firms owning one or more movie theaters will likely update their existing listings of digital movie showings and times to include information concerning the availability of closed movie captioning and audio description on a regular basis. The Department's research suggests that this information would only need to be updated whenever a new digital movie with these features is added to the schedule. This will vary as some digital movies stay on the schedule for longer periods of time than others, but the Department estimates that respondent firms will update their listings to include this information weekly. In the future, if all movies are distributed with these accessibility features, specific notice on a movie-by-movie basis may no longer be necessary and firms owning movie theaters may only need to advise the public that they provide closed captioning and audio description for all of their digital movies.
The estimated public burden associated with this collection is 15,713 hours. The Department estimates that respondents will take an average of 10 minutes each week to update their existing listings of digital movie showings and times with the required information about closed captions and audio description. If each respondent spends 10 minutes each week to update its notices of digital moving showings
The Department expects that the annual public burden hours for disclosing this information will total (1,813 respondents × 8.7 hours/year) 15,713 hours.
Yearly costs to industry are estimated to be $0, as updates to communications and advertisements listing digital movie showings and times are normal tasks performed by movie theater personnel and any additional work related to this public disclosure requirement is minimal (
If additional information is required contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Service Engineering and Investment Oversight, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before August 25, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Nicole Bouchet by telephone at 202-693-0213, or by email at
Section 29 CFR part 1915, subpart I, requires employers to provide and ensure that each affected employee uses the appropriate PPE for the eyes, face, head, extremities, torso, and respiratory system, including protective clothing, protective shields, protective barriers, life-saving equipment, personal fall arrest systems, and positioning device systems that meets the applicable provisions of this subpart, whenever workers are exposed to hazards that require the use of PPE. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed “reinstatement without change” of the “Current Population Survey (CPS) Displaced Worker, Job Tenure, and Occupational Mobility Supplement” to be conducted in January 2026 and January 2028. A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
Send comments to Morgan Scheinin, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics by email to
Morgan Scheinin, BLS Clearance Officer, at 202-691-7628 (this is not a toll free number). (See
The CPS Displaced Worker, Job Tenure, and Occupational Mobility supplement is conducted biennially and was last collected in January 2024.
This supplement will gather information on workers who have lost or left their jobs because their plant or company closed or moved, there was insufficient work for them to do, or their position or shift was abolished. Data will be collected on the extent to which displaced workers received advance notice of job cutbacks or the closing of their plant or business. For those workers who have been reemployed, the supplement will gather data on the types of jobs they found and will compare current earnings with those from the lost job. The incidence and nature of occupational changes in the preceding year will be queried. The survey also probes for the length of time workers (including those who have not been displaced) have been with their current employer. Additional data to be collected include information on the receipt of unemployment compensation, the loss of health insurance coverage, and the length of time spent without a job.
Because this supplement is part of the CPS, the same detailed demographic information collected in the CPS will be available on respondents to the supplement. Comparisons will be possible across characteristics such as sex, race and ethnicity, age, and educational attainment of the respondent.
The information collected by this survey will be used to determine the size and nature of the population affected by job displacements and the needs and scope of programs serving adult displaced workers. It also will be used to assess employment stability by determining the length of time workers have been with their current employer and estimating the incidence of occupational change over the course of a year. Combining the questions on displacement, job tenure, and occupational mobility will enable analysts to obtain a more complete picture of employment stability.
Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought for the CPS Displaced Worker, Job Tenure, and Occupational Mobility Supplement to the CPS. This request is to reinstate this supplement to the CPS, which has been routinely collected biennially since 1984 to collect information on workers who were displaced from their jobs and to measure employee tenure.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Evaluate 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.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Asbestos in General Industry Standard.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by September 23, 2025.
For further information on submitting comments, see the “Public Participation” heading in the section of this notice titled
Belinda Cannon, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The following sections describe who uses the information collected under each requirement, as well as how they use it. The purpose of these requirements are to help employers monitor worker exposure to asbestos, to take action to reduce worker exposure to the PEL, to monitor worker health, and to provide workers with information about their exposures and the health effects that may result from their occupational involvement with asbestos, and provide access to these records by OSHA, the affected workers, and designated representatives.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions to protect workers, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information, and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend the approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Asbestos in General Industry Standard. The agency is requesting an adjustment decrease in burden of 6,552 hours going from 10,124 hours to 3,572 hours. The decrease in burden is due to a decline in asbestos consumption usage in general industry from 2021 to 2025. Also, there was a decrease in the operation and maintenance costs of $548,536, from $877,203 to $328,667. The decrease in cost is due to a reduction in the number of employees receiving medical examinations.
OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection requirements.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) electronically at
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627) for information about materials not available from the website, and for assistance in using the internet to locate docket submissions.
Amanda Laihow, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
National Science Foundation.
Notice; cancellation of meeting date.
The National Science Foundation published a notice in the
Please contact Crystal Robinson
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
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”),
This proposed rule change would amend OCC's By-Laws to codify in OCC's By-Laws that a Clearing Member may submit adjustments to its positions with OCC for any purpose permissible under Exchange
OCC filed as Exhibit 5 [sic] to File No. SR-OCC-2025-010 the text of the proposed changes to Article VI of OCC's By-Laws, Section 1, Interpretation and Policy .01(a). Material proposed to be added is marked by underlining and material proposed to be deleted is marked with strikethrough text. All terms with initial capitalization that are not otherwise defined herein have the same meaning as set forth in the OCC By-Laws and Rules.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
OCC is the clearing agency for all standardized equity options listed on national securities exchanges (“Exchanges”) registered with the Commission. One distinguishing feature of the listed-options market is that functionally, options transactions must occur on an Exchange,
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise Interpretation and Policy .01(a) to Section 1 of Article VI of OCC's By-Laws to codify that in addition to the existing purposes for which a Clearing Member currently may submit adjustments to its options positions, a Clearing Member also may submit adjustments to its options positions for any purpose permissible under Exchange rules.
OCC has rules in place regarding adjustments of Clearing Member options positions other than through opening or closing purchase or sale transactions on an Exchange. In particular, Article VI, Section 1, of the By-Laws states that Confirmed Trades, including transactions in exchange-listed options,
The list in Interpretation and Policy .01(a) to Article VI, Section 1, of the By-Laws was not intended to prohibit or preclude other adjustments permitted by Exchange rules. For example, Interpretation and Policy .01(c) to Article VI, Section 1, of the By-Laws, contemplates other post-trade transactions not expressly listed in paragraph (a).
OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of the Exchange Act
OCC believes the proposed changes are also consistent with the requirements in Rule 17ad-22(e)(1)
OCC also believes that the proposed changes are consistent with the requirements in Rule 17ad-22(e)(21).
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed change and none have been received. OCC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by OCC.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
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.
Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-OCC-2025-010 and should be submitted on or before August 15, 2025.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 10, 2025, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB” or “Board”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change, the issues raised therein, and the comments received.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend the LTSE Fee Schedule to adopt a Liquidity Incentive Program (“LTSE LIP” or “Program”) designed to enhance market quality by incentivizing market participants to provide liquidity and encourage executions in both LIP Enhanced Securities and LIP Standard Securities. The Exchange proposes to implement the changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal on July 10, 2025.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at 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 self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's Fee Schedule to adopt a Program designed to enhance liquidity and improve market quality in securities traded on the Exchange by incentivizing Members to quote at the National Best Bid and Offer (“NBBO”) and provide liquidity in both select securities, the “LIP Enhanced Securities” and more generally in all other securities traded on LTSE, the “LIP Standard Securities.” The Program includes three key incentives: (1) a proportional share of 80% of LTSE's SIP Quote Revenue
The Program is designed to incentivize the posting of quotes that join or establish a new National Best Bid or Offer (NBBO) through incentive payments. LTSE applies several objective factors concerning each security's trading characteristics and generally designates the securities that meet certain thresholds with respect to these factors to be LIP Enhanced Securities, while all remaining securities traded on the Exchange will be designated as LIP Standard Securities. These factors include average spread, daily turnover, market cap, volatility, share price, public float, % held by active investors, and average daily volume traded.
LTSE uses the above factors to assess which securities are suitable for inclusion in the list of LIP Enhanced Securities, with a goal of identifying securities in which increased quoting at the NBBO would be impactful to both LTSE and the market, but not unduly burdensome to its Members in meeting the quoting requirements to qualify for the LTSE LIP.
LTSE will publish the list of LIP Enhanced Securities on its website (on the Schedule of Fees), and prior to the start of each quarter, the Exchange will reevaluate and, as applicable, update its list of LIP Enhanced Securities. Any updates to the list of LIP Enhanced Securities will be published on LTSE's Schedule of Fees no later than one day prior to the start of the quarter (the Exchange will endeavor to update its LIP Enhanced Securities up to five trading days before the start of the next quarter). LTSE believes that the incentives created by the Program are likely to increase quoting in both the LIP Enhanced Securities and the LIP Standard Securities, as discussed below, thereby providing improved trading conditions for all market participants through narrower spreads and increased depth of liquidity available at the NBBO.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes, as part of the Program, to reduce take fees for LIP Enhanced Securities from 30 mils to 20 mils, in an effort to further incentivize order takers to engage with quoting activity under the LTSE LIP. This adjustment is expected to drive greater order flow, contributing to a more robust and dynamic market.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes, as part of the Program, to incentivize quoting in LIP Standard Securities by offering two benefits to Members who (i) qualify for Incentive #1, as defined below, in at least 50 Enhanced Securities (
As discussed above and detailed below, the LTSE LIP is composed of three (3) incentives.
The first incentive is designed to encourage Members to improve market quality by quoting at the NBBO
The second incentive provides all Members the benefit of reduced taker fees (from 30 mils to 20 mils) when trading LIP Enhanced Securities, with no quoting obligation required. The Exchange believes that reducing take fees in LIP Enhanced Securities will encourage participation at the NBBO, as discussed above, enhance market competition and benefit investors by fostering a more efficient and transparent trading environment. Lower take fees reduce transaction costs for liquidity takers, encouraging greater order flow and interaction with displayed liquidity. This, in turn, incentivizes market participants to compete more aggressively to provide liquidity, leading to tighter bid-ask spreads, increased depth of book, and improved price discovery. Additionally, when market makers and liquidity providers are rewarded for quoting at the NBBO, alongside reduced costs for liquidity takers, it strengthens overall market quality by promoting fair and efficient execution. Investors—particularly retail traders and institutional participants—benefit from more competitive pricing, lower execution costs, and reduced market impact, aligning with the broader goal of fostering a robust and competitive exchange ecosystem.
Lastly, the Exchange is seeking to incentivize quoting in LIP Standard Securities by offering Members that qualify for Incentive #1 in at least 50 of the LIP Enhanced Securities (
Determining LTSE LIP Eligibility and Proportionate SIP Revenue Share:
•
○
○
○
•
○
○
○
For the purposes of determining qualification for the LTSE LIP, the Exchange will exclude: (1) Any trading day that the Exchange's system experiences a disruption that lasts for more than 60 minutes during Regular Market Hours; (2) any day with a scheduled early market close; (3) the “Russell Reconstitution Day” (typically the last Friday in June). As further detail regarding such proposed exclusions, an Exchange system disruption may occur, for example, where a certain group of securities traded on the Exchange is unavailable for trading due to an Exchange system issue. The Exchange believes that these types of Exchange system disruptions could preclude Members from participating on the Exchange to the extent that they might have otherwise participated on such days, and thus, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to exclude such days when determining whether a Member meets the applicable quoting requirements during a quarter to avoid penalizing Members that might otherwise have met such requirements. Additionally, the Exchange believes that scheduled early market closures, which typically are the day before, or the day after, a holiday, may preclude some Members from participating on the Exchange at the same level that they might otherwise. For similar reasons, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to exclude the Russell Reconstitution Day in the same manner, as the Exchange believes that the Russell Reconstitution Day typically has extraordinarily high, and abnormally distributed, trading volumes and the Exchange believes this change to normal
The LTSE LIP will be open to all Members and will not impose any two-sided quotation obligations on any Member seeking to qualify for the Program. Accordingly, the LTSE LIP is designed to attract liquidity from any firm that is willing to provide liquidity at the NBB or NBO in LIP Enhanced Securities specifically, and LIP Standard Securities, more generally. The Exchange is proposing to provide Members an opportunity to earn SIP revenue as a means of recognizing the value of market participants that consistently enter quoting interest at the NBBO in LIP Enhanced Securities specifically, and LIP Standard Securities, more generally. Through the Program, the Exchange seeks to provide improved liquidity for all market participants through narrower bid-ask spread and increased depth of liquidity in the LIP Enhanced Securities specifically, and LIP Standard Securities, more generally.
The Exchange notes that the proposed LTSE LIP is similar to IEX's Supplemental Market Quality Program, which provides financial incentives for members entering displayed orders or quotes priced at the NBBO in certain securities designated by IEX.
In addition to the foregoing changes, the Exchange proposes to add a Notes to LTSE LIP section to the Fee Schedule to add definitions of the terms and other clarifying points. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt definitions for “LIP Enhanced Securities,” “LIP Standard Securities” and “Percent Time at NBBO,” that are consistent with the description of those terms as set forth above, as such terms are used above describing the calculation methodology and criteria for determining whether a Member qualifies for quote sharing under the LTSE LIP that the Exchange is proposing to add to the Fee Schedule, as described above. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to adopt language clarifying the following:
• the Minimum Quoted Size will be calculated for each LIP Enhanced Security and published quarterly.
• Incentive #1 and Incentive #3 will be calculated, and eligibility determined, on a quarterly basis
• “Percent Time at NBBO” means the average of the percentage time during the Regular Market Session where a Member has a displayed quote at the national best bid (“NBB”) or national best offer (“NBO”). For the avoidance of doubt, only quotes that are at the NBB or NBO during the Regular Market Session count towards the Percent Time at NBBO calculation.
• The Exchange excludes from its calculation of Percent Time at NBBO: (1) any trading day that the Exchange's system experiences a disruption that lasts for more than 60 minutes during the Regular Market Session; (2) any day with a scheduled early market close; and (3) the “Russell Reconstitution Day” (typically the last Friday in June).
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange operates in a highly fragmented and competitive market in which market participants can readily direct their order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of sixteen registered equities exchanges, and there are a number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues, to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information, no single registered equities exchange currently has more than approximately 15% of the total market share of executed volume of equities trading.
