Food and Nutrition Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Engineers Corps
Energy Information Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Land Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Interim final rule; reopening of public comment period.
Due to a technical problem with the docket that prevented comments from being accepted during part of the initial comment period, FNS is reopening the comment period for the interim final rule that appeared in the
The comment period for the rule published June 6, 2025, at 90 FR 24049, is reopened. Comments must be received on or before September 8, 2025.
Comments can be submitted through the Federal e-rulemaking portal at
Please be advised that the identity of individuals or entities submitting comments will be made public on the internet at the address provided above. Parties who wish to comment anonymously may do so by entering “N/A” in the fields that would identify the commenter. A plain language summary of this notice of interim final rule is available at
James C. Miller, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service, at (703) 305-2060, or
On June 6, 2025, at 90 FR 24049, FNS published in the
The interim final rule provided for a 30-day comment period, which would have ended July 7, 2025. However, on or about July 1, FNS learned that the public comments were not being accepted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
FNS informed staff at the Federal eRulemaking Portal and the issue has been resolved. Nevertheless, given the uncertainty regarding the time that the Portal was not operational, FNS has determined that a thirty-day reopening of the comment period, to September 8, 2025, is appropriate. This reopening will allow interested persons who may have tried unsuccessfully to submit comments additional time to do so.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends the Class E airspace at Lacon, IL, and updates the geographic coordinates of the Marshall County Airport, Lacon, IL, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action is the result of an airspace review conducted due to the decommissioning of the Bradford very high frequency omnidirectional range (VOR) as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. It brings the airspace into compliance with FAA orders and supports instrument flight rule (IFR) procedures and operations.
Effective 0901 UTC, November 27, 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
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
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 safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Marshall County Airport, Lacon, IL, to support IFR operations at this airport.
The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2025-1276 in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 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 modifying the Class E airspace extending from 700 ft above the surface at Marshall County Airport, Lacon, IL: (1) to within a 7-mile (increased from a 6.3-mile) radius of the Marshall County Airport; (2) by updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and (3) by removing the city associated with the airport in the airspace legal description to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2R, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.
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 qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
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.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of the Marshall County Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPS) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective August 8, 2025. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 8, 2025.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30. 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Gary W. Petty, Manager, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Office of Safety Standards, Flight Standards Service, Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address: FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., STB Annex, Bldg. 26, Room 217, Oklahoma City, OK 73099. Telephone (405) 954-1139.
This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B, when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part 97 is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Final rule.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is establishing a specific listing and DEA Controlled Substances Code Number (drug code) for 1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-(dimethylamino)pentan-1-one (dipentylone;
Effective August 8, 2025.
Dr. Terrence L. Boos, Drug and Chemical Evaluation, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Telephone: (571) 362-3249. As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule may be found in the docket for this rulemaking at
Dipentylone (also known as, 1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-(dimethylamino)pentan-1-one and
When compared to the chemical structure of
This rule is prompted by a letter dated June 6, 2024, in which the Secretariat of the United Nations informed the United States government that dipentylone had
As discussed above in this final rule, dipentylone—by virtue of being a positional isomer of
As discussed above, this rule does not affect the continuing status of dipentylone as a schedule I controlled substance in any way. This action, as an administrative matter, establishes a separate, specific listing for dipentylone in schedule I of the CSA and assigns a DEA controlled substances code number (drug code) for this substance. This action will allow DEA to establish an aggregate production quota and grant individual manufacturing and procurement quotas to DEA-registered manufacturers of dipentylone, who had previously been granted individual quotas for such purposes under the drug code for
An agency may find good cause to exempt a rule from certain provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), including notice of proposed rulemaking and the opportunity for public comment, if it is determined to be unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the public interest.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), DEA finds that notice-and-comment rulemaking is unnecessary as dipentylone is currently controlled in schedule I as a positional isomer of
In addition, DEA is concerned that delaying the effective date of this rule potentially could cause confusion regarding the regulatory status of dipentylone. With dipentylone currently controlled as a schedule I controlled substance as a positional isomer, and with no additional requirements being imposed through this action, DEA finds good cause exists to make this rule effective immediately upon publication in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with the principles of Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866, 13563, and 14192. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Dipentylone is already a controlled substance in the United States under schedule I, as it is a positional isomer of the schedule I hallucinogen
Executive Order 14294 specifies that all notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRMs) and final rules published in the
This 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, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.
This rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of E.O. 13132. The rule does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This 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 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) applies to rules that are subject to notice and comment under section 553(b) of the APA or other laws. As noted in the above section regarding the applicability of the APA, DEA determined that there was good cause to exempt this final rule from notice and comment. Consequently, the RFA does not apply.
This action does not impose a new collection of information requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532, DEA has determined that this action would not result in any Federal mandate that may result “in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year.” Therefore, neither a Small Government Agency Plan nor any other action is required under UMRA of 1995.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 804. However, pursuant to the CRA, DEA is submitting a copy of this rule to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out above, DEA amends 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), 956(b), unless otherwise noted.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on August 5, 2025, by Administrator Terrance Cole. 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
Department of the Army, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
In accordance with the Executive Order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” this amendment rule removes text in this CFR part that promotes or otherwise inculcates gender ideology. This change is purely administrative.
This rule is effective August 8, 2025.
LTC Ronson P. Honeychurch, Chief, General Litigation Branch, email at:
In accordance with Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” dated January 20, 2025, the Department of the Army is amending this CFR part to remove text that promotes or otherwise inculcates gender ideology. Specifically, it replaces the word “gender” with the word “sex”, consistent with Executive Order 14168, in one sentence of part 516.
It has been determined that publication of this CFR amendment for public comment is unnecessary because the amendment is an administrative change.
This rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action, because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Courts, Federal buildings and facilities, Fraud,
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 516 is amended to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552; 10 U.S.C. 218, 1037, 1089, 1552, 1553, 2036; 18 U.S.C. 219, 3401; 28 U.S.C. 50, 513, 515, 543; 31 U.S.C. 3729 and 41 U.S.C. 51; 42 U.S.C. 290, 2651; 43 U.S.C. 666.