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to new or different pricing structures being introduced into the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees and rebates, and market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable. The Exchange believes the proposal reflects a reasonable and competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would enhance liquidity and market quality in both a broad manner with respect to LIP Standard Securities and in a targeted manner with respect to the LIP Enhanced Securities.
The Exchange believes that the proposed LTSE Liquidity Incentive Program is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory under Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, notwithstanding that it provides higher quote-sharing revenue in LIP Enhanced Securities compared to LIP Standard Securities. The quoting obligations applicable to LIP Enhanced Securities are more rigorous than those for LIP Standard Securities, and the enhanced rebates are designed to reflect the value of market participants that quote consistently at the NBBO across a broad range of securities with respect to the LIP Enhanced Securities in particular.
The Commission has consistently permitted exchanges to adopt differentiated pricing for distinct categories of securities, provided that the distinctions are based on reasonable, non-arbitrary criteria and further the purposes of the Act.
Similarly, the Exchange's proposal to allocate greater quote-sharing revenue to LIP Enhanced Securities is designed to promote improved quoting and execution quality in those symbols, including by encouraging liquidity provision and lowering transaction costs for takers. Differentiating fees and rebates by symbol is not unfairly discriminatory because participation in the Program is voluntary, the distinctions are grounded in objective criteria, and the Program is calibrated to promote the statutory goals of fair and orderly markets and the protection of investors.
The Program is intended to encourage Members to promote price discovery and market quality by quoting at the NBBO for a significant portion of each day in a large number of securities generally, and in LIP Enhanced Securities in particular, thereby benefiting the Exchange and other investors by providing improved trading conditions for all market participants through narrower bid-ask spreads and increasing the depth of liquidity available at the NBBO in a broad base of securities, including the LIP Enhanced Securities. Additionally, the Exchange believes that by offering incentives in LIP Standard Securities for Members that meet specific quoting minimums in LIP Enhanced Securities, will incentivize Members to quote at the NBBO in a more generalized manner to receive the additional incentives for quoting in LIP Standard Securities. Thus, the Exchange believes that the proposed Program will promote price discovery and market quality in LIP Enhanced Securities and more generally on the Exchange, and, further, that the resulting tightened spreads and increased displayed liquidity will benefit all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of price discovery, enhancing quoting competition across all exchanges, and promoting market transparency.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed criteria for LIP Enhanced Securities and LIP Standard Securities, and the associated rebate for each is reasonable, in that the proposed criteria for LIP Enhanced Securities is more difficult to achieve than that of LIP Standard Securities, and thus qualifying for the quote revenue in LIP Enhanced Securities appropriately offers a higher share of quote revenue commensurate with the corresponding higher quoting threshold. Therefore, the Exchange
Additionally, LTSE believes that the manner in which it selects securities for inclusion in the LIP Enhanced list is consistent with the Act because it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory (to customers, issuers, brokers or dealers). As discussed in the Purpose section, LTSE designates securities to be LIP Enhanced Securities by applying several objective factors concerning each security's trading characteristics and designating the securities that meet certain thresholds with respect to these factors to be LIP Enhanced Securities. These factors are designed to identify securities in which increased quoting would be impactful to both LTSE and the market, but not unduly burdensome to its Members in meeting the quoting requirements to qualify for the Program. Because the process of selecting LIP Enhanced Securities is designed to use objective criteria to create a list of securities for which inclusion in the Program could meaningfully increase liquidity (increasing price improvement opportunities for those securities), it is consistent with the goals of the Act to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market.
In addition, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable and consistent with an equitable allocation of fees to lower the take fee for executions in LIP Enhanced Securities because this will encourage participation at the NBBO, thereby enhancing market competition and benefiting investors by fostering a more efficient and transparent trading environment. This trading activity benefits all investors by promoting price discovery and increasing the depth of liquidity available at the NBBO and benefits the Exchange itself by enhancing its competitiveness as a market center that attracts actionable orders.
Further, the Exchange notes that the proposed Program is offered uniformly to all Members, and any Member may choose to qualify for quote sharing by meeting the associated requirements in any quarter, and the lower take fee in LIP Enhanced Securities regardless of the volume of transactions that it executes on the Exchange. Additionally, the Exchange notes that Members that do not meet the proposed eligibility requirements may still benefit from the lower take fee in LIP Enhanced Securities. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that it is consistent with an equitable allocation of fees and is not unfairly discriminatory to offer a higher share of quote revenue for LIP Enhanced Securities, as Members are required to meet a more stringent threshold than with respect to LIP Standard Securities, and both are eligible for some amount of quote revenue and such incentives are designed to benefit the Exchange and market participants by enhancing market quality.
Furthermore, as noted above, the proposed Program is similar in structure and purpose to pricing programs in place at other exchanges that are designed to enhance market quality.
The Exchange also believes that the calculation methodology and criteria for determining whether a Member satisfies the requirements to qualify for the Program, as well as the definitions of terms that are used, is reasonable, equitable, and non-discriminatory because the definitions are designed to ensure that the Fee Schedule is clear and as easily understandable as possible with respect to the requirements of the proposed Program. Additionally, the Exchange believes that excluding (1) any trading day that the Exchange's system experiences a disruption that lasts for more than 60 minutes during Regular Trading Hours; (2) any day with a scheduled early market close; and (3) the Russell Reconstitution Day, when determining whether a Member qualifies for a proposed Program during a quarter is reasonable, equitable, and non-discriminatory because, as explained above, the Exchange believes doing so would help to avoid penalizing Members that might otherwise have met the requirements to qualify for a proposed Program due to Exchange system disruptions, abbreviated trading days, and/or abnormal market conditions. For similar reasons, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to exclude the Russell Reconstitution Day, as the Exchange believes the change to normal trading activity as a result of the Russell Reconstitution may affect a Member's ability to meet the quoting requirement across various securities on that day. The Exchange notes that its proposed calculation methodology is consistent with the methodologies used by other exchanges when calculating certain member trading and other volume metrics for purposes of determining whether members qualify for certain pricing incentives.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the proposal is intended to enhance market quality on the Exchange in a large number of securities generally, and in the LIP Enhanced Securities specifically, and to encourage Members to increase their order flow on the Exchange, thereby promoting price discovery and contributing to a deeper and more liquid market to the benefit of all market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes the proposal would enhance its competitiveness as a market that attracts actionable orders, thereby making it a more desirable destination venue for its customers. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal furthers the Commission's goal in efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.”
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
This proposed rule change establishes dues, fees or other charges among its members and, as such, may take effect upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-LTSE-2025-16 and should be submitted on or before August 15, 2025.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 27, 2025, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
On March 11, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) a proposed rule change to amend the rule governing the ARK 21Shares Bitcoin ETF (the “Bitcoin Trust”) and the 21Shares Core Ethereum ETF (the “ETH Trust” and, collectively with the Bitcoin Trust, the “Trusts”), shares of which have been approved by the Commission to list and trade on the Exchange pursuant to BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4), to permit in-kind creations and redemptions.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
This Amendment No. 3 to SR-CboeBZX-2025-010 amends and replaces in its entirety the proposal as originally submitted on January 27, 2025, and as amended by Amendment No. 1 on February 5, 2025 and Amendment No. 2 on February 7, 2025. The Exchange submits this Amendment No. 3 in order to clarify certain points and add additional details to the proposal.
The Commission approved the listing and trading of shares (the “Bitcoin ETP Shares”) of the Bitcoin Trust on the Exchange pursuant to Exchange Rule 14.11(e)(4), Commodity-Based Trust Shares, on January 10, 2024.
The Exchange proposes to amend several portions of the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 5, as amended by the Custodian Amendment, in order to permit in-kind creations and redemptions.
The Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 5 included specific representations making clear that the Bitcoin Trust would only process creations and redemptions in cash. Specifically, Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 5 stated: “The Trust will process all creations and redemptions in cash transactions with authorized participants.”
The Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 5 also stated:
When the Trust creates or redeems its Shares, it will do so in cash transactions in blocks of 5,000 Shares (a “Creation Basket”) at the Trust's net asset value (“NAV”). Authorized participants will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, cash to the Trust's account with the Cash Custodian, in exchange for Shares when they create Shares, and the Trust, through the Cash Custodian, will deliver cash to such authorized participants when they redeem Shares with the Trust. Authorized participants may then offer Shares to the public at prices that depend on various factors, including the supply and demand for Shares, the value of the Trust's assets, and market conditions at the time of a transaction.
The Exchange proposes to replace the above paragraph as follows:
When the Trust creates or redeems its Shares, it will do so in cash transactions or in-kind transactions in blocks of 5,000 Shares (a “Creation Basket”). For cash creations and redemptions, authorized participants will
The Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 5 included the “Creation and Redemption of Shares” section.
When the Trust creates or redeems its Shares, it will do so in cash or in-kind. When the Trust creates or redeems its Shares in cash, it will do so in transactions in blocks of 5,000 Shares that are based on the quantity of bitcoin attributable to each Share of the Trust (
The authorized participants will deliver (or will have their designated agents deliver) cash or bitcoin to create Shares and will receive (or will have their designated agents receive) cash or bitcoin when redeeming Shares. The Trust will create Shares by receiving bitcoin or cash from an authorized participant (or its designated agent) and will redeem Shares by delivering bitcoin or cash to an authorized participant (or its designated agent).
According to the Registration Statement, on any business day, an authorized participant may place an order to create one or more Creation Baskets. Purchase orders must be placed by 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time, the close of regular trading on the Exchange, or another time determined by the Sponsor.
For a cash creation order, the total deposit of cash required is an amount of cash sufficient to purchase such amount of bitcoin, the amount of which is equal to the combined NAV of the number of Shares included in the Creation Baskets being created determined as of 4:00 p.m. ET on the date the order to purchase is properly received.
For a creation order in-kind, the total in-kind transfer of bitcoin is based on the quantity of bitcoin attributable to the Creation Baskets applicable to the date the order to purchase is properly received. The Administrator determines the quantity of bitcoin used to calculate the Creation Basket for a given day by dividing the number of bitcoin held by the Trust, adjusted for the amount of bitcoin constituting estimated accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the Trust as of the opening of business on that business day, by the quotient of the number of Shares outstanding at the opening of business divided by the number of Shares in a Creation Basket.
The procedures by which an authorized participant can redeem one or more Creation Baskets mirror the procedures for the creation of Creation Baskets. For a cash redemption order, an authorized participant (or its designated agent) will deliver Shares to the Trust and will receive cash for the Shares delivered. For an in-kind redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Trust and the authorized participant (or its designated agent) will receive bitcoin for the Shares delivered.
The Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 5 subsection entitled “Trust's Transfer Agent Will Instruct Disposition of Trust's Bitcoin” includes the following:
In such cases, a third party will use cash to buy and deliver bitcoin to create Shares or withdraw and sell bitcoin for cash to redeem Shares, on behalf of the Trust. Authorized participants will deliver cash to the Trust's account with the Cash Custodian in exchange for Shares of the Trust, and the Trust, through the Cash Custodian, will deliver cash to authorized participants when those authorized participants redeem Shares of the Trust.
The Exchange proposes to replace the above with the following:
For a cash creation order, an authorized participant will deliver cash to create Shares. For an in-kind creation order, an authorized participant or its designated agent will deliver bitcoin to create Shares. In the event the authorized participant, or its designated agent, has not deposited the bitcoin to the Trust by the applicable time on the settlement date of the in-kind creation order, the authorized participant will be given the option to (1) cancel the in-kind creation order, (2) delay settlement of the order to enable delivery of bitcoin at a later date, or (3) accept that the Trust will execute a bitcoin transaction required for the creation and the authorized participant will deliver the U.S. dollars required for this purchase. The authorized participant is responsible for the dollar cost of the difference between the bitcoin price utilized in calculating NAV per Share on trade date and the price at which the Trust acquires the bitcoin to the extent the price realized in buying the bitcoin is higher than the bitcoin price utilized in the NAV. To the extent the price realized in buying the bitcoin is lower than the price utilized in the NAV, the authorized participant shall get to keep the dollar impact of any such difference. For a cash redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Trust and will receive cash for the Shares delivered. For an in-kind redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Trust and will receive bitcoin or will have its designated agent receive bitcoin for the Shares delivered.
Similarly, the Exchange proposes to amend several portions of ETH ETP Amendment No. 2, as amended by the Custodian Amendment and the Trust Name and Sub-Adviser Amendment, in order to permit in-kind creations and redemptions.
First, ETH ETP Amendment No. 2 included specific representations making clear that the Ether Trust would only process creations and redemptions in cash. Specifically, ETH ETP Amendment No. 2 stated:
When the Trust creates or redeems its Shares, it will do so in cash transactions in blocks of 10,000 Shares (a “Creation Basket”) at the Trust's net asset value (“NAV”). Authorized participants will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, cash to the Trust's account with the Cash Custodian in exchange for Shares when they create Shares, and the Trust, through the Cash Custodian, will deliver cash to such authorized participants when they redeem Shares with the Trust.
The Exchange proposes to replace the above as follows:
When the Trust creates or redeems its Shares in cash transactions, it will do so in blocks of 10,000 Shares (a “Creation Basket”). Authorized participants (or their designated agents) will deliver cash to the Trust's account with the Cash Custodian in exchange for Shares when they create Shares, and the Trust, through the Cash Custodian, will deliver cash to such authorized participants when they redeem Shares with the Trust. When the Trust creates or redeems
ETH ETP Amendment No. 2 also states: “The Trust will process all creations and redemptions in cash transactions with authorized participants.”
The ETH ETP Amendment No. 2 includes the “Creation and Redemption of Shares” section.
When the Trust creates or redeems its Shares, it will do so in cash or in-kind. When the Trust creates or redeems its Shares in cash, it will do so in transactions in blocks of 10,000 Shares that are based on the quantity of ETH attributable to each Share of the Trust (
The authorized participants will deliver (or will have their designated agents deliver) cash or ether to create Shares and will receive (or will have their designated agents receive) cash or ether when redeeming Shares. The Trust will create Shares by receiving ether or cash from an authorized participant (or its designated agent) and will redeem Shares by delivering ether or cash to an authorized participant (or its designated agent).
According to the Registration Statement, on any business day, an authorized participant may place an order to create one or more Creation Baskets. Purchase orders must be placed by 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time, the close of regular trading on the Exchange, or another time determined by the Sponsor.