(b) The masculine sex has been used throughout this regulation for simplicity and consistency. Any reference to the masculine sex is intended to include women.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain waters of Sand Key Beach, during the Clearwater AquaX Grand Prix event. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Clearwater, FL, during a high-speed jet ski race. This rule prohibits persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg or a designated representative.
This rule is effective daily from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., on August 23, 2025, through August 24, 2025.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email Lieutenant Ryan McNaughton, Sector St. Petersburg Ports & Waterways Branch Chief, U. S. Coast Guard; telephone (571) 608-7131, email
On January 30, 2025, an organization notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a jet ski race on August 23, 2025, and August 24, 2025, near Sand Key Beach, Clearwater, FL. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector St. Petersburg has determined that potential hazards associated with high-speed races would be a safety concern for anyone within the designated racecourse area. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within the racecourse, before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard is enforcing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034.
In response, on June 11, 2025, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled NPRM Clearwater AquaX Grand Prix (90 FR 24765). There we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this marine event. During the comment period that ended July 14, 2025, we received 1 comment.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector St Petersburg (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated the high-speed race. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.
As noted above, we received 1 comment on our NPRM published June 11, 2025. The comment was unrelated to the rule. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
This rule establishes a safety zone from August 23, 2025, to August 24, 2025. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within the vicinity of Sand Key Beach, Clearwater, FL. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the event. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration and time of day of the regulated area. Vessel traffic will not be impacted because the event occurs directly off the coast. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only 10 hours daily for two days that would prohibit entry within the racecourse safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Designated representatives may control vessel traffic throughout the enforcement area as determined by the prevailing conditions.
(3) To seek permission to enter, contact COTP St. Petersburg or representative via VHF radio on channel 16. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP St. Petersburg or designated representative.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a security zone in the waters adjacent to the General Dynamics Electric Boat Corporation Quonset Point facility in Narragansett Bay, North Kingstown, RI. This is necessary to protect the facility, material, and adjacent areas from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents or incidents of a similar nature. This rulemaking prohibits all persons and vessels from operating within the prescribed security zone without prior authorization by the Captain of the Port, Sector Southeastern New England or designated representative.
This rule is effective September 8, 2025.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email: Marine Science Technician 2nd Class Nicholas Easley, Waterways Management Division, Sector Southeastern New England, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 206-827-4160, email
On August 29, 2024, the U.S. Navy submitted a formal request to the Coast Guard to establish a security zone in the waters adjacent to the General Dynamics Electric Boat Corporation Quonset Point facility in North Kingstown, RI. In response, on April 25, 2025, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Security Zone; Electric Boat Shipyard, Narragansett Bay, Quonset Point, North Kingstown, RI (90 FR 17360). There, we stated why we had issued the NPRM, and we invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this security zone. During the comment period that ended May 27, 2025, we received one comment.
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70051 and 70124. The Captain of the Port, Sector Southeastern New England (COTP) has determined that it is in the best interest of national security to establish a permanent security zone to protect the facility, material storage areas, and adjacent areas from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents or incidents of a similar nature.
As noted above, we received one comment on our NPRM published April 25, 2025. The commenter stated that “if the security of this area decreases the traffic seen by boats in this area, I find that to be a positive outcome of this proposed rule,” but questioned “will this security entail that there are more boats patrolling the area,” and wondered how any such increased vessel traffic might impact the environment. In response, we note that the action we are taking in this rulemaking, establishment of the security zone, prohibits unauthorized vessel traffic within its boundaries, but neither authorizes nor prohibits authorized vessels to patrol the area. This action, which is independent of the decision that was made to site the facility where it is and of any environmental issues flowing from that decision, has no bearing on whether, or how many vessels patrol the area. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
This rule establishes a security zone for a portion of navigable waters on Narraganset Bay adjacent to the General Dynamics Electric Boat Corporation Quonset Point facility in North Kingstown, RI. Specifically, the security zone includes all navigable waters of Narragansett Bay, from surface to bottom, South of Quonset Point, North Kingstown, RI, enclosed by a line beginning at a point on the shoreline at 41°35′06.3″ N, 71°25′33.2″ W; then to 41°34′59.6″ N, 71°25′20.5″ W; then to 41°35′01.0″ N, 71°25′08.7″ W; then to 41°35′08.7″ N, 71°25′08.7″ W; then along the shoreline to the point of beginning. These coordinates are based on North American Datum 1983. Figure 1 provides a visual depiction of the security zone.
This security zone will protect the facility, material storage areas, and adjacent areas from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents or incidents of a similar nature, and to specify the horizontal datum employed to describe the geographic coordinates that establish the zone boundaries.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. The Coast Guard has determined that it is not a significant regulatory action.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size and location of the regulated area. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the security zone, which will impact a small, designated area of the Narragansett Bay.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a security zone to limit access near Quonset Point, North Kingstown, RI. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security Measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This security zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port (COTP) or a designated representative. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the security zones must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or the designated representative.
(3) The “designated representative” is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his/her behalf. The on-scene representative may be on a Coast Guard vessel, a state or local law enforcement vessel, or other designated craft, or may be on shore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. In addition, members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the security zones shall request permission to do so by contacting the Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England Command Center at 866-819-9128, or via VHF Channel 16.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is issuing this final rule to adjust its civil monetary penalties (CMP) under the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1922 (RHA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the National Fishing Enhancement Act (NFEA) to account for inflation.
This final rule is effective on August 8, 2025.