For a cash creation order, the total deposit of cash required is an amount of cash sufficient to purchase such amount of ETH, the amount of which is equal to the combined NAV of the number of Shares included in the Creation Baskets being created determined as of 4:00 p.m. ET on the date the order to purchase is properly received.
For a creation order in-kind, the total in-kind transfer of ETH is based on the quantity of ETH attributable to the Creation Baskets applicable to the date the order to purchase is properly received. The Administrator determines the quantity of ETH used to calculate the Creation Basket for a given day by dividing the number of ETH held by the Trust, adjusted for the amount of ETH constituting estimated accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the Trust as of the opening of business on that business day, by the quotient of the number of Shares outstanding at the opening of business divided by the number of Shares in a Creation Basket.
The procedures by which an authorized participant can redeem one or more Creation Baskets mirror the procedures for the creation of Creation Baskets. For a cash redemption order, an authorized participant (or its designated agent) will deliver Shares to the Trust and will receive cash for the Shares delivered. For an in-kind redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Trust and will receive (or will have its designated agent receive) ether for the Shares delivered.
The ETH ETP Amendment No. 2 subsection entitled “Trust's Transfer Agent Will Instruct Disposition of Trust's Ether” includes the following:
In such cases, a third party will use cash to buy and deliver ether to create Shares or withdraw and sell ether for cash to redeem Shares, on behalf of the Trust. Authorized participants will deliver cash to the Trust's account with the Cash Custodian in exchange for Shares of the Trust, and the Trust, through the Cash Custodian, will deliver cash to authorized participants when those authorized participants redeem Shares of the Trust.
The Exchange proposes to replace the above with the following:
For a cash creation order, an authorized participant will deliver cash to create Shares. For an in-kind creation order, an authorized participant or its designated agent will deliver ether to create Shares. In the event the authorized participant, or its designated agent, has not deposited the ether to the Trust by the applicable time on the settlement date of the in-kind creation order, the authorized participant will be given the option to (1) cancel the in-kind creation order, (2) delay settlement of the order to enable delivery of ether at a later date, or (3) accept that the Trust will execute an ether transaction required for the creation and the authorized participant will deliver the U.S. dollars required for this purchase. The authorized participant is responsible for the dollar cost of the difference between the ether price utilized in calculating NAV per Share on trade date and the price at which the Trust acquires the ether to the extent the price realized in buying the ether is higher than the ether price utilized in the NAV. To the extent the price realized in buying the ether is lower than the price utilized in the NAV, the authorized participant shall get to keep the dollar impact of any such difference. For a cash redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Trust and will receive cash for the Shares delivered. For an in-kind redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Trust and will receive ether or will have its designated agent receive ether for the Shares delivered.
Except for the above changes, all other representations in the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 5, as amended by the Custodian Amendment, and ETH ETP Amendment No. 2, as amended by the Custodian Amendment and the Trust Name and Sub-Adviser Amendment, remain unchanged and will continue to constitute continuing listing requirements. In addition, the Bitcoin Trust will continue to comply with the terms of Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 5, as amended, and the ETH Trust will continue to comply with the terms of ETH ETP Amendment No. 2, as amended, and the Trusts will continue to comply with the requirements of Rule 14.11(e)(4).
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest because it would update representations in both the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 5, as amended, and the ETH ETP Amendment No. 2, as amended, such that the Trusts would both be able to engage in in-kind creations and redemptions with authorized participants (or their designated agents), as described above. This ability would make the Trusts (and the market more generally) operate more efficiently because authorized participants would be able to source bitcoin or ether, as applicable, rather than to provide cash to the applicable Trust and to receive bitcoin or ether directly from the Trusts. This means that the authorized participant would be responsible for buying and selling the applicable crypto asset rather than the Trust itself, which would potentially lessen the impact on the market of the Trusts on both sides of the transaction by allowing the authorized participant to decide how and where to source the underlying crypto asset for creations and deciding how, where, and whether to sell the underlying crypto asset received for redemptions. This would improve the creation and redemption process for both authorized participants and the Trusts, increase efficiency, and ultimately benefit the end investors in the Trusts.
Except for the addition of in-kind creation and redemption for the Bitcoin Trust as specifically set forth herein, all other representations made in the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 5, as amended, remain unchanged, and will continue to constitute continuing listing requirements for the Bitcoin Trust. Similarly, except for the addition of in-kind creation and redemption for the ETH Trust as specifically set forth herein, all other representations made in the ETH ETP Amendment No. 2, as amended, remain unchanged, and will continue to constitute continuing listing requirements for the ETH Trust.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As noted above, the proposed amendment is intended to allow the Trusts to operate more efficiently by allowing for in-kind creation and redemption. The Exchange believes these changes will not impose any burden on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 3, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 10, 2025, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
On April 29, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) a proposed rule change to amend the rule governing the Invesco Galaxy Bitcoin ETF (the “Bitcoin Trust”) and the Invesco Galaxy Ethereum ETF (the “ETH Trust” and, collectively with the Bitcoin Trust, the “Trusts”), shares of which have been approved by the Commission to list and trade on the Exchange pursuant to BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4), to permit in-kind creations and redemptions.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
This Amendment No. 1 to SR-CboeBZX-2025-035 amends and replaces in its entirety the proposal as originally submitted on March 10, 2025. The Exchange submits this Amendment No. 1 in order to clarify certain points and add additional details to the proposal.
The Commission approved the listing and trading of shares (the “Bitcoin ETP Shares”) of the Bitcoin Trust on the Exchange pursuant to Exchange Rule 14.11(e)(4), Commodity-Based Trust Shares, on January 10, 2024.
The Exchange proposes to amend several portions of the Exchange's previous rule filing to list and trade Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 2 in order to permit in-kind creations and redemptions.
Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 2 included specific representations making clear that the Bitcoin Trust would only process creations and redemptions in cash. Specifically, the “Invesco Galaxy Bitcoin ETF” section of the Bitcoin Amendment No. 2 stated the following:
When the Trust sells or redeems its Shares, it will do so in cash transactions in blocks of 5,000 Shares (a “Creation Basket”) at the Trust's net asset value (“NAV”). Authorized participants will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, cash to the Trust's account with the Cash Custodian (which will then be used to purchase bitcoin for the Trust) in exchange for Shares when they purchase Shares, and the Trust, through the Cash Custodian, will deliver cash to such authorized participants when they redeem Shares with the Trust. A third party will use cash to buy and deliver bitcoin to create Shares or withdraw and sell bitcoin for cash to redeem Shares, on behalf of the Trust. Authorized participants may then offer Shares to the public at prices that depend on various factors, including the supply and demand for Shares, the value of the Trust's assets, and market conditions at the time of a transaction. Shareholders who buy or sell Shares during the day from their broker may do so at a premium or discount relative to the NAV of the Shares of the Trust.
The Exchange proposes to replace the above with the following:
When the Trust creates or redeems its Shares, it will do so in cash transactions or in-kind transactions in blocks of 5,000 Shares (a “Creation Basket”). For cash creations and redemptions, authorized participants will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, cash to the Trust's account with the Cash Custodian, in exchange for Shares when they create Shares, and the Trust, through the Cash Custodian, will deliver cash to such authorized participants when they redeem Shares with the Trust. For in-kind creation and redemptions, authorized participants will deliver, or facilitate delivery of, bitcoin to the Trust's account with the Custodian, in exchange for Shares when they create Shares, and the Trust, through the Custodian, will deliver bitcoin to such authorized participants when they redeem Shares with the Trust. Authorized participants may then offer Shares to the public at prices that depend on various factors, including the supply and demand for Shares, the value of the Trust's assets, and market conditions at the time of a transaction. Shareholders who buy or sell Shares during the day from their broker may do so at a premium or discount relative to the NAV of the Shares of the Trust.
The “Investment Objective” section of Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 2 stated: “The Trust will process all creations and redemptions in cash transactions
Additionally, the “Creation and Redemption of Shares” section of the filing includes a detailed description of how the cash-only creation and redemption process works.
When the Trust creates or redeems its Shares, it will do so in cash or in-kind. In connection with cash creations and cash redemptions, the authorized participants will submit orders to create or redeem Baskets of Shares in exchange for cash. When the Trust creates or redeems its Shares in cash, it will do so in transactions based on the quantity of bitcoin attributable to each Share of the Trust (
The authorized participants will deliver or cause to be delivered cash or bitcoin to create Shares and the authorized participant will receive cash or bitcoin when redeeming Shares. The Trust will create Shares by receiving bitcoin or cash from an authorized participant and will redeem shares by delivering bitcoin or cash to an authorized participant.
According to the Registration Statement, on any business day, an authorized participant may place an order to create one or more Creation Baskets. Purchase orders for cash creations must be placed by 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time (or such other time as disclosed in the Prospectus), or the close of regular trading on the Exchange, whichever is earlier. Purchase orders for in-kind creations must be placed by 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (or such other time as disclosed in the Prospectus), or the close of regular trading on the Exchange, whichever is earlier. The day on which an order is properly received is considered the purchase order date.
For a cash creation order, the total deposit of cash required is an amount of cash sufficient to purchase such amount of bitcoin, the amount of which is equal to the combined NAV of the number of Shares included in the Creation Baskets being created determined as of 4:00 p.m. ET on the date the order to purchase is properly received.
For a creation order in kind, the total in-kind transfer of bitcoin is based on the quantity of bitcoin attributable to the Creation Baskets applicable to the date the order to purchase is properly received. The Administrator determines the quantity of bitcoin used to calculate the Creation Basket for a given day by dividing the number of bitcoin held by the Trust, adjusted for the amount of bitcoin constituting estimated accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the Trust as of the opening of business on that business day, by the quotient of the number of Shares outstanding at the opening of business divided by the number of Shares in a Creation Basket.
The procedures by which an authorized participant can redeem one or more Creation Baskets mirror the procedures for the creation of Creation Baskets. For a cash redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Trust and will receive cash for the Shares delivered. For an in-kind redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Trust and the authorized participant will receive bitcoin for the Shares delivered.
Except for the above changes, all other representations in the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 2 remain unchanged and will continue to constitute continuing listing requirements. In addition, the Bitcoin Trust will continue to comply with the terms of Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 2 and the Trust will continue to comply with the requirements of Rule 14.11(e)(4).
Similarly, the Exchange proposes to amend several portions of the ETH ETP Amendment No. 1 in order to permit in-kind creations and redemptions.
The ETH ETP Amendment No. 1 included a specific representation making clear that the ETH Trust would only process creations and redemptions in cash. Specifically, the “Invesco Galaxy Ethereum Trust” section of the ETH ETP Amendment No. 1 stated:
When the Trust sells or redeems its Shares, it will do so in cash transactions in blocks of 5,000 Shares (a “Creation Basket”) at the Trust's net asset value (“NAV”). Authorized participants will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, cash to the Trust's account with the Cash Custodian in exchange for Shares when they purchase Shares, and the Trust, through the Cash Custodian, will deliver cash to such authorized participants when they redeem Shares with the Trust.
The Exchange proposes to replace this language with the following:
When the Trust creates or redeems its Shares in cash transactions, it will do so in blocks of 5,000 Shares (a “Creation Basket”). For cash creations or redemptions, Authorized participants will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, cash to the Trust's account with the Cash Custodian in exchange for Shares when they create Shares, and the Trust, through the Cash Custodian, will deliver cash to such authorized participants when they redeem Shares with the Trust. When the Trust creates or redeems its Shares in-kind, it will do so in Creation Units in exchange for ether. Authorized participants will deliver, or facilitate delivery of, ether to the Trust's account with the Custodian, in exchange for Shares when they create Shares, and the Trust, through the Custodian, will deliver ether to such authorized participants when they redeem Shares with the Trust. Authorized participants may then offer Shares to the public at prices that depend on various factors, including the supply and demand for Shares, the value of the Trust's assets, and market conditions at the time of a transaction. Shareholders who buy or sell Shares during the day from their broker may do so at a premium or discount relative to the NAV of the Shares of the Trust.
Additionally, the “Investment Objective” section of the ETH ETP Amendment No. 1 stated: “The Trust will process all creations and redemptions in cash transactions with authorized participants.”
Additionally, the “Creation and Redemption of Shares” section of the filing includes a detailed description of how the cash-only creation and redemption process works.
When the Trust creates or redeems its Shares, it will do so in cash or in-kind. When the Trust creates or redeems its Shares in cash, it will do so in transactions based on the quantity of ETH attributable to each
The authorized participants will deliver or cause to be delivered cash or ether to create Shares and the authorized participant or its designee will receive cash or ether when redeeming Shares. The Trust will create Shares by receiving ether or cash from an authorized participant or its designee and will redeem Shares by delivering ether or cash to an authorized participant or its designee.
According to the Registration Statement, on any business day, an authorized participant may place an order to create one or more Creation Baskets. Purchase orders for cash creations must be placed by 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time (or such other time as disclosed in the Prospectus), or the close of regular trading on the Exchange, whichever is earlier. Purchase orders for in-kind creations must be placed by 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (or such other time as disclosed in the Prospectus), or the close of regular trading on the Exchange, whichever is earlier. The day on which an order is received is considered the purchase order date.
For a cash creation order, the total deposit of cash required is based on the combined NAV of the number of Shares included in the Creation Baskets being created determined as of 4:00 ET on the date the order to purchase is properly received.
For a creation order in-kind, the total in-kind transfer of ETH is equal to the combined NAV of the number of Shares included in the Creation Baskets applicable to 4:00 p.m. ET on the date the order to purchase is properly received. The Administrator determines the quantity of ETH associated with a Creation Basket for a given day by dividing the number of ETH held by the Trust, adjusted for the amount of ETH constituting estimated accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the Trust as of the opening of business on that business day, by the quotient of the number of Shares outstanding at the opening of business divided by the number of Shares in a Creation Basket.
The procedures by which an authorized participant can redeem one or more Creation Baskets mirror the procedures for the creation of Creation Baskets. For a cash redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Trust and will receive cash for the Shares delivered. For an in-kind redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Trust and will receive ether for the Shares delivered.
Except for the above changes, all other representations in the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 2 and ETH ETP Amendment No. 1 remain unchanged and will continue to constitute continuing listing requirements. In addition, the Bitcoin Trust will continue to comply with the terms of Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 2 and the ETH Trust will continue to comply with the terms of ETH ETP Amendment No. 1 and the Trusts will continue to comply with the requirements of Rule 14.11(e)(4).
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest because it would update representations in both the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 2 and the ETH ETP Amendment No. 1 such that the Trusts would both be able to engage in in-kind transactions with authorized participants, as described above. This ability would make the Trusts (and the market more generally) operate more efficiently because authorized participants would be able to source bitcoin or ether, as applicable, rather than to provide cash to the applicable Trust and/or to receive bitcoin or ether directly from the Trusts. This means that the authorized participant would be responsible for buying and selling the applicable crypto asset rather than the Trust itself, which would potentially lessen the impact on the market of the Trusts on both sides of the transaction by allowing the authorized participant to decide how and where to source the underlying crypto asset for creations and deciding how, where, and whether to sell the underlying crypto asset for redemptions. This would improve the creation and redemption process for both authorized participants and the Trusts, increase efficiency, and ultimately benefit the end investors in the Trusts.
Except for the addition of in-kind creation and redemption for the Bitcoin Trust, all other representations made in the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 2 remain unchanged and will continue to constitute continuing listing requirements for the Bitcoin Trust. Similarly, except for the addition of in-kind creation and redemption for the ETH Trust, all other representations made in the ETH ETP Amendment No. 1 remain unchanged and will continue to constitute continuing listing requirements for the ETH Trust.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As noted above, the proposed amendment is intended to allow the Trusts to operate more efficiently by allowing for in-kind creation and redemption. The Exchange believes these changes will not impose any burden on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, 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 application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (“BDCs”) and closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment entities.
Audax Credit BDC Inc., Audax Private Credit Fund, LLC, Audax Management Company (NY), LLC, Audax PDB Management Company, LLC, and certain of their affiliated entities as described in Appendix A to the application.
The application was filed on July 24, 2024, and amended on December 17, 2024, May 13, 2025, and July 15, 2025.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
Adam Large, Senior Special Counsel, Laura Solomon, Senior Counsel, or Daniele Marchesani, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' third amended application, dated July 15, 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 (“Exchange Act”)
As described in more detail in the Amendment No. 1,
Second, the Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 8.500-E to specify that the Exchange may list and trade Trust Units with investments that are represented by an index or portfolio.
Third, the Exchange proposes certain conforming changes to the rule, consistent with the proposed changes described above.
Fourth, the Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rules 5.3-E (Corporate Governance and Disclosure Policies) and 5.3-E(e) (Shareholder Annual Meetings) to include Trust Units listed pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 8.500-E among the derivative and special purpose securities to which a limited set of corporate governance and disclosure policies would apply and to which the requirements concerning shareholder/annual meetings would not be required.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade Shares of the Trust under amended NYSE Arca Rule 8.500-E, as described above. The investment objective of the Trust is to invest in a portfolio of digital assets (each, a “Portfolio Asset” and, collectively, “Portfolio Assets”) that tracks the Bitwise 10 Large Cap Crypto Index (“Index”).
To determine the Trust's net asset value (“NAV”), the Sponsor will rely on CF Benchmarks Ltd. (the “Valuation Vendor”) to calculate and publish the U.S. dollar price for each Portfolio Asset (each, a “Reference Price” and, collectively, “Reference Prices”) as of 4:00 p.m. E.T.,
After careful review, the Commission finds that the Proposal is consistent with the Exchange Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission finds that the proposed changes to NYSE Arca Rule 8.500-E are consistent with the Exchange Act. The proposed change to the definition of Trust Units as described above simply specifies that an entity structured as a limited liability company can issue Trust Units. Moreover, by amending the rule so that Trust Units may be commodity pools “if applicable,” the Proposal no longer requires Trust Units to be commodity pools.
The Commission finds that it is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act
The Commission finds that the listing and trading of the Trust is consistent with the Exchange Act. The structure of the Trust, the terms of its operation and the trading of its Shares, and the representations in the Proposal are substantially similar to those of other proposals approved in prior Commission orders. On an initial basis, and on a continuing basis reflecting subsequent ETP approvals, at least 85% of the Trust's holdings will consist of commodities that the Commission has approved to underlie an ETP as primary investments, with no more than 15% of the Trust's investments in other assets, which could include other types of commodities as well as securities.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, the Commission must approve a proposed rule change filed by a national securities exchange if it finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the applicable requirements of the Exchange Act.
The Proposal sets forth aspects of the Trust, including the availability of pricing information, transparency of portfolio holdings, and types of surveillance procedures, that are consistent with other ETPs that the Commission has approved.
The Commission therefore finds that the Proposal, as with other ETPs that the Commission has approved,
The Commission finds good cause to approve the Proposal prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of Amendment No. 1
This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's representations and descriptions in the Proposal, which the Commission has evaluated as discussed above.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 2, 2025, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchang Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
On May 22, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) a proposed rule change to amend the rule governing the Franklin Bitcoin ETF (the “Bitcoin Fund”), the Franklin Ethereum ETF (the “Eth Fund”), and the Franklin Crypto Index ETF (the “Crypto Index Fund” and, collectively with the Bitcoin Fund and the Eth Fund, the “Funds”),
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
This Amendment No. 1 to SR-CboeBZX-2025-050 amends and replaces in its entirety the proposal as originally submitted on April 2, 2025. The Exchange submits this Amendment No. 1 in order to clarify certain points and add additional details to the proposal.
The Commission approved the listing and trading of shares (the “Bitcoin ETP Shares”) of the Bitcoin Fund on the Exchange pursuant to Exchange Rule 14.11(e)(4), Commodity-Based Trust Shares, on January 10, 2024.
The Exchange proposes to amend several portions of the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 1, as amended, in order to permit in-kind creation and redemptions.
The Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 1 included specific representations making clear that the Bitcoin Fund would only process creations and redemptions in cash. Specifically, the “Franklin Templeton Digital Holdings Trust” section of Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 1 stated:
When the Fund sells or redeems its Shares, it will do so in cash transactions in large blocks of 50,000 Shares (a “Creation Basket”) at the Fund's NAV. In such cases, a third party that is unaffiliated with the Fund and the Sponsor will use cash to buy and deliver bitcoin to create Shares or withdraw and sell bitcoin for cash to redeem Shares, on behalf of the Fund. Authorized participants will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, cash to the Fund's account with the Cash Custodian in exchange for Shares when they purchase Shares, and the Fund, through the Cash Custodian, will deliver cash to such authorized participants when they redeem Shares. Authorized participants may then offer Shares to the public at prices that depend on various factors, including the supply and demand for Shares, the value of the Fund's assets, and market conditions at the time of a transaction. Shareholders who buy or sell Shares during the day from their broker may do so at a premium or discount relative to the NAV of the Shares of the Fund.
The Exchange proposes to replace the above paragraph as follows:
When the Fund sells or redeems its Shares, it will do so in large blocks of 50,000 Shares (a “Creation Basket”) based on the quantity of bitcoin attributable to each Share (net of the accrued but unpaid Sponsor's fee and any accrued but unpaid expenses or liabilities). Creation Baskets are issued and redeemed in exchange for bitcoin or cash. For cash creations, authorized participants will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, cash to the Fund's account with the Cash Custodian in exchange for Shares. Upon receipt of an approved cash creation order, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Fund, will submit to one or more previously onboarded trading partners an order to buy the amount of bitcoin represented by a Creation Basket.
Additionally, the “Creation and Redemption of Shares” section of the filing, as amended, includes a detailed description of how the cash-only creation and redemption process works.
When the Fund sells or redeems its Shares, it will do so in Creation Baskets that are based on the quantity of bitcoin attributable to each Share (net of the accrued but unpaid Sponsor's fee and any accrued but unpaid expenses or liabilities). Creation Baskets are issued and redeemed in exchange for bitcoin or cash. According to the Registration Statement, on any business day, an authorized participant may place an order to create one or more Creation Baskets. Purchase orders for cash transaction Creation Baskets must be placed by 2:00 p.m. ET (or such other time as disclosed in the Prospectus), or the close of regular trading on the Exchange, whichever is earlier. Purchase orders for in-kind transaction Creation Baskets must be placed by 4:00 p.m. ET (or such other time as disclosed in the Prospectus), or the close of regular trading on the Exchange, whichever is earlier. The day on which an order is properly received is considered the purchase order date.
For cash creations, authorized participants will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, cash to the Fund's account with the Cash Custodian in exchange for Shares. Upon receipt of an approved cash creation order, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Fund, will submit to one or more previously onboarded trading partners an order to buy the amount of bitcoin represented by a Creation Basket. For in-kind creations, authorized participants or their designee will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, bitcoin to the Fund's account with the bitcoin Custodian in exchange for Shares.
For a cash creation order, the total deposit of cash required is based on the combined NAV of the number of Shares included in the Creation Baskets being created determined as of 4:00 p.m. ET on the date the purchase order is properly received, in an amount sufficient to purchase the requisite amount of bitcoin (as described below). With respect to a cash purchase order, as between the Fund and the Authorized Participant, the Authorized Participant is responsible for the dollar cost of the difference between the bitcoin price utilized in calculating NAV on trade date and the price at which the Fund acquires the bitcoin to the extent the price realized in buying the bitcoin is higher than the bitcoin price utilized in the NAV. To the extent the price realized in buying the bitcoin is lower than the price utilized in the NAV, the Authorized Participant shall keep the dollar impact of any such difference.
For a creation order in-kind, the total in-kind transfer of bitcoin is based on the quantity of bitcoin attributable to the Creation Basket applicable to the date the purchase order is properly received.
After the close of business each day, the Administrator determines the quantity of bitcoin associated with a Creation Basket for the next business day by dividing the number of bitcoin held by the Fund, adjusted for the amount of bitcoin constituting estimated accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the Fund, by the quotient of the number of Shares outstanding divided by the number of Shares in a Creation Basket.
The procedures by which an authorized participant can redeem one or more Creation Baskets mirror the procedures for the creation of Creation Baskets. For a cash redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Fund and will receive cash for the Shares delivered. With respect to a cash redemption order, between the Fund and the Authorized Participant, the Authorized Participant will be responsible for the dollar cost of the difference between the bitcoin price utilized in calculating the NAV on trade date and the price realized in selling the bitcoin to raise the cash needed for the cash redemption order to the extent the price realized in selling the bitcoin is lower than the bitcoin price utilized in the NAV. To the extent the price realized from selling the bitcoin is higher than the price utilized in the NAV, the Authorized Participant shall get to keep the dollar impact of any such difference.
For an in-kind redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Fund and the authorized participant or its designee will receive bitcoin for the Shares delivered.
The Sponsor (including its delegates) will maintain ownership and control of the Fund's bitcoin in a manner consistent with good delivery requirements for spot commodity transactions.
Similarly, the Exchange proposes to amend several portions of the ETH ETP Amendment No. 1 in order to permit in-kind creations and redemptions.
The ETH ETP Amendment No. 1 included specific representations making clear that the Eth Fund would only process creations and redemptions in cash. Specifically, the “Franklin Ethereum ETF” section of the ETH ETP Amendment No. 1 stated:
When the Fund sells or redeems its Shares, it will do so in cash transactions in large blocks of 50,000 Shares (a “Creation Basket”) at the Fund's net asset value (“NAV”). For creations, authorized participants will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, cash to the Fund's account with the Cash Custodian in exchange for Shares. Upon receipt of an approved creation order, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Fund, will submit an order to buy the amount of ether represented by a Creation Basket. Based off ether executions, the Cash Custodian will request the required cash from the authorized participant. Following receipt by the Cash Custodian of the cash from an authorized participant, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Fund, will approve an order with one or more previously onboarded trading partners to purchase the amount of ether represented by the Creation Basket.
The Exchange proposes to replace the above with the following:
When the Fund sells or redeems its Shares, it will do so in large blocks of 50,000 Shares (a “Creation Basket”) based on the quantity of ETH attributable to each Share (net of the accrued but unpaid Sponsor's fee and any accrued but unpaid expenses or liabilities). Creation Baskets are issued and redeemed in exchange for ETH or cash. For cash creations, authorized participants will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, cash to the Fund's account with the Cash Custodian in exchange for Shares. Upon receipt of an approved cash creation order, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Fund, will submit to one or more previously onboarded trading partners an order to buy the amount of ETH represented by a Creation Basket.
Additionally, the “Creation and Redemption of Shares” section of the filing includes a detailed description of how the cash-only creation and redemption process works.
When the Fund sells or redeems its Shares, it will do so in Creation Baskets that are based on the quantity of ETH attributable to each Share (net of the accrued but unpaid Sponsor's fee and any accrued but unpaid expenses or liabilities). Creation Baskets are issued and redeemed in exchange for ETH or cash. According to the Registration Statement, on any business day, an authorized participant may place an order to create one or more Creation Baskets. Purchase orders for cash transaction Creation Baskets must be placed by 2:00 p.m. ET (or such other time as disclosed in the Prospectus), or the close of regular trading on the Exchange, whichever is earlier. Purchase orders for in-kind transaction Creation Baskets must be placed by 4:00 p.m. ET (or such other time as disclosed in the Prospectus), or the close of regular trading on the Exchange, whichever is earlier. The day on which an order is properly received is considered the purchase order date.
For cash creations, authorized participants will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, cash to the Fund's account with the Cash Custodian in exchange for Shares. Upon receipt of an approved cash creation order, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Fund, will submit to one or more previously onboarded trading partners an order to buy the amount of ETH represented by a Creation Basket. For in-kind creations, authorized participants or their designee will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, ETH to the Fund's account with the Custodian in exchange for Shares.
For a cash creation order, the total deposit of cash required is based on the combined NAV of the number of Shares included in the Creation Baskets being created determined as of 4:00 p.m. ET on the date the purchase order is properly received, in an amount sufficient to purchase the requisite amount of ETH (as described below). With respect to a cash purchase order, as between the Fund and the Authorized Participant, the Authorized Participant is responsible for the dollar cost of the difference between the ETH price utilized in calculating NAV on trade date and the price at which the Fund acquires the ETH to the extent the price realized in buying the ETH is higher than the ETH price utilized in the NAV. To the extent the price realized in buying the ETH is lower than the price utilized in the NAV, the Authorized Participant shall keep the dollar impact of any such difference.
For a creation order in-kind, the total in-kind transfer of ETH is based on the quantity of bitcoin attributable to the Creation Basket applicable to the date the purchase order is properly received.