For the RHA portion, please contact Mr. Joseph R. Wilson, 202-761-7697 or by email at
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-410, codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461, as amended, requires agencies to annually adjust the level of CMP for inflation to improve their effectiveness and
With this rule, the new statutory maximum penalty levels listed in Table 1 will apply to all statutory civil penalties assessed on or after the effective date of this rule. Table 1 shows the calculation of the 2025 annual inflation adjustment based on the guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (see December 17, 2024, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Subject: Implementation of Penalty Inflation Adjustments for 2025, Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015). The OMB provided to agencies the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2025, based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October 2024, not seasonally adjusted, which is 1.02598. Agencies are to adjust “the maximum civil monetary penalty or the range of minimum and maximum civil monetary penalties, as applicable, for each civil monetary penalty by the cost-of-living adjustment.” For 2025, agencies multiply each applicable penalty by the multiplier, 1.02598, and round to the nearest dollar. The multiplier should be applied to the most recent penalty amount,
Section 4 of the Inflation Adjustment Act directs Federal agencies to publish annual penalty inflation adjustments. In accordance with section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), many rules are subject to notice and comment and are effective no earlier than 30 days after publication in the
In compliance with the principles in the President's Memorandum of June 1, 1998, regarding plain language, this preamble is written using plain language. The use of “we” in this notice refers to the Corps and the use of “you” refers to the reader. We have also used the active voice, short sentences, and common everyday terms except for necessary technical terms.
This rule has been designated not significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13563. Moreover, this final rule makes nondiscretionary adjustments to existing CMP in accordance with the Inflation Adjustment Act and OMB guidance. The Corps, therefore, did not consider alternatives and does not have the flexibility to alter the adjustments of the civil monetary penalty amounts as provided in this rule.
Executive Order 14192 establishes a regulatory cap for Fiscal Year 2025 and requires agencies to identify 10 existing regulations to be repealed unless the regulation meets certain exemptions. This final rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action under OMB M-25-20, “Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive Order 14192,” because it does not impose any more than
The DoD determined that provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this rule because there are no new or revised recordkeeping or reporting requirements. This action merely increases the level of statutory civil penalties that could be imposed in the context of a Federal civil administrative enforcement action or civil judicial case for violations of Corps-administered statutes and implementing regulations.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a rule that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has federalism implications. This final rule will not have a substantial effect on State and local governments.
The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) certified that this rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601,
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532) requires agencies to assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule the mandates of which require spending in any year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. This rule will not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal governments, nor will it affect private sector costs.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the rule on children, and explain why the regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This rule is not subject to this Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. In addition, it does not concern an environmental or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
Executive Order 13175 requires agencies to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” The phrase “policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.” This rule does not have tribal implications. The rule imposes no new substantive obligations on tribal governments. Therefore, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
This rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Navigation (water), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
Administrative practice and procedure, Intergovernmental relations, Investigations, Law enforcement, Navigation (water), Water pollution control, Waterways.
Approved by:
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 33, chapter II, part 207 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1; 33 U.S.C. 555; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(c) * * *
(2) In addition, any person or entity that fails to provide timely, accurate, and complete statements or reports required to be submitted by the regulation in this section may also be assessed a civil penalty of up to $7,156 per violation under 33 U.S.C. 555, as amended.
33 U.S.C. 401
(a) * * *
(1) This section sets forth procedures for initiation and administration of Class I administrative penalty orders under Section 309(g) of the Clean Water Act, judicially-imposed civil penalties under Section 404(s) of the Clean Water Act, and Section 205 of the National Fishing Enhancement Act. Under
In Rule Document 2025-13893, appearing on pages 34770-34773 in the issue of Thursday, July 24, 2025, make the following correction:
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communication Commission (Commission) conforms certain rule parts in the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect the rules that are actually in effect as a result of the
Effective August 8, 2025.
Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
For further information about the
This is a summary of the Commission's Order in GN Docket No. 25-133; WC Docket No. 23-320; WC Docket No. 17-108; CC Docket No. 96-48; CC Docket No. 95-185; DA 25-613, adopted and released on July 11, 2025. The complete text of this document is available for download at
By this Order, we conform Parts 8, 20, and 51 of the Commission's rules to court decisions nullifying certain provisions within those Parts. In the
We first conform Parts 8 and 20 of the Commission's rules to the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit) in
We next remove requirements from Part 51 of our rules that were vacated by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (Eighth Circuit) in
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because we are simply conforming the text of the Commission's rules in the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect the rules that are actually in effect as a result of the
The changes to parts 8, 20, and 51 of the Commission's rules to conform to these court decisions are reflected in Appendix A.
The Bureau has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs that this rule is non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of this Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Cable television, Common carriers, Communications, Computer technology, Consumer protection, Electronic products, Internet, Labeling, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Satellites, Security measures, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Administrative practice and procedure, Common carriers, Communications, Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Environmental impact statements, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Satellites, Security measures, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Communications, Communications common carriers, Telecommunications, Telephone.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 8, 20, and 51 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201(b), 257, 302a, 303(r), 312, 333, 503 and 1753.
(a) Any person providing broadband internet access service shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance characteristics, and commercial terms of its broadband internet access services sufficient to enable consumers to make informed choices regarding the purchase and use of such services and entrepreneurs and other small businesses to develop, market, and maintain internet offerings. Such disclosure shall be made via a publicly available, easily accessible website or through transmittal to the Commission.
(b) Broadband internet access service is a mass-market retail service by wire or radio that provides the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or substantially all internet endpoints, including any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up internet access service. This term also encompasses any service that the Commission finds to be providing a functional equivalent of the service described in the previous sentence or that is used to evade the protections set forth in this part. For purposes of paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section, “mass-market” services exclude service offerings customized for the customer through individually negotiated agreements even when the services are supported by federal universal service support.
(c) A network management practice is reasonable if it is appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband internet access service.
47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 155, 157, 160, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302a, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), 332, 610, 615, 615a, 615b, and 615c, unless otherwise noted.
The revisions to read as follows:
(2) The functional equivalent of such a mobile service described in paragraph (1) of this definition.