After the close of business each day, the Administrator determines the quantity of ETH associated with a Creation Basket for the next business day by dividing the number of ETH held by the Fund, adjusted for the amount of ETH constituting estimated accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the Fund, by the quotient of the number of Shares outstanding divided by the number of Shares in a Creation Basket.
The procedures by which an authorized participant can redeem one or more Creation Baskets mirror the procedures for the creation of Creation Baskets. For a cash redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Fund and will receive cash for the Shares delivered. With respect to a cash redemption order, between the Fund and the Authorized Participant, the Authorized Participant will be responsible for the dollar cost of the difference between the ETH price utilized in calculating the NAV on trade date and the price realized in selling the ETH to raise the cash needed for the cash redemption order to the extent the price realized in selling the ETH is lower than the ETH price utilized in the NAV. To the extent the price realized from selling the ETH is higher than the price utilized in the NAV, the Authorized Participant shall get to keep the dollar impact of any such difference.
For an in-kind redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Fund and the authorized participant or its designee will receive ETH for the Shares delivered.
The Sponsor (including its delegates) will maintain ownership and control of the Fund's ETH in a manner consistent with good delivery requirements for spot commodity transactions.
The Exchange proposes to amend several portions of the Crypto Index ETP Amendment No. 1 in order to permit in-kind creations and redemptions.
The Crypto Index ETP Amendment No. 1 included specific representations making clear that the Crypto Index Fund would only process creations and redemptions in cash. Specifically, the “Franklin Crypto Index ETF” section of the Crypto Index ETP Amendment No. 1 stated:
When the Fund sells or redeems its Shares, it will do so in cash transactions in large blocks of 50,000 Shares (a “Creation Basket”) at the Fund's NAV. For creations, authorized participants will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, cash to the Fund's account with the Cash Custodian in exchange for Shares. Upon receipt of an approved creation order, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Fund, will submit to one or more previously onboarded trading partners an order to buy the amount of bitcoin and ether represented by a Creation Basket.
The Exchange proposes to replace the above with the following:
When the Fund sells or redeems its Shares, it will do so in large blocks of 50,000 Shares (a “Creation Basket”) based on the quantity of bitcoin and ether attributable to each Share (net of the accrued but unpaid Sponsor's fee and any accrued but unpaid expenses or liabilities). Creation Baskets are issued and redeemed in exchange for (i) bitcoin and ether or (ii) cash. For cash creations, authorized participants will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, cash to the Fund's account with the Cash Custodian in exchange for Shares. Upon receipt of an approved cash creation order, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Fund, will submit to one or more previously onboarded trading partners an order to buy the amount of bitcoin and ether represented by a Creation Basket.
Additionally, the “Creation and Redemption of Shares” section of the filing includes a detailed description of how the cash-only creation and redemption process works.
When the Fund sells or redeems its Shares, it will do so in Creation Baskets that are based on the quantity of bitcoin and ether attributable to each Share (net of the accrued but unpaid Sponsor's fee and any accrued but unpaid expenses or liabilities). Creation Baskets are issued and redeemed in exchange for (i) bitcoin and ether or (ii) cash. According to the Registration Statement, on any business day, an authorized participant may place an order to create one or more Creation Baskets. Purchase orders for cash transaction Creation Baskets must be placed by 2:00 p.m. ET (or such other time as disclosed in the Prospectus), or the close of regular trading on the Exchange, whichever is earlier. Purchase orders for in-kind transaction Creation Baskets must be placed by 4:00 p.m. ET (or such other time as disclosed in the Prospectus), or the close of regular trading on the Exchange, whichever is earlier. The day on which an order is properly received is considered the purchase order date.
For cash creations, authorized participants will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, cash to the Fund's account with the Cash Custodian in exchange for Shares. Upon receipt of an approved cash creation order, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Fund, will submit to one or more previously onboarded trading partners an order to buy the amount of bitcoin and ether represented by a Creation Basket.
For in-kind creations, authorized participants or their designee will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, bitcoin and ether to the Fund's account with the Custodian in exchange for Shares.
For a cash creation order, the total deposit of cash required is based on the combined NAV of the number of Shares included in the Creation Baskets being created determined as of 4:00 p.m. ET on the date the purchase order is properly received, in an amount sufficient to purchase the requisite amount of bitcoin and ether (as described below). With respect to a cash purchase order, as between the Fund and the Authorized Participant, the Authorized Participant is responsible for the dollar cost of the difference between the bitcoin and ether price utilized in calculating NAV on trade date and the price at which the Fund acquires the bitcoin and ether to the extent the price realized in buying the bitcoin and ether is higher than the bitcoin and ether price utilized in the NAV. To the extent the price realized in buying the bitcoin and ether is lower than the price utilized in the NAV, the Authorized Participant shall keep the dollar impact of any such difference.
For a creation order in-kind, the total in-kind transfer of bitcoin and ether is based on the quantity of bitcoin and ether attributable to the Creation Basket applicable to the date the purchase order is properly received.
After the close of business each day, the Administrator determines the quantity of bitcoin and ether associated with a Creation Basket for the next business day by dividing the number of bitcoin and ether held by the Fund, adjusted for the amount of bitcoin and ether constituting estimated accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the Fund, by the quotient of the number of Shares outstanding divided by the number of Shares in a Creation Basket.
The procedures by which an authorized participant can redeem one or more Creation Baskets mirror the procedures for the creation of Creation Baskets. For a cash redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Fund and will receive cash for the Shares delivered. With respect to a cash redemption order, between the Fund and the Authorized Participant, the Authorized Participant will be responsible for the dollar cost of the difference between the bitcoin and ether price utilized in calculating the NAV on trade date and the price realized in selling the bitcoin and ether to raise the cash needed for the cash redemption order to the extent the price realized in selling the bitcoin and ether is lower than the bitcoin and ether price utilized in the NAV. To the extent the price realized from selling the bitcoin and ether is higher than the price utilized in the NAV, the Authorized Participant shall get to keep the dollar impact of any such difference.
For an in-kind redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Fund and the authorized participant or its designee will receive bitcoin and ether for the Shares delivered.
The Sponsor (including its delegates) will maintain ownership and control of the Fund's bitcoin and ether in a manner consistent with good delivery requirements for spot commodity transactions.
Except for the above changes, all other representations in the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 1, as amended, the ETH ETP Amendment No. 1, and the Crypto Index ETP Amendment No. 1 remain unchanged and will continue to constitute continuing listing requirements. In addition, the Bitcoin Fund will continue to comply with the terms of Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 1, as amended, the Eth Fund will continue to comply with the terms of ETH ETP Amendment No. 1, and the Crypto Index Fund will continue to comply with the terms of the Crypto Index ETP Amendment No.1 and the Funds will continue to comply with the requirements of Rule 14.11(e)(4).
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest because it would update representations in the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 1, as amended, the ETH ETP Amendment No. 1, and the Crypto Index ETP Amendment No. 1 such that the Funds would be able to engage in in-kind creation and redemptions with authorized participants or their designees, as described above. This ability would make the Funds (and the market more generally) operate more efficiently because authorized participants would be able to source bitcoin and/or ether, as applicable, rather than to provide cash to the applicable Fund and to receive bitcoin and/or ether from the Funds. This means that the authorized participant would be responsible for buying and selling the applicable crypto asset(s) rather than the Fund itself, which would potentially lessen the impact on the market of the Funds on both sides of the transaction by allowing the authorized participant to decide how and where to source the underlying crypto asset for creations and deciding how, where, and whether to sell the underlying crypto asset received for redemptions. This would improve the creation and redemption process for both authorized participants and the Funds, increase efficiency, and ultimately benefit the end investors in the Funds.
Except for the addition of in-kind creation and redemption for the Bitcoin Fund as specifically set forth herein, all other representations made in the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 1, as amended, remain unchanged, and will continue to constitute continuing listing requirements for the Bitcoin Fund. Except for the addition of in-kind creation and redemption for the Eth Fund as specifically set forth herein, all other representations made in the ETH ETP Amendment No. 1 remain unchanged and will continue to constitute continuing listing requirements for the Eth Fund. Similarly, except for the addition of in-kind creation and redemption for the Crypto Index Fund as specifically set forth herein, all other representations
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As noted above, the proposed amendment is intended to allow the Funds to operate more efficiently by allowing for in-kind creation and redemption. The Exchange believes these changes will not impose any burden on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 10, 2025, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change, the issues raised therein, and the comments received. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 19, 2025, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
On April 14, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) a proposed rule change to amend the rule governing the VanEck Bitcoin ETF (the “Bitcoin Trust”) and the VanEck Ethereum ETF (the “ETH Trust” and, collectively with the Bitcoin Trust, the “Trusts”), shares of which have been approved by the Commission to list and trade on the Exchange pursuant to BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4), to permit in-kind creations and redemptions.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
This Amendment No. 1 to SR-CboeBZX-2025-010 amends and replaces in its entirety the proposal as originally submitted on February 19, 2025. The Exchange submits this Amendment No. 1 in order to clarify certain points and add additional details to the proposal.
The Commission approved the listing and trading of shares (the “Bitcoin ETP Shares”) of the Bitcoin Trust
The Exchange proposes to amend the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 2, as amended by the Subsequent Bitcoin ETP Amendment, in order to permit in-kind creation and redemptions as follows.
When the Bitcoin Trust creates or redeems its Shares, it will do so in cash or in-kind. In connection with cash creations and cash redemptions, the authorized participants will submit orders to create or redeem Baskets of Shares in exchange for cash. When the Bitcoin Trust creates or redeems its Shares in cash or in-kind, it will do so in transactions in blocks of 25,000 Shares (“Creation Basket”) that are based on the quantity of bitcoin attributable to each Share of the Bitcoin Trust (
The authorized participants will deliver or cause to be delivered cash or bitcoin to create Shares and the authorized participant or its designee will receive cash or bitcoin when redeeming Shares. The Bitcoin Trust will create Shares by receiving bitcoin or cash from an authorized participant or its designee and will redeem shares by delivering bitcoin or cash to an authorized participant or its designee.
According to the Registration Statement, on any business day, an authorized participant may place an order to create one or more Creation Baskets. Purchase orders must be placed by the close of 4:00 p.m. or the close of regular trading on the Exchange, whichever is earlier. The day on which an order is properly received is considered the purchase order date.
For a cash creation order, the total deposit of cash required is an amount of cash sufficient to purchase amount of bitcoin determined as of 4:00 p.m. ET on the date the order to purchase is properly received.
For a creation order in kind, the total in-kind transfer of bitcoin is based on the quantity of bitcoin attributable to the
The procedures by which an authorized participant can redeem one or more Creation Baskets mirror the procedures for the creation of Creation Baskets. For a cash redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Bitcoin Trust and will receive cash for the Shares delivered. For an in-kind redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Bitcoin Trust and the authorized participant or its designee will receive bitcoin for the Shares delivered.
Similarly, the Exchange proposes to amend the ETH ETP Amendment No. 2 in order to permit in-kind creations and redemptions as follows.
When the ETH Trust creates or redeems its Shares, it will do so in cash or in-kind. In connection with cash creations and cash redemptions, the authorized participants will submit orders to create or redeem Baskets of Shares in exchange for cash. When the ETH Trust creates or redeems its Shares in cash, it will do so in transactions in blocks of 25,000 Shares (“Creation Basket”) that are based on the quantity of ether attributable to each Share of the ETH Trust (
The authorized participants will deliver or cause to be delivered cash or ether to create Shares and the authorized participant or its designee will receive cash or ether when redeeming Shares. The ETH Trust will create Shares by receiving ether or cash from an authorized participant or its designee and will redeem Shares by delivering ether or cash to an authorized participant or its designee.
According to the Registration Statement, on any business day, an authorized participant may place an order to create one or more Creation Baskets. Purchase orders must be placed by the close of 4:00 p.m. or the close of regular trading on the Exchange, whichever is earlier. The day on which an order is properly received is considered the purchase order date.
For a cash creation order, the total deposit of cash required is based on the combined NAV of the number of Shares included in the Creation Baskets being created determined as of 4:00 ET on the date the order to purchase is properly received.
For a creation order in-kind, the total in-kind transfer of ETH is based on the quantity of ETH attributable to the Creation Basket applicable to the date the order to purchase is properly received The Administrator determines the quantity of ETH used to calculate the a Creation Basket for a given day by dividing the number of ETH held by the ETH Trust, adjusted for the amount of ETH constituting estimated accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the ETH Trust as of the opening of business on that business day, by the quotient of the number of Shares outstanding at the opening of business divided by the number of Shares in a Creation Basket.
The procedures by which an authorized participant can redeem one or more Creation Baskets mirror the procedures for the creation of Creation Baskets. For a cash redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the ETH Trust and will receive cash for the Shares delivered. For an in-kind redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the ETH Trust and the authorized participant or its designee will receive ether for the Shares delivered.
Except for the above changes, all other representations in the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 2, as amended, and the ETH ETP Amendment No. 2 remain unchanged and will continue to constitute continuing listing requirements. In addition, the Bitcoin Trust will continue to comply with the terms of Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 2, as amended, and the ETH Trust will continue to comply with the terms of ETH ETP Amendment No. 2 and the Trusts will continue to comply with the requirements of Rule 14.11(e)(4).
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest because it would update representations in both the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 2, as amended, and the ETH ETP Amendment No. 2 such that the Trusts would both be able to engage in in-kind creation and redemptions with authorized participants or their designees, as described above. This ability would make the Trusts (and the market more generally) operate more efficiently because authorized participants would be able to source bitcoin or ether, as applicable, rather than to provide cash to the applicable Trust and to receive bitcoin or ether from the Trusts. This means that the authorized participant would be responsible for buying and selling the applicable crypto asset rather than the Trust itself, which would potentially lessen the impact on the market of the Trusts on both sides of the transaction by allowing the authorized participant to decide how and where to source the underlying crypto asset for creations and deciding how, where, and whether to sell the underlying crypto asset received for redemptions. This would improve the creation and redemption process for both authorized participants and the Trusts, increase efficiency, and ultimately benefit the end investors in the Trusts.