(1) That is interconnected with the public switched network, or interconnected with the public switched network through an interconnected service provider, that gives subscribers the capability to communicate to or receive communication from all other users on the public switched network; or
47 U.S.C. 151-55, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 225-27, 251-52, 271, 332 unless otherwise noted.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) is seeking information to assist it in considering whether to propose a rule to amend the test to define larger participants in the consumer reporting market established by the Bureau's Defining Larger Participants of the Consumer Reporting Market Final Rule published on July 20, 2012 (Consumer Reporting Larger Participant Rule).
Comments must be received on or before September 22, 2025.
You may submit responsive information and other comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2025-0031, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Dave Gettler, Paralegal Specialist, Office of Regulations, at 202-435-7700. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact
The Bureau is seeking information in order to consider whether to propose a rule to amend the test to define larger participants in the consumer reporting market. Currently, a nonbank covered person is a larger participant of the consumer reporting market if the nonbank covered person has more than $7 million in annual receipts resulting from relevant consumer reporting activities. The Bureau is concerned that the benefits of the current threshold may not justify the compliance burdens for many of the entities that are currently considered larger participants in this market, and that the current threshold may be diverting limited Bureau resources to determine whom among the universe of providers may be subject to the Bureau's supervisory authority and whether these providers should be examined in a particular year.
Section 1024 of the CFPA,
The Bureau published the Consumer Reporting Larger Participant Rule on July 20, 2012.
The consumer reporting market includes consumer reporting agencies
The final rule established a test, based on “annual receipts,” to assess whether a nonbank covered person that offers or provides consumer reporting is a larger participant of the consumer reporting market. The definition of “annual receipts” was adapted from the definition of the term used by the Small Business Administration (SBA) for purposes of defining small business concerns. The final rule adopted the proposed test for qualifying as a larger participant of the consumer reporting market: more than $7 million in annual receipts resulting from relevant consumer reporting activities. Covered persons meeting the test qualify as larger participants and are subject to the Bureau's supervision authority under 12 U.S.C. 5514. The test to assess larger-participant status set forth in the final rule was tailored to the consumer reporting market identified by the rule.
When the Consumer Reporting Larger Participant Rule was issued in 2012, the CFPB analyzed Economic Census data. Since then, the U.S. Census Bureau in cooperation with the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy has developed an additional potentially relevant data source called Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) described in more detail at
The 2022 Economic Census data displayed below shows the latest information about the number of firms in NAICS code 561450 (Credit Bureaus) for different revenue bins. The 2022 Economic Census data indicates that the 10 firms with revenue of $100 million or more accounted for about 70 percent of the total revenue of all credit bureaus in this NAICS code. By contrast, the firms with less than $41 million in revenues accounted for about 15 percent of the total revenue of all credit bureaus in this NAICS code.
Meanwhile, the
When the Consumer Reporting Larger Participant Rule was issued in 2012, the SBA small-business threshold for NAICS code 561450 was $7 million in annual revenues. Today, the corresponding threshold is $41 million in annual revenues. Although there is some variation between the Economic Census and SUSB data, according to the tables above there are about 250 total entities, of which fewer than 30 are above the current SBA threshold of $41 million in annual revenues for small businesses in NAICS code 561450.
Based on its risk-based prioritization process, the Bureau's examinations of entities under the Consumer Reporting Larger Participant Rule have, with very limited exceptions, focused on entities with annual receipts that significantly exceed the $7 million threshold as well as the SBA's $41 million annual revenue threshold. More specifically, the vast majority of companies the Bureau has examined pursuant to the Consumer Reporting Larger Participant Rule have had annual receipts exceeding $50 million. Based on the Bureau's supervisory experience, the Bureau estimates that increasing the annual receipts threshold to match the SBA annual revenue threshold of $41 million would leave at least six larger participants in the market.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this action is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, as amended. Accordingly, OMB has reviewed this action.
As discussed above, the Bureau is concerned that the benefits of supervisory authority over nonbank covered persons with more than $7 million in annual receipts resulting from relevant consumer reporting activities may not justify the costs of increased compliance burdens for many entities that are considered larger participants under the current test.
1. Is $7 million in annual receipts resulting from relevant consumer reporting activities an appropriate threshold for determining which entities should be considered larger participants in the consumer reporting market? If not, what annual receipts threshold or other criterion (
2. How would consumers be impacted by a potential increase in the threshold? Submissions of data related to the benefits or costs to consumers of the current rule and any particular change to the threshold are encouraged.
3. How would changing the current threshold for larger participants alter the behavior of participants in the consumer reporting market? How would these changes benefit or harm consumers and participants? Would those changes in behavior have impacts beyond this specific market?
4. How would changing the current threshold for larger participants affect the Bureau's ability to address potential market failures in the consumer reporting market and related areas?
5. What are the costs to covered entities that are specific to the Bureau's supervisory authority for larger participants in the consumer reporting market? Specific figures as to staffing, staff time, and other resources are encouraged. How often are these costs incurred for larger participants under the current rule who are close to the current threshold for being larger participants?
6. What are the costs to covered persons from being a larger participant that are not specific to the Bureau's supervisory authority, but are specific to being a larger participant in the consumer reporting market? For instance, are there costs to consumer reporting firms of monitoring larger participant status, or costs related to complying with relevant Federal statutes and regulations beyond what the firm would find reasonable absent the possibility of supervision?
7. Are there costs to covered persons from the current larger participant rule that specifically apply to firms whose annual receipts are lower than, but close to the threshold?
8. Are there costs or benefits to consumers, including rural consumers, servicemembers, and veterans, of raising the larger participant threshold?
9. Do small business concerns, as defined by the SBA, or other smaller- or mid-size entities qualify as larger participants under the current threshold in this market? Do these entities incur costs of compliance with their larger participant status that are not in proportion to their size relative to other larger participants in the consumer reporting market?
10. Should the Bureau's test for defining larger participants in the consumer reporting market account for the SBA's size standards? If so, how?