Except for the addition of in-kind creation and redemption for the Bitcoin Trust as specifically set forth herein, all other representations made in the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 2, as amended, remain unchanged and will continue to constitute continuing listing requirements for the Bitcoin Trust. Similarly, except for the addition of in-kind creation and redemption for the ETH Trust as specifically set forth herein, all other representations made in the ETH ETP Amendment No. 2 remain unchanged and will continue to constitute continuing listing requirements for the ETH Trust.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As noted above, the proposed amendment is intended to allow the Trusts to operate more efficiently by allowing for in-kind creation and redemption. The Exchange believes these changes will not impose any burden on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 20, 2025, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
On April 14, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) a proposed rule change to amend the rule governing the WisdomTree Bitcoin Fund (the “Trust”), shares of which have been approved by the Commission to list and trade on the Exchange pursuant to BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4), to permit in-kind creations and redemptions.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
This Amendment No. 1 to SR-CboeBZX-2025-033 amends and replaces in its entirety the proposal as originally submitted on February 20, 2025. The Exchange submits this Amendment No. 1 in order to clarify certain points and add additional details to the proposal.
The Commission approved the listing and trading of shares (the “Bitcoin ETP Shares”) of the Bitcoin Trust on the Exchange pursuant to Exchange Rule 14.11(e)(4), Commodity-Based Trust Shares, on January 10, 2024.
The Exchange proposes to amend several portions of the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 2 in order to permit in-kind creation and redemptions, including permitting in-kind creations and redemptions by an affiliate of the sponsor of the Trust.
The Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 2 included specific representations making clear that the Bitcoin Trust would only process creations and redemptions in cash. Specifically, the “WisdomTree Bitcoin Fund” section of the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 2 states:
When the Trust sells or redeems its Shares, it will do so in cash transactions in blocks of 5,000 Shares (a “Creation Basket”) at the Trust's net asset value (“NAV”). A third party will use cash to buy and deliver bitcoin to create Shares or withdraw and sell bitcoin for cash to redeem Shares, on behalf of the Trust. Authorized participants will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, cash to the Trust's account with the Cash Custodian in exchange for Shares when they purchase Shares, and the Trust, through the Cash Custodian, will deliver cash to such authorized participants when they redeem Shares with the Trust. Authorized participants may then offer Shares to the public at prices that depend on various factors, including the supply and demand for Shares, the value of the Trust's assets, and market conditions at the time of a transaction. Shareholders who buy or sell Shares during the day from their broker may do so at a premium or discount relative to the NAV of the Shares of the Trust.
The Exchange proposes to replace the above with the following:
When the Trust creates or redeems its Shares, it will do so in cash transactions or in-kind transactions in blocks of 5,000 Shares (a “Creation Basket”) at the Trust's net asset value (“NAV”). For cash creations and redemptions authorized participants will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, cash to the Trust's account with the Cash Custodian, in exchange for Shares when they create Shares, and the Trust, through the Cash Custodian, will deliver cash to such authorized participants when they redeem Shares with the Trust. For in-kind creation and redemptions authorized participants will deliver, or facilitate delivery of, bitcoin to the Trust's account with the Custodian, in exchange for Shares when they create Shares, and the Trust, through the Custodian, will deliver bitcoin to such authorized participants when they redeem Shares with the Trust. An affiliate of the sponsor of the Trust may serve as an authorized participant of the Trust. Authorized participants may then offer Shares to the public at prices that depend on various factors, including the supply and demand for Shares, the value of the Trust's assets, and market conditions at the time of a transaction.
The “Investment Objective” section of the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 2 stated: “The Trust will process all creations and redemptions in cash transactions with authorized participants.”
Additionally, the “Creation and Redemption of Shares” section of the filing includes a detailed description of how the cash-only creation and redemption process works.
When the Trust creates or redeems its Shares, it will do so in cash or in-kind. In connection with cash creations and cash redemptions, the authorized participants will submit orders to create or redeem Baskets of Shares in exchange for cash. When the Trust creates or redeems its Shares in cash, it will do so in transactions in blocks of 5,000 Shares that are based on the quantity of bitcoin attributable to each Share of the Trust (
The authorized participants will deliver or cause to be delivered cash or bitcoin to create Shares and the authorized participant or its designee will receive cash or bitcoin when redeeming Shares. The Trust will create Shares by receiving bitcoin or cash from an authorized participant or its designee and will redeem shares by delivering bitcoin or cash to an authorized participant or its designee.
According to the Registration Statement, on any business day, an authorized participant may place an order with the Transfer Agent to create one or more Creation Baskets. Purchase orders for creations must be placed by 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (or such earlier order cut-off time as disclosed in the Prospectus), or the close of Regular Trading Hours on the Exchange, whichever is earlier, or such earlier time as disseminated by the Trust the prior day for the following day's transactions (
For a cash creation order, the total deposit of cash required to create each Creation Basket includes the cash equivalent of an amount of bitcoin that is in the same proportion to the total assets of the Trust (net of accrued but unpaid Sponsor fees and any accrued but unpaid extraordinary expenses and liabilities), the amount of which is equal to the NAV per share multiplied by the number of Shares in a creation Basket (5,000). The value of a purchase date order is determined at NAV which is calculated based on 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time bitcoin prices.
For a creation order in kind, the total in-kind transfer of bitcoin is based on the quantity of bitcoin attributable to the Creation Baskets applicable to the date the order to purchase is properly received. The Administrator determines the quantity of bitcoin used to calculate the Creation Basket for a given day by dividing the number of bitcoin held by the Trust, adjusted for the amount of bitcoin constituting estimated accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the Trust as of the opening of business on that business day, by the quotient of the number of Shares outstanding at the opening of business divided by the number of Shares in a Creation Basket.
The procedures by which an authorized participant can redeem one or more Creation Baskets mirror the procedures for the creation of Creation Baskets. For a cash redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Trust and will receive cash for the Shares delivered. For an in-kind redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Trust and the authorized participant or its designee will receive bitcoin for the Shares delivered. An affiliate of the sponsor of the Trust may serve as an authorized participant of the Trust.
Except for the above changes, all other representations in the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 2 remain unchanged and will continue to constitute
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest because it would update representations in the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 2 such that the Trust would be able to engage in in-kind creation and redemptions with authorized participants or their designees, as described above. This ability would make the Trust (and the market more generally) operate more efficiently because authorized participants would be able to source bitcoin, as applicable, rather than to provide cash to the applicable Trust and to receive bitcoin from the Trust. This means that the authorized participant would be responsible for buying and selling bitcoin rather than the Trust itself, which would potentially lessen the impact on the market of the Trust on both sides of the transaction by allowing the authorized participant to decide how and where to source the bitcoin for creations and deciding how, where, and whether to sell the bitcoin received for redemptions. This would improve the creation and redemption process for both authorized participants and the Trust, increase efficiency, and ultimately benefit the end investors in the Trust.
Except for the addition of in-kind creation and redemption for the Bitcoin Trust as specifically set forth herein, all other representations made in the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 2 remain unchanged and will continue to constitute continuing listing requirements for the Bitcoin Trust.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As noted above, the proposed amendment is intended to allow the Trust to operate more efficiently by allowing for in-kind creation and redemption. The Exchange believes these changes will not impose any burden on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 8, 2025, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On June 4, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
As described in more detail in the Notice,
The investment objective of the Trust is to seek to track the performance of SUI,
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth in the Notice, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether the proposal to list and trade Shares of the Trust, which would hold SUI, is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices or raises any new or novel concerns not previously contemplated by the Commission.
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved by August 15, 2025. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by August 29, 2025.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 23, 2025, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the issues raised therein. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 7, 2025, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
On March 11, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) a proposed rule change to amend the rule governing the Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (the “Bitcoin Trust”) and the Fidelity Ethereum Fund (the “Eth Trust” and, collectively with the Bitcoin Trust, the “Trusts”), shares of which have been approved by the Commission to list and trade on the Exchange pursuant to BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4), to permit in-kind creations and redemptions.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
This Amendment No. 1 to SR-CboeBZX-2025-023 amends and replaces in its entirety the proposal as originally submitted on February 7,
The Commission approved the listing and trading of shares (the “Bitcoin ETP Shares”) of the Bitcoin Trust on the Exchange pursuant to Exchange Rule 14.11(e)(4), Commodity-Based Trust Shares, on January 10, 2024.
The Exchange proposes to amend several portions of the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 3 in order to permit in-kind creation and redemptions.
The Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 3 included a specific representation making clear that the Bitcoin Trust would only process creations and redemptions in cash. Specifically, the “Investment Objective” section of the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 3 stated:
In seeking to achieve its investment objective, the Trust will hold bitcoin, cash, and cash equivalents and will value its Shares daily as of 4:00 p.m. Eastern time using the Index price to value the bitcoin and process all creations and redemptions in cash transactions with authorized participants.
The Exchange proposes to replace the above with the following:
In seeking to achieve its investment objective, the Trust will hold bitcoin, cash, and cash equivalents and will value its Shares daily as of 4:00 p.m. Eastern time using the Index price to value the bitcoin and process all creations and redemptions in cash or in-kind transactions with authorized participants.
Additionally, the “Creation and Redemption of Shares” section of the filing includes a detailed description of how the cash-only creation and redemption process works.
When the Trust creates or redeems its Shares, it will do so in cash or in-kind. When the Trust creates or redeems its Shares in cash or in kind, it will do so in blocks of 25,000 Shares (
The authorized participants will deliver or cause to be delivered cash or bitcoin to create Shares and the authorized participant or its designee will receive cash or bitcoin when redeeming Shares. The Trust will create Shares by receiving bitcoin or cash from an authorized participant or its designee and will redeem shares by delivering bitcoin or cash to an authorized participant or its designee.
According to the Registration Statement, on any business day, an authorized participant may place an order to create one or more Creation Baskets. Purchase orders must be placed by the close of Regular Trading Hours on the Exchange or another time determined by the Sponsor. The day on which an order is properly received is considered the purchase order date.
The procedures by which an authorized participant can redeem one or more Creation Baskets mirror the procedures for the creation of Creation Baskets. For a cash redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Trust and will receive cash for the Shares delivered. For an in-kind redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Trust and the authorized participant or its designee will receive bitcoin for the Shares delivered.
Similarly, the Exchange proposes to amend several portions of the Eth ETP Amendment No. 2 in order to permit in-kind creations and redemptions.
The Eth ETP Amendment No. 2 included a specific representation making clear that the Eth Trust would only process creations and redemptions in cash. Specifically, the “Investment Objective” section of the Eth ETP Amendment No. 2 stated:
In seeking to achieve its investment objective, the Trust will hold ETH, cash, and cash equivalents and will value its Shares daily as of 4:00 p.m. Eastern time using the Index price to value the ether and process all creations and redemptions in transactions in cash transactions with authorized participants. The Trust is not actively managed.
The Exchange proposes to replace the above with the following:
In seeking to achieve its investment objective, the Trust will hold ETH, cash, and cash equivalents and will value its Shares daily as of 4:00 p.m. Eastern time using the Index price to value the ether and process all creations and redemptions in transactions in cash or in-kind transactions with authorized participants. The Trust is not actively managed.
Additionally, the “Creation and Redemption of Shares” section of the filing includes a detailed description of how the cash-only creation and redemption process works.
When the Trust creates or redeems its Shares, it will do so in cash or in-kind. When the Trust creates or redeems its Shares in cash or in kind, it will do so in blocks of 25,000 Shares (
The authorized participants will deliver or cause to be delivered cash or ether to create Shares and the authorized participant or its designee will receive cash or ether when redeeming Shares. The Trust will create Shares by receiving ether or cash from an authorized participant or its designee and will redeem Shares by delivering ether or cash to an authorized participant or its designee.
According to the Registration Statement, on any business day, an authorized participant may place an order to create one or more Creation Baskets. Purchase orders must be placed by the close of Regular Trading Hours on the Exchange or another time determined by the Sponsor. The day on which an order is properly received is considered the purchase order date.
The procedures by which an authorized participant can redeem one or more Creation Baskets mirror the procedures for the creation of Creation Baskets. For a cash redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Trust and will receive cash for the Shares delivered. For an in-kind redemption order, an authorized participant will deliver Shares to the Trust and the authorized participant or its designee will receive ether for the Shares delivered.
Except for the above changes, all other representations in the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 3 and the Eth ETP Amendment No. 2 remain unchanged and will continue to constitute continuing listing requirements. In addition, the Bitcoin Trust will continue to comply with the terms of Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 3 and the Eth Trust will continue to comply with the terms of Eth ETP Amendment No. 2 and the Trusts will continue to comply with the requirements of Rule 14.11(e)(4).
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest because it would update representations in both the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 3 and the Eth ETP Amendment No. 2 such that the Trusts would both be able to engage in in-kind creation and redemptions with authorized participants or their designees, as described above. This ability would make the Trusts (and the market more generally) operate more efficiently because authorized participants would be able to source bitcoin or ether, as applicable, rather than to provide cash to the applicable Trust and to receive bitcoin or ether from the Trusts. This means that the authorized participant would be responsible for buying and selling the applicable crypto asset rather than the Trust itself, which would potentially lessen the impact on the market of the Trusts on both sides of the transaction by allowing the authorized participant to decide how and where to source the underlying crypto asset for creations and deciding how, where, and whether to sell the underlying crypto asset received for redemptions. This would improve the creation and redemption process for both authorized participants and the Trusts, increase efficiency, and ultimately benefit the end investors in the Trusts.
Except for the addition of in-kind creation and redemption for the Bitcoin Trust as specifically set forth herein, all other representations made in the Bitcoin ETP Amendment No. 3 remain unchanged and will continue to constitute continuing listing requirements for the Bitcoin Trust. Similarly, except for the addition of in-kind creation and redemption for the Eth Trust as specifically set forth herein, all other representations made in the Eth ETP Amendment No. 2 remain unchanged and will continue to constitute continuing listing requirements for the Eth Trust.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As noted above, the proposed amendment is intended to allow the Trusts to operate more efficiently by allowing for in-kind creation and redemption. The Exchange believes these changes will not impose any burden on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-CboeBZX-2025-023 and should be submitted on or before August 15, 2025.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Selective Service System.
Notice of Amendment to SSS's Existing Privacy Act General Routine Uses.
The purpose of this notice is to meet the requirement of M-17-12 requiring agencies to include two mandatory routine uses in all agency System of Records Notices (SORN) to facilitate information sharing in responding to breaches. The amended list of routine uses is consistent with requirements in a memorandum issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on January 3, 2017. The memorandum requires that all Federal agencies publish two routine uses for their systems allowing for the disclosure of personally identifiable information to the appropriate parties in the course of responding to a breach or suspected breach of the agency's PII or to assist another agency in its response to a confirmed or suspected breach.