11. Are there significant recordkeeping requirements that would be reduced by raising the larger participant threshold?
12. What other specific costs or benefits, not mentioned above, would a change in the larger participant threshold have for consumers and covered persons?
13. Should the Bureau rely upon Economic Census data, SUSB data, or other sources of data to inform estimates of the current size of the firms in the consumer reporting market and the number of firms that may qualify as larger participants? What additional sources of data, if any, can reliably inform such estimates?
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) is seeking information to assist it in considering whether to propose a rule to amend the test to define larger participants in the international money transfer market established by the Bureau's Defining Larger Participants of the International Money Transfer Market Final Rule published on September 9, 2014 (International Money Transfer Larger Participant Rule or 2014 Rule).
Comments must be received on or before September 22, 2025.
You may submit responsive information and other comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2025-0025, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Dave Gettler, Paralegal, Office of Regulations, at 202-435-7380. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact
The Bureau is seeking information to consider whether to propose a rule to amend the test which defines larger participants in the international money transfer market. Currently, a nonbank covered person is a larger participant of the international money transfer market if the nonbank covered person has at least one million aggregate annual international money transfers. The Bureau is concerned that the benefits of the current threshold may not justify the compliance burdens for many of the entities that are currently considered larger participants in this market, and that the current threshold may be diverting limited Bureau resources to determine whom among the universe of providers may be subject to the Bureau's supervisory authority and whether these providers should be examined in a particular year.
Section 1024 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA),
Consumers generally make international money transfers through nonbank money transfer providers, depository institutions, or credit unions. Many international money transfers operate through closed networks, receiving and disbursing funds through their own outlets or through agents such as grocery stores, neighborhood convenience stores, or depository institutions. For an international money transfer conducted through a money transfer provider, a consumer typically provides basic identifying information about himself and the recipient and often pays cash sufficient to cover the transfer amount and any fees charged by the provider. The consumer may be provided a confirmation code, which the consumer relays to the recipient. The money transfer provider sends an instruction to a specified payout location or locations in the recipient's country where the recipient may pick up the transferred funds, often in cash and local currency, upon presentation of the confirmation code or other identification on or after a specified date. These transfers generally are referred to as cash-to-cash transfers.
Many international money transfer providers also provide international money transfers in other ways. For example, international money transfer providers may permit transfers to be initiated using credit cards, debit cards, or bank account debits and may use websites, agent locations, standalone kiosks, or telephone lines to do so. Abroad, international money transfer providers and their partners may allow funds to be deposited into recipients' bank accounts, distributed directly onto prepaid cards, or credited to mobile phone accounts.
The Remittance Rule, which took effect October 28, 2013, implements subpart B of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA).
The Bureau published the International Money Transfer Larger Participant Rule on September 23, 2014.
International money transfers are electronic transfers of funds sent by nonbank covered persons from consumers in the United States to persons or entities abroad.
Nonbank entities provide a significant portion of the transactions to which the Remittance Rule applies. In promulgating the International Money Transfer Larger Participant Rule, the Bureau found that supervision of larger participants of the international money transfer market would help to ensure that these nonbank entities are complying with the consumer protections afforded by EFTA as implemented by the Remittance Rule, as well as with other applicable requirements of Federal consumer financial law.
Under the 2014 rule, a nonbank covered person qualifies as a larger participant in this market if it satisfies the following test: it has at least 1,000,000 aggregate annual international money transfers.
In the Bureau's 2014 International Money Transfer Larger Participant Rule, the Bureau acknowledged that it was not aware of a data source where institutions report their total number of international money transfers in a manner that is totally consistent with the definition of the larger participant market. This limitation is also true now. For example, while State regulators collect certain data about money transfers, none of the standardized data sets obtained from the States distinguish between transfers initiated by consumers and those initiated by businesses. Yet business-initiated international transfers do not count towards the million-transfer threshold.
The Bureau is concerned that the benefits of supervisory authority over nonbank covered persons with at least 1,000,000 aggregate annual international money transfers may not exceed the costs of increased compliance burdens for many entities that are considered larger participants under the current test. The Bureau also notes that the market for international money transfers provided by nonbank covered persons is heavily concentrated. According to the data described above, the largest eight non-depository financial institutions by transfer volume conducted approximately 77 percent of estimated remittance transfers. This concentration supports the fact that a higher threshold might better balance the goals of protecting consumers while also not unnecessarily imposing costs on covered persons. The Bureau further is concerned that smaller international money transfer providers who may be considered larger participants are being disproportionately impacted by the current threshold.
The Bureau is also concerned that the number of larger participants in the international money transfer market subject to supervision may be too large and is potentially diverting limited Bureau resources to determine whom among smaller providers may be subject to the Bureau's supervisory authority and whether these providers should be examined in a particular year. The Bureau therefore seeks comment on the topics and questions listed below in light of the Bureau's intent to propose amending the test to define larger participants in the international money transfer market.
By raising the threshold for the test to define larger participants in the international money transfer market, the Bureau could focus its supervisory oversight on the market participants that send the greatest number of transfers and, therefore, likely interact with the largest numbers of consumers. For example, the Bureau's current threshold of 1,000,000 international money transfers per year covers approximately 28 nonbank providers and these providers provide an estimated 98 percent of all international money transfers. If the Bureau raises the threshold to 10,000,000 international money transfers per year, the Bureau preliminarily estimates that approximately 15 nonbank covered persons would qualify as larger participants and that they provide an estimated 94 percent of all international money transfers. As another option, if the Bureau raises the threshold to 30,000,000 international money transfers, we preliminarily estimate that approximately eight nonbank covered persons would qualify as larger participants and that they provide an estimated 77 percent of all international money transfers. A third option would be to raise the threshold to 50,000,000 international money transfers. The Bureau preliminarily estimates that approximately four nonbank covered persons would qualify as larger participants and that they provide an estimated 61 percent of all international money transfers.
Since the Bureau began supervising larger participants in the international money transfer market, the market has increasingly involved online platforms, including mobile application-based platforms. Using any one of these thresholds, the Bureau would cover both online and in-person remittance transfer providers.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this action is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, as amended. Accordingly, OMB has reviewed this action.
As discussed above, the Bureau is concerned that the benefits of supervisory authority over nonbank covered persons with one million aggregate annual international money transfers may not justify the costs of increased compliance burdens for many entities that are considered larger participants under the current test.
The Bureau is also concerned that the pool of entities subject to supervision may be too broad and is potentially diverting limited Bureau resources to determine who is a larger participant
The Bureau notes that it has not evaluated whether changes in the international money transfer market call for updating the test to define larger participants since it published the International Money Transfer Larger Participant Rule over ten years ago. The Bureau therefore seeks comment on the topics and questions listed below in light of the Bureau's intent to consider proposing to amend the test to define larger participants in the international money transfer market.
1. What additional sources of data, if any, are available that can reliably inform estimates of the current size of the international money transfer market, the participation in the market by nonbanks, banks, and credit unions, and the number of institutions that qualify as larger participants?
2. Should the Bureau consider defining larger participants in the international money transfer market in relation to the Small Business Administration's size standards? If so, how?
3. Should the Bureau reconsider the 1,000,000 annual aggregate money transfer threshold for qualifying as a larger participant in the international money transfer market? If so, what threshold and number of participants would allow the Bureau to effectively focus on the largest participants and efficiently use its resources?
4. Would an increase in the threshold have a potential disproportionate impact on any geographic corridors, and, if so, how?
5. Is annual aggregate international money transfers an appropriate criterion for determining which entities should be considered larger participants in the international money transfer market? If not, what alternative criteria (
6. How would consumers be impacted by a potential increase in the threshold? Submissions of data related to the benefits or costs to consumers of the current rule and any particular change to the threshold are encouraged.
7. How would changing the current threshold for larger participants alter the behavior of participants in the international money transfer market? How would these changes benefit or harm consumers and participants? Would those changes in behavior have impacts beyond this specific market?
8. How would changing the current threshold for larger participants affect the Bureau's ability to address potential market failures in the international money transfer market and related areas?
9. What are the costs to covered entities that are specific to the Bureau's supervisory authority for larger participants in the international money transfer market? Specific figures as to staffing, staff time, and other resources are encouraged. How often are these costs incurred for larger participants under the current rule who are close to the current threshold for being larger participants?
10. What are the costs to covered persons that are not specific to the Bureau's supervisory authority, but are specific to being a larger participant in the international money transfer market? For instance, are there costs of monitoring status as a large participant or costs related to complying with relevant Federal statutes and regulations beyond what the firm would find reasonable absent the possibility of supervision?
11. Are there costs to covered persons from the current larger participant rule that specifically apply to firms who transfer fewer international money transfers than the threshold, but are close to the threshold?
12. Are there costs or benefits to consumers, including rural consumers, servicemembers, and veterans, of raising the larger participant threshold?
13. Do small business concerns, as defined by the Small Business Administration, or other smaller- or mid-size entities qualify as larger participants under the current threshold? Do these entities incur costs of compliance with their larger participant status that are not in proportion to their size relative to other larger participants in the international money transfer market?
14. Are there significant recordkeeping requirements that would be reduced by raising the larger participant threshold?
15. What other specific costs or benefits, not mentioned above, would a change in the larger participant threshold have for consumers and covered persons?
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) is seeking information to assist it in considering whether to propose a rule to amend the test to define larger participants in the automobile financing market established by the Bureau's Defining Larger Participants of the Automobile Financing Market and Defining Certain Automobile Leasing Activity as a Financial Product or Service Final Rule published on June 30, 2015 (Automobile Financing Larger Participant Rule).
Comments must be received on or before September 22, 2025.
You may submit responsive information and other comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2025-0029, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Dave Gettler, Paralegal Specialist, Office of Regulations, at 202-435-7700. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact
The Bureau is seeking information in order to consider whether to propose a rule to amend the test to define larger participants in the automobile financing market. Currently, a nonbank covered person is a larger participant of the automobile financing market if the nonbank covered person has at least 10,000 aggregate annual originations. The Bureau is concerned that the benefits of the current threshold may not justify the compliance burdens for many of the entities that are currently considered larger participants in this market, and that the current threshold may be diverting limited Bureau resources to determine who among the universe of providers may be subject to the Bureau's supervisory authority and whether these providers should be examined in a particular year. To address this problem, the Bureau could amend the test by raising the threshold. There are a range of thresholds the Bureau could propose. To facilitate comment, the Bureau provides three examples further below. In the example with the largest increase, raising the threshold to 1,050,000 aggregate annual originations would reduce the number of entities estimated to qualify as larger participants by more than 90 percent, from 63 entities (who account for an estimated 94 percent of market activity) to five entities (who account for an estimated 42 percent of market activity).
Section 1024 of the CFPA,
The Bureau published the Automobile Financing Larger Participant Rule on June 30, 2015. The final rule defined a market for automobile financing and established that nonbank covered persons with at least 10,000 aggregate annual originations would be considered larger participants in this market. The final rule defined “annual originations” to mean the sum of the following transactions for the preceding calendar year: credit granted for the purchase of an automobile; refinancings of such obligations (and any subsequent refinancings thereof) that are secured by an automobile; automobile leases; and purchases or acquisitions of any of the foregoing obligations.
Autos have become indispensable for most working individuals. Autos are commonly used to commute to work, or for other purposes that are important to consumers, such as transportation to school or healthcare providers, travel, and recreation.
Americans owed more than $1.6 trillion on auto loans through the first quarter of 2025, with more than 100 million active auto finance accounts outstanding.