This system of records notice will become effective upon publication in the
Written comments and recommendations should be sent to
For further inquiries regarding this amendment, you may contact Mr. Daniel A. Lauretano, Sr., General Counsel and Federal Register Liaison, Email:
This notice serves to update and amend all the 7 Selective Service System's Systems of Records Notices' (SORNs) routine uses. The amended list of routine uses is consistent with requirements in a memorandum issued by the Office of Management and Budget on January 3, 2017 (Memorandum M-17-12 “Preparing for and Responding to a Breach of Personally Identifiable Information”). OMB's memorandum requires that all Federal agencies publish two routine uses for their systems allowing for the disclosure of personally identifiable information to the appropriate parties in the course of responding to a breach or suspected breach of the agency's PII or to assist another agency in its response to a confirmed or suspected breach.
(1) Registration, Compliance and Verification (RCV), SSS-19. (2) Integrated Mobilization Information Management System (IMIS) and Reserve and National Guard Personnel Records, SSS-5. (3) Enterprise Content Management System (ECM), SSS-50.
Unclassified.
National Headquarters, Selective Service System, 1501 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209-2425.
Director of Selective Service, 1501 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209-2425, Attn: Records Manager.
In addition to the disclosures permitted under subsection (b) of the Privacy Act, the SSS may disclose information contained in this System of Records without the consent of the individuals to whom the records pertain if the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the record was collected under the following routine uses:
1. To the Department of Justice for the purpose of reviewing and processing suspected violations of the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA), for investigation or reviewing of perjury, and for defense of a civil action arising from administrative processing under such Act.
2. To the Department of State and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for collection and evaluation of data to determine an individual's eligibility for United States citizenship.
3. To the Department of Defense and U.S. Coast Guard to exchange data concerning registration, classification, induction, and examination of registrants and for identification of prospects for recruiting.
4. To the Department of Labor to assist veterans in need of data concerning reemployment rights, and for determination of eligibility for benefits under the Workforce Investment Act.
5. To the Department of Education to determine eligibility for student financial assistance.
6. To the U.S. Census Bureau for the purposes of planning or carrying out a census or survey or related activity pursuant to the provisions of Title 13.
7. To the Office of Personnel Management and U.S. Postal Service to determine eligibility for employment.
8. To the Department of Health and Human Services to determine an individual's proper Social Security Account Number and for locating parents pursuant to the Child Support Enforcement Act.
9. To the State and Local Governments to provide data that may constitute evidence and facilitate the enforcement of state and local law.
10. To the Alternative Service Employers, during conscription, to exchange information with employers regarding a registrant who is a conscientious objector for the purpose of placement and supervision of performance of alternative service in lieu of induction into the military service.
11. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (a) the SSS suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the System of Records. (b) the SSS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to an individual(s), the SSS (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the SSS efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed
12. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the SSS determines that information from this System of Records is necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (a) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach, or (b) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
13. To the General Public for the purpose of retrieving a copy of their Selective Service Number for various purposes such as applying for employment, security background check, student grants and loans, and citizenship.
Document Citations: 90 FR 20734; 82 FR 29971; 90 FR 17680; 82 FR 29970
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative disaster declaration of a rural area for the State of Arkansas dated July 22, 2025.
Issued on July 22, 2025.
Sharon Henderson, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration of a rural area, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 211956 and for economic injury is 211960.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration is Arkansas.
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection proposal described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. 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 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments up to August 25, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
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 Dustin Hanks, who may be reached on 202-949-6965 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 aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The information solicited on this form will be used to conduct background investigations, reinvestigations, and continuous vetting of persons for eligibility for logical access, physical access, credentialing, and fitness to perform work overseas for or on behalf of the U.S. Government as Locally Employed (LE) Staff and locally-hired third party contractors employed overseas at a U.S. Mission. For applicants, this form is to be used only after a conditional offer of employment has been made. This form is not to be used for national security positions.
Respondents will fill out a brief customer survey after completing their interaction with a Department Program Office or Embassy. Surveys are designed to gather feedback on the customer's experiences.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of National Grain Car Council meeting.
Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Grain Car Council (NGCC), pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 19, 2025, beginning at 1:00 p.m. (CDT), and is expected to conclude at 5:00 p.m. (CDT).
The meeting will be held at the InterContinental Kansas City at the Plaza, 401 Ward Pkwy., Kansas City, MO 64112. Phone: (816) 756-1500.
Jeremy Lutes at (202) 900-5226 or
The NGCC was established by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) as a working group to facilitate private-sector solutions and provide recommendations to the ICC (and now the Surface Transportation Board (Board)) on matters affecting rail grain car availability and transportation.
The general purpose of this meeting is to discuss rail carrier preparedness to transport the 2025 grain harvest. Agenda items include the following: remarks by Acting NGCC Chair Justin Cauley, Board Chairman Patrick J. Fuchs, Board Vice Chairman and NGCC Co-Chair Michelle A. Schultz, and Board Members Robert E. Primus and Karen J. Hedlund; reports by member groups on expectations for the upcoming harvest, domestic and foreign markets, the supply of rail cars, and rail service; and market and industry updates. The full agenda will be posted on the Board's website at
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 10; Federal Advisory Committee Management, 41 CFR pt. 102-3; the NGCC charter; and Board procedures.
If you require an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act for this meeting, please call (202) 245-0308 by August 13, 2025.
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation.
Limited Waiver of the Slot Usage Requirement at DCA, JFK, and LGA.
This action extends the Staffing-Related Relief Concerning Operations at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport, and LaGuardia Airport, initially published on September 20, 2023, and extended to October 26, 2025, through March 28, 2026 (Winter 2025/2026), and March 29, 2026, through October 24, 2026 (Summer 2026). The limited waiver is effective until October 24, 2026, and does not apply to any slots granted by the Department of Transportation pursuant to Section 505 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024.
This action is effective on July 23, 2025.
Requests may be submitted by mail to Slot Administration Office, System Operations Services, AJR-0, Room 300W, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by email to:
Al Meilus, Slot Administration and Capacity Analysis, FAA ATO System Operations Services, AJR-G5, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-2822; email
The New York Terminal Radar Approach Control facility (N90)
As a result of the staffing constraints, the FAA previously issued relief from minimum usage requirements on September 20, 2023, which applied to the Winter 2023/2024 season and Summer 2024 season.
The FAA has made significant changes to increase N90 staffing through a combination of incentive and training programs, as well as by relocating control of the Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) area from N90 to the Philadelphia Terminal Radar Approach Control (PHL) beginning in late July 2024. The operational impact of changes to address N90 staffing shortages will not be realized immediately, but charts a path to mitigating the impact in the next 12-18 months.
The targeted staffing number at N90 is 226 CPCs; the current CPC onboard number at N90 is 123 (representing 54 percent staffed).
At one time, N90 had been responsible for overseeing the Newark area, with 33 CPCs designated for that area. In July of 2024, the FAA relocated control of the Newark area from N90 to PHL. Twenty-four of the 33 CPCs also relocated to PHL, while the remaining CPCs started training in preparation for reassignment to other areas in N90.
At N90, aggressive training plans are in place to certify both new trainees and those CPCs previously overseeing the Newark area who did not transfer to PHL. The FAA believes that those CPCs in training for reassignment will certify much more quickly than new trainees who do not have previous N90 experience. This will allow N90 to make significant gains in its staffing percentages over 2025 and 2026. N90 currently has 76 trainees in various phases of training.
With ever-growing demand for air travel in the New York City region, additional measures are necessary to ensure that the FAA is able to provide expeditious services to aircraft operators and their passengers that traverse this airspace. Early discussions with carriers indicate an interest in increasing operations after October 26, 2025, through most of Winter 2025/2026 and for all of Summer 2026. This being the case, the FAA expects increased delays and cancellations in the New York region to exceed those experienced over Summer 2022 and Winter 2022/2023
On April 21, 2025, Airlines for America (A4A) submitted a petition on behalf of its member carriers
At JFK and LGA, slot-holding carriers must use each assigned slot at least 80 percent of the time.
At Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA), the FAA also will recall any slot not used at least 80 percent of the time over a two-month period.
In determining historical rights to allocated slots, including whether to grant a waiver of the usage requirement, the FAA seeks to ensure the efficient use of valuable aviation infrastructure and maximize the benefits to both airport users and the traveling public. The minimum usage requirement is expected to accommodate routine cancellations under all but the most unusual circumstances. Carriers proceed
The number of certified controllers at N90 is still not sufficient to allow the FAA to handle normal traffic levels. The FAA has worked with NATCA on a long-term solution to solve thechronic low levels of fully certified air traffic controllers at that facility through a combination of incentive and training programs, as well as relocating control of the EWR area to PHL. The FAA will continue to partner with NATCA as it continues efforts to remediate ATC staffing shortages at N90.
Due to the volume of originating and destination flights in the New York City region, as well as the interdependency and complexity of the airspace surrounding JFK and LGA, delays caused in part by N90 staffing shortfalls are expected to significantly impact carriers' ability to operate and meet minimum usage requirements in Winter 2025/2026 and Summer 2026. Absent increased flexibility, the FAA anticipates a high likelihood of congestion, delay, and cancellations at JFK and LGA.
Typically, the 20 percent non-utilization allowed under the minimum usage requirement accounts for cancellations due to ATC staffing delays; however, the extent of N90 staffing shortfalls and the expected numbers of scheduled operations for Winter 2025/2026 and Summer 2026 present a highly unusual and unpredictable condition beyond the control of carriers that will impact operations through the entire Winter 2025/2026 and Summer 2026 scheduling seasons.
Using the Annual Service Volume (ASV) model,
Therefore, a waiver of minimum slot usage requirements at JFK and LGA through October 24, 2026, is necessary to allow carriers to reduce operations to enable scheduling and operational stability for the benefit of the flying public.
In addition, because New York City-DCA is a high-frequency market for multiple carriers, the FAA recognizes this market is a likely target for carriers to consolidate flights while retaining their network connectivity. If carriers choose to reduce their schedules in the New York City-DCA market, the FAA encourages, to the extent practical, carriers to utilize their DCA slots to operate to other destinations. However, if carriers choose not to utilize their DCA slots elsewhere, the FAA may consider providing relief to DCA slots that are impacted by the reduction in operations at the New York City airports, except that the limited waiver of the minimum slot usage requirements is not available for any slots granted by the DOT pursuant to Section 502 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Pub. L. 118-63).
Carriers have the ability to request retroactive relief; however, they should be aware that the N90 staffing shortfalls will not likely form a sufficient basis for further relief after Winter 2025/2026 and Summer 2026 because carriers will have had sufficient opportunity to plan and take remedial action under this waiver policy. The FAA does not foresee providing additional post-hoc relief associated with ATC staffing given the extraordinary relief provided here. Given this relief, operational impacts associated with N90 staffing beyond Winter 2025/2026 and Summer 2026 will likely not have been beyond carriers' control and will not serve as a justification for a separate waiver.
Moreover, access to the New York City airspace is a scarce and valuable public asset, and airlines and airports should be making the most appropriate use of this asset in support of the traveling public and the national economy without broad, prospective waivers. Going forward beyond the Summer 2026 season, the FAA does not anticipate issuing further broad, prospective relief. As stated above, carriers will retain the ability to submit
The FAA determined that the post-pandemic effects on N90 staffing meet the applicable waiver standards and warrant a limited waiver of minimum slot usage requirements at JFK and LGA to allow carriers to return up to 10 percent of their slots at each airport, as well as impacted operations between DCA and JFK or LGA. Despite staffing projections indicating N90 will not reach 70 percent of the targeted staffing level until after the conclusion of 2026, the FAA is taking a measured approach and providing relief in this waiver notice only until the end of Summer 2026. The FAA will re-evaluate the staffing levels at N90 and the impact to operations in the New York City area before deciding if a waiver beyond Summer 2026 is necessary.
Carriers seeking to return their slots must do so by August 15, 2025, for Winter 2025/2026 (October 26, 2025, through March 28, 2026); and by January 15, 2026, for Summer 2026 (March 29, 2026, through October 24, 2026) to be eligible for relief under this waiver. For DCA, this relief is available only for flights impacted by operations to or from JFK or LGA. Furthermore, the FAA expects carriers to up-gauge aircraft serving the affected airports to the extent possible to maintain passenger throughput and minimize the impact on consumers. The FAA also expects carriers to maintain connections between the affected airports and regional airports to the extent possible in support of continuous scheduled interstate air transportation for small communities and isolated areas. The FAA will closely coordinate with the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, which will be monitoring for indications of unfair, deceptive, or anticompetitive practices or other unlawful economic activity associated with or resulting from the relief granted by this notice. In addition, the FAA expects carriers to return scheduled operations in the peak delay periods of the day. The following hours (in local time) are the most prone to delay at each airport: JFK: 1300-2259 and LGA: 1300-2159.
The FAA will not reallocate the temporarily returned slots at JFK and LGA, as the goal is to reduce the total volume of operations in the New York City region. Carriers are encouraged to utilize their DCA slots in other markets before returning them to the FAA. In the event DCA slots are returned under this waiver, other carriers will have an opportunity to operate the slots on an
The FAA will treat as used the specific slots returned in accordance with the conditions in this notice for the period from October 26, 2025, through March 28, 2026, (Winter 2025/2026) and March 29, 2026, through October 24, 2026 (Summer 2026).
The relief is subject to the following conditions:
1. The specific slots must be returned to the FAA by August 15, 2025, for Winter 2025/2026; and by January 15, 2026, for Summer 2026.
2. This waiver applies only to slots that have corresponding, scheduled operations during the period of the grant. A carrier temporarily returning a slot to the FAA for relief under this waiver must identify corresponding scheduled operations for Winter 2025/2026, or approved slots for Summer 2026. The FAA may validate information against published schedule data prior to the issuance of this notice, and other operational data maintained by the FAA. Slots returned without an associated scheduled and canceled operation will not receive relief.