Auto credit is provided through both direct and indirect channels, creating different dynamics for consumers and industry participants. In the direct lending channel, a consumer seeks credit directly from the nonbank or depository institution financing source, whereas in the indirect lending channel, the dealer typically enters into a retail installment sales contract that it then sells to a third-party nonbank finance company, or a depository institution engaged in indirect lending.
Most consumers who finance the purchase of a vehicle use the indirect channel. Depository institutions and credit unions have an advantage in the direct lending space because these entities often have a pre-existing relationship with consumers and a lower cost of funds, which enables them to offer competitive rates, but these entities also operate heavily in the indirect lending space. Nonbanks, other than Buy Here Pay Here entities (discussed below), are also active in the indirect channel.
With indirect lending, dealers rather than consumers typically select the lender that will provide the financing. Upon completion of the vehicle selection process, the dealer typically collects basic information regarding the applicant and uses an automated system to forward that information to prospective indirect auto lenders. After evaluating the applicant, indirect auto lenders may provide the dealer with purchase eligibility criteria or stipulations.
The dealer typically selects the lender to whom it will assign the retail installment sales contract. The dealer is typically compensated for arranging indirect financing. In the indirect model, the indirect lender typically becomes responsible for servicing the contract, and the consumer will then make payments to the indirect lender.
Leases can also be obtained through direct or indirect channels. With an auto lease from a dealer, finance sources provide the dealer with the relevant terms of a lease. In a lease transaction, a finance source will also quote a residual value, which is the projected
The Bureau published the Automobile Financing Larger Participant Rule on June 30, 2015. The final rule defined a market for automobile financing that covers specific activities and set forth a test to determine whether a nonbank covered person is a larger participant of that market. It established that nonbank covered persons with at least 10,000 aggregate annual originations would be considered larger participants in this market.
The automobile financing market identified by the Automobile Financing Larger Participant Rule includes the following types of nonbank covered persons: (1) specialty finance companies; (2) “captive” nonbanks (commonly referred to as “captives”); and (3) Buy Here Pay Here (BHPH) finance companies.
Specialty financing companies serve consumers in specialized markets. Many of these companies focus on providing financing to subprime borrowers who tend to have past credit problems, lower income, or limited credit histories, which prevent them from being able to obtain financing elsewhere.
Generally, captives are subsidiary finance companies owned by auto manufacturers. They provide consumers with financing and leases for the primary purpose of facilitating their parent companies' and associated franchised dealers' auto sales.
BHPH finance companies are typically associated with certain dealers. With some exceptions, BHPH dealers traditionally focus on subprime and deep subprime borrowers, and typically retain retail installment contracts or assign them to an affiliated finance company. Some very large lenders who may be categorized as BHPH lenders engage in prime lending, while the majority of the BHPH space is focused on consumers with subprime credit scores.
Under the Automobile Financing Larger Participant Rule, a nonbank covered person qualifies as a larger participant in this market if it has at least 10,000 aggregate annual originations. Based on the Bureau's analysis of data from Experian Velocity
The market for automobile financing provided by nonbank covered persons is somewhat concentrated. According to the same data, 18 entities conducted approximately 80 percent of originations.
The Bureau is concerned that the benefits of supervisory authority over nonbank covered persons with at least 10,000 aggregate annual originations may not justify the costs of increased compliance burdens for many entities that are considered larger participants under the current test.
The Bureau has not previously raised the threshold for the test to define larger participants in the automobile financing market. By doing so, the Bureau could focus its supervisory oversight on the most active market participants that interact with very large numbers of consumers. For example, if the Bureau raises the threshold from 10,000 to 550,000 aggregate annual originations, the Bureau preliminarily estimates that 11 nonbank entities would qualify as larger participants and that the updated rule would cover approximately 66 percent of originations. At present, this would include nine nonbank entities that focus on prime lending and two entities that engage in at least some subprime lending. Another option would be to raise the threshold to 300,000 aggregate annual originations. Under this threshold, the Bureau preliminarily estimates that 17 nonbanks would qualify as larger participants, and the updated rule would cover approximately 79 percent of originations. At present, this would include 12 entities that primarily engage in prime lending and five entities that engage in at least some subprime lending.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this action is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, as amended. Accordingly, OMB has reviewed this action.
1. Is 10,000 aggregate annual originations an appropriate threshold for determining which entities should be considered larger participants in the automobile financing market? If not, what type of threshold would be more appropriate and why?
2. How would consumers be impacted by a potential increase in the threshold? Submissions of data related to the benefits or costs to consumers of the current rule and any particular change to the threshold are encouraged.
3. How would changing the current threshold for larger participants alter the behavior of participants in the automobile financing market? How would these changes benefit or harm consumers and participants? Would those changes in behavior have impacts beyond this specific market?
4. How would changing the current threshold for larger participants affect the Bureau's ability to address potential market failures in the automobile financing market and related areas?
5. What are the costs to covered entities that are specific to the Bureau's supervisory authority for larger participants in the automobile financing market? Specific figures as to staffing, staff time, and other resources are encouraged. How often are these costs incurred for larger participants under the current rule who are close to the current threshold for being larger participants?
6. What are the costs to covered persons that are not specific to the Bureau's supervisory authority, but are specific to being a larger participant in the automobile financing market? For instance, are there costs of monitoring status as a large participant or costs related to complying with relevant Federal statutes and regulations beyond what the firm would find reasonable absent the possibility of supervision?
7. Are there costs to covered persons from the current larger participant rule that specifically apply to firms whose aggregate annual originations are lower, but close to, the threshold?
8. Are there costs or benefits to consumers, including rural consumers, servicemembers, or veterans, of raising the larger participant threshold?
9. Do small business concerns, as defined by the Small Business Administration, or other smaller- or mid-size entities qualify as larger participants under the current threshold in the automobile financing market? Do these entities incur costs of compliance with their larger participant status that are not in proportion to their size relative to other larger participants in the automobile financing market?
10. Should the Bureau's test for defining larger participants in the automobile financing market account for the Small Business Administration's size standards? If so, how?