3. Slots newly allocated for initial use since the previous corresponding scheduling season are not eligible for relief.
4. Slot exemptions authorized at DCA by the Department of Transportation are not eligible for relief.
5. Carriers must not engage in unfair, deceptive, or anticompetitive practices regarding their slot usage, leasing agreements, or operations associated with the relief provided by this notice.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion nor omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before August 4, 2025.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2025-1637 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Nia Daniels, (202) 267-7626, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Issued in Washington, DC.
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
Comments must be received by August 25, 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
The information collections contained in the guidance include provisions related to the implementation of policies and procedures, training, and program maintenance.
These provide that—
• Institutions offering reverse mortgages should have written policies and procedures that prohibit the practice of directing a consumer to a particular counseling agency or contacting a counselor on the consumer's behalf.
• Policies should be clear so that originators do not have an inappropriate incentive to sell other products that appear linked to the granting of a mortgage.
• Legal and compliance reviews should include oversight of compensation programs so that lending personnel are not improperly encouraged to direct consumers to particular products.
• Training should be designed so that relevant lending personnel are able to convey information to consumers about product terms and risks in a timely, accurate, and balanced manner.
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.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Toll-Free Phone Lines Project Committee will be
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 12, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Rosalind Matherne at 1-888-912-1227, 202-317-4115, or by email at
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988), that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Lines Project Committee will be held on Tuesday, August 12, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The public is invited to attend the meeting virtually, or by phone, and may provide oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to meeting structure and time limitations, advance registration is required to attend or make public comments during the meeting. To register and receive meeting access information, please contact Rosalind Matherne at the contact information above no later than Thursday, August 7, 2025.
Meeting materials, including the agenda and any handouts, will be made available prior to the meeting at
The agenda will include a committee discussion of new and continuing issues and other activities related to the new TAP year.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions to improve customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will be held as a virtual video conference via the Microsoft Teams platform.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 13, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274, or by email at
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988), that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee will be held on Wednesday, August 13, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The public is invited to attend the meeting virtually, or by phone, and may provide oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to meeting structure and time limitations, advance registration is required to attend or make public comments during the meeting. To register and receive meeting access information, please contact Matthew O'Sullivan at the contact information above no later than Thursday, August 7, 2025.
Meeting materials, including the agenda and any handouts, will be made available prior to the meeting at
The agenda will include a committee discussion of new and continuing issues and other activities related to the new TAP year.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Special Projects Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions to improve customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will be held as a virtual video conference via the Microsoft Teams platform.
The meeting will be held Thursday, August 14, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
Ann Tabat at 1-888-912-1227, (602) 636-9143, or by email at
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988), that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Project Committee will be held on Thursday, August 14, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
The public is invited to attend the meeting virtually, or by phone, and may provide oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to meeting structure and time limitations, advance registration is required to attend or make public comments during the meeting. To register and receive meeting access information, please contact Ann Tabat at the contact information above no later than Thursday, August 7, 2025.
Meeting materials, including the agenda and any handouts, will be made available prior to the meeting at
The agenda will include a committee discussion of new and continuing issues and other activities related to the new TAP year.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions to improve customer service at the Internal Revenue
The meeting will be held on Thursday, August 14, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Jose Cintron-Santiago at 1-888-912-1227 or 787-522-8607, or by email at
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988), that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be held on Thursday, August 14, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The public is invited to attend the meeting virtually, or by phone, and may provide oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to meeting structure and time limitations, advance registration is required to attend or make public comments during the meeting. To register and receive meeting access information, please contact Jose Cintron-Santiago at the contact information above no later than Thursday, August 7, 2025.
Meeting materials, including the agenda and any handouts, will be made available prior to the meeting at
The agenda will include a committee discussion of new and continuing issues and other activities related to the new TAP year.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS is inviting comments on the information collection request outlined in this notice.
Written comments should be received on or before September 23, 2025 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
View the latest drafts of the tax forms related to the information collection listed in this notice at
The IRS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess the impact and minimize the burden of its information collection requirements. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency'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 of information 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.
Tax compliance burden is defined as the time and money taxpayers spend to comply with their tax filing responsibilities. Time-related activities include recordkeeping, tax planning, gathering tax materials, learning about the law, and completing and submitting the return. Out-of-pocket costs include expenses such as purchasing tax software, paying a third-party preparer, and printing and postage. Tax compliance burden does not include a taxpayer's tax liability, economic inefficiencies caused by sub-optimal choices related to tax deductions or credits, or psychological costs.
Total Monetized Burden = Out-of-Pocket Costs + Monetized Time.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS is inviting comments on the information collection request outlined in this notice.
Written comments should be received on or before September 23, 2025 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
View the latest drafts of the tax forms related to the information collection listed in this notice at
The IRS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess the impact and minimize the burden of its information collection requirements. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of
Tax compliance burden is defined as the time and money taxpayers spend to comply with their tax filing responsibilities. Time-related activities include recordkeeping, tax planning, gathering tax materials, learning about the law, and completing and submitting the return. Out-of-pocket costs include expenses such as purchasing tax software, paying a third-party preparer, and printing and postage. Tax compliance burden does not include a taxpayer's tax liability, economic inefficiencies caused by sub-optimal choices related to tax deductions or credits, or psychological costs.
Total Monetized Burden = Out-of-Pocket Costs + Monetized Time.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions to improve customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will be held as a virtual video conference via the Microsoft Teams platform.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 13, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227, or by email at
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988), that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be held on Wednesday, August 13, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
The public is invited to attend the meeting virtually, or by phone, and may provide oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to meeting structure and time limitations, advance registration is required to attend or make public comments during the meeting. To register and receive meeting access information, please contact Robert Rosalia at the contact information above no later than Thursday, August 7, 2025.
Meeting materials, including the agenda and any handouts, will be made available prior to the meeting at
The agenda will include a committee discussion of new and continuing issues and other activities related to the new TAP year.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions to improve customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will be held as a virtual video conference via the Microsoft Teams platform.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 12, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Ann Tabat at 1-888-912-1227 or (602) 636-9143, or by email at
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988), that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be held on Tuesday, August 12, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The public is invited to attend the meeting virtually, or by phone, and may provide oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to meeting structure and time limitations, advance registration is required to attend or make public comments during the meeting. To register and receive meeting access information, please contact Ann Tabat at the contact information above no later than Thursday, August 7, 2025.
Meeting materials, including the agenda and any handouts, will be made available prior to the meeting at
The agenda will include a committee discussion of new and old referrals and other activities related to the new TAP year.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Joint Committee Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions to improve customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will be held as a virtual video conference via the Microsoft Teams platform.
The meeting will be held Thursday, August 28, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Rosalind Matherne at 1-888-912-1227, 202-317-4115, or by email at
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988), that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee Project Committee will be held on Thursday, August 28, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The public is invited to attend the meeting virtually, or by phone, and may provide oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to meeting structure and time limitations, advance registration is required to attend or make public comments during the meeting. To register and receive meeting access information, please contact Rosalind Matherne at the contact information above no later than Thursday, August 21, 2025.
Meeting materials, including the agenda and any handouts, will be made available prior to the meeting at
The agenda will include a committee discussion of new and continuing issues and other activities related to the new TAP year.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
VA is hereby giving notice of annual pay ranges, which is the sum of the base pay rate and market pay for VHA physicians, dentists, and podiatrists as prescribed by the Secretary for Department-wide applicability. These annual pay ranges are intended to enhance the flexibility of the Department to recruit, develop, and retain the most highly qualified providers to serve the Nation's veterans and maintain a standard of excellence in the VA health care system.
Annual pay ranges are applicable beginning on October 5, 2025.
James Tolley, Veterans Health Administration, (843) 864-3630.
Under 38 U.S.C. 7431(e)(1)(A), not less often than once every 2 years, the Secretary must prescribe for Department-wide applicability the minimum and maximum amounts of annual pay that may be paid to VHA physicians, dentists, and podiatrists. 38 U.S.C. 7431(e)(1)(B) allows the Secretary to prescribe separate minimum and maximum amounts of annual pay for a specialty or assignment. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 7431(e)(1)(C), amounts prescribed under paragraph 7431(e) shall be published in the
In addition, under 38 U.S.C. 7431(e)(4), the total amount of compensation paid to a physician, dentist, or podiatrist cannot exceed, in any year, the amount of annual compensation (excluding expenses) of the President. For the purposes of subparagraph 7431(e)(4), “the total amount of compensation” includes base pay, market pay, performance pay, and fee basis earnings, but excludes recruitment, relocation, and retention incentives
On December 3, 2004, the President signed the “Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Personnel Enhancement Act of 2004” (Pub. L. 108-445). The major provisions of the law established a new pay system for VHA physicians and dentists consisting of base pay, market pay, and performance pay. While the base pay component is set by statute, market pay is intended to reflect the recruitment and retention needs for the specialty or assignment of a particular physician or dentist at a facility. Further, performance pay is intended to recognize the achievement of specific goals and performance objectives prescribed annually. These three components create a system of pay that is driven by both market indicators and employee performance, while recognizing employee tenure in VHA.
On April 8, 2019, the President signed Public Law 116-12, which amended 38 U.S.C. 7431 to include podiatrists within the physician and dentist pay system, authorizing podiatrists to receive base pay, market pay, and performance pay. With the amendment, podiatrists are also subject to the same limitations and requirements as physicians and dentists under section 7431.
Regarding the pay tables for physicians, dentists, and podiatrists, VA will be making changes to the maximum amounts for pay table 1, adding a tier to pay table 2, increasing the minimum and maximum ranges for pay table 3, and removing a tier in pay table 3.
VA identified and utilized salary survey data sources which most closely represent VA comparability in the areas of practice setting, employment environment, and hospital/health care system. The Gallagher 2023 Physician Compensation and Production Survey, Mercer 2023 U.S. Integrated Health Networks Physician Practices/Outpatient Facilities, and Sullivan Cotter 2023 Physician Compensation and Productivity Survey report were collectively utilized as benchmarks from which to prescribe annual pay ranges across the scope of assignments/specialties within the Department.
In constructing annual pay ranges to accommodate the more than 40 specialties that currently exist in the VA system, VA continued the practice of grouping specialties into consolidated pay ranges. This allows VA to use multiple sources that yield a high number of salary data which helps to minimize disparities and aberrations that may surface from data involving smaller numbers for comparison and from sample change from year to year. Thus, by aggregating multiple survey sources into like groupings, greater confidence exists that the average compensation reported is truly representative. In addition, aggregation of data provides for a large enough sample size and provides pay ranges with maximum flexibility for pay setting for VHA physicians, dentists, and podiatrists.
In developing the annual pay ranges, a few distinctive principles were factored into the compensation analysis of the data. The first principle is to ensure that both the minimum and maximum salary is at a level that accommodates special employment situations, from fellowships and medical research career development awards to Nobel Laureates, high-cost areas, and internationally renowned clinicians. The second principle is to provide ranges large enough to accommodate career progression, geographic differences, sub-specialization, and other special factors.
Clinical specialties were reviewed against available, relevant private sector data. The specialties are grouped into two clinical pay ranges that reflect comparable complexity in salary, recruitment, and retention considerations. The Steering Committee recommends adding new and realigning existing specialties to different clinical pay ranges, as well as changes to the maximum pay ranges.
Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved and signed this document on July 22, 2025, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden, and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent by August 25, 2025.
To submit comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection, please type the following link into your browser:
VA PRA information: Dorothy Glasgow, 202-461-1084,
Since program inception, Veterans and caregivers who disagree with a PCAFC decision were afforded the right to appeal through the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Clinical Appeals Process. A 2021 Court ruling in the case of
The options include a separate appeals process (legacy) that must be used to appeal to the Board regarding PCAFC decisions issued before February 19, 2019. The legacy process is implemented through use of VA Form 10-306, which allows Veterans and caregivers to request information about past PCAFC decisions to determine whether they wish to pursue an appeal to the Board or request review. VA projects the submission of a lower number of 10-306 forms going forward because the annual number of requests following the court decision has been decreasing over time. CSP is discontinuing VA Form 10-307, which previously was included in this collection, as the form is no longer necessary and will become obsolete.
VA received two public comments on the 60-day notice published in the
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before September 23, 2025.
Comments must be submitted through
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, insert admin acronym (
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received on or before September 23, 2025.
Comments must be submitted through
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019 mandated several changes to TAP. In addition, Section 4305 of the Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act of 2020 (hereafter referred to as Public Law 116-315) calls for a one-year independent assessment of TAP. Section 4306 of Public Law 116-315 calls for a five-year longitudinal study on three cohorts of Veterans to assess changes to TAP under the Fiscal Year 2019 NDAA and changes based on the independent assessment under Section 4305 and provide annual progress reports and a final report. The Section 4306 Study will analyze the outcomes between Veterans who attended TAP before and after changes to the program. Both the PSTAP Assessment and Section 4306 Study are included in this current ICR because some Veterans in the PSTAP Study were also selected for the Section 4306 Study cohorts. A single survey instrument collects the information needed for both studies, so Veterans are not contacted twice. This reduces burden while ensuring both studies collect the data required to meet Congressional and Government requirements.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish a notice in the
Comments must be received on or before September 23, 2025.
Comments must be submitted through
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. The respondent burden has not changed.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Ch. 10, that the Special Medical Advisory Group (the Committee) will meet on Tuesday, August 5, 2025, from approximately 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), at the Department of Veterans Affairs Central Office, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, (Conference Rooms 830 (primary) and 823 (secondary) in Washington, DC 20420.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Under Secretary for Health on the care and treatment of Veterans.
Members of the Committee and Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Leadership may join in person or virtually. The public will only be able to attend virtually. The meeting is open to the public, except when the Committee breaks for lunch between approximately 12:40 p.m. and 1:10 p.m. EST.C
The meeting can be joined by phone at 404-397-1596 (Access code: 28287784540) and via Webex at:
Please contact the point of contact below for assistance connecting.
On August 5, 2025, the agenda for the meeting will include discussions on strategies for improved suicide prevention, ending homelessness, improved direct patient care, utilization of community care, and federal electronic health record deployment. The meeting includes time reserved for live public comment from 1:10 p.m. to 1:40 p.m. EST. Each individual commenter will be given a maximum of five minutes to express their comments. The comment period may end sooner, if there are no comments presented or they are exhausted before the end time.
Members of the public may submit written statements for review by the Committee to: Department of Veterans Affairs, Special Medical Advisory Group—Office of Under Secretary for Health (10), Veterans Health Administration, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, or by email at
Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting or seeking additional information should email