11. Are there significant recordkeeping requirements that would be reduced by raising the larger participant threshold?
12. What other specific costs or benefits, not mentioned above, would a change in the larger participant threshold have for consumers and covered persons?
13. In addition to data from the Economic Census or Velocity
14. Should the Bureau reconsider the threshold for aggregate annual originations to qualify as a larger participant in the automobile financing market?
15. What threshold and number of participants allows the Bureau to effectively focus on the largest participants and efficiently use its resources?
16. Should the Bureau consider separate thresholds for each type of participant in this market,
17. Should the threshold ensure that the Bureau's supervisory authority covers a mix of entity types (captives, specialty finance, and BHPH finance companies) and both the prime and subprime markets? If so, what is the appropriate mix? Or should Supervision focus on the automobile financing companies that produce the largest number of originations, which are currently primarily captive nonbanks who originate prime loans?
18. Among entities above the current threshold, how do the compliance costs and other costs imposed by larger participant status vary by:
a. The type of nonbank entity;
b. Number of originations;
c. The share of the entity's lease versus loan originations; and
d. Characteristics of the loan or lease?
19. Among entities above the current threshold, how do the risks, costs, or benefits to consumers of a potential increase in the threshold vary by:
a. The type of nonbank entity;
b. Number of originations;
c. Whether the consumer took out a lease or a loan; and
d. Characteristics of the loan or lease?
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) is seeking information to assist it in considering whether to propose a rule to amend the test to define larger participants in the consumer debt collection market established by the Bureau's Defining Larger Participants of the Consumer Debt Collection Market Final Rule published on October 31, 2012 (Consumer Debt Collection Larger Participant Rule).
Comments must be received on or before September 22, 2025.
You may submit responsive information and other comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2025-0030, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Dave Gettler, Paralegal, Office of Regulations, 202-435-7389. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact
The Bureau is seeking information in order to consider whether to propose a rule to amend the test to define larger participants in the consumer debt collection market. Currently, a nonbank covered person is a larger participant of the consumer debt collection market if the person has more than $10 million in annual receipts resulting from consumer debt collection activities as those terms are defined in the Consumer Debt Collection Larger Participant Rule. The Bureau is concerned that the benefits of the current threshold may not justify the compliance burdens for many of the entities that are currently considered larger participants in this market, and that the current threshold may be diverting limited Bureau resources to determine whom among the universe of providers may be subject to the Bureau's supervisory authority and whether these providers should be examined in a particular year.
Section 1024 of the CFPA,
The Bureau published the Consumer Debt Collection Larger Participant Rule on October 31, 2012.
Participants of the consumer debt collection market generally include different types of consumer debt collection entities such as third-party debt collectors, debt buyers, and collection attorneys.
Debt collection is a $15.1 billion industry with about 2,500 collection agencies in the United States.
The Consumer Debt Collection Larger Participant Rule defined a market for “consumer debt collection,” which is among the consumer financial products or services described in 12 U.S.C. 5481(5)(B) and (15)(A). Activities covered under these provisions of the CFPA include “collecting debt related to any consumer financial product or service.” Under 12 U.S.C. 5481(5)(B), such activity is a “consumer financial product or service” when “delivered, offered, or provided in connection with a consumer financial product or service.” The definition of “consumer debt collection” in the Consumer Debt Collection Larger Participant Rule was not meant to track these related provisions in the CFPA.
The Bureau selected annual receipts as the criterion for determining larger participant status in the Consumer Debt Collection Larger Participant Rule because it believed annual receipts were a meaningful measure of the level of a consumer debt collector's participation in the consumer debt collection market and the consumer debt collector's corresponding impact on consumers. For example, third-party collectors, debt buyers, and collection law firms earn income from recovering consumer debt. Those recoveries are the result of market participation, either through traditional collection means or litigation. Thus, the level of a person's market participation, according to the Bureau, was reflected by the amount of that person's annual receipts.
Some of the facts that were used to justify a threshold of $10 million have changed in the intervening years. In 2013, the Small Business Administration (SBA) classified a debt collection agency as a small business concern if its annual receipts were less than $7 million. Thus, when the Bureau established the threshold of $10 million to define larger participants, it was choosing a definition that would exclude small business concerns and as well as smaller entities that are not small business concerns.
In addition, the potential data sources have evolved. When the Consumer Debt Collection Larger Participant Rule was issued in 2012, the Bureau analyzed Economic Census data. Since then, the U.S. Census Bureau in cooperation with the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy has developed an additional potentially relevant data source called Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB), described in more detail at
Both sources indicate that the collections industry has consolidated significantly since the Consumer Debt Collection Larger Participant Rule was issued in 2012. As noted above, at the time, the Bureau estimated there were approximately 4,500 entities engaged in debt collection, based on data from the 2007 Economic Census, of which approximately 175, about four percent, had annual receipts exceeding $10 million. Based on the most recent available data from the 2022 Economic Census and the SUSB data, there are now about 2,500 to 3,000 entities engaged in debt collection, of which around 200 to 250, about seven to ten percent, have annual receipts exceeding $10 million. Of those firms with over $10 million in revenues, roughly half have annual receipts between $10 million and $25 million, most of which are likely small business concerns as defined by the SBA. Thus, increasing the annual receipts threshold to $25 million would result in roughly 100 to 125 larger participants who have between roughly 55 and 70 percent of the total revenues reported for NAICS code 561440. The Economic Census and the SUSB data are more divergent at potentially higher thresholds. For example, increasing the annual receipts threshold to $50 million would result in between roughly 60 (Economic Census) and 90 (SUSB) larger participants who have between roughly 41 percent (Economic Census) and 58 percent (SUSB) of the total revenues reported for NAICS code 561440. Increasing the annual receipts threshold to $100 million would result in between roughly 11 (Economic Census) and 64 (SUSB) larger participants who have between roughly 18 percent (Economic Census) and 51 percent (SUSB) of the total revenues.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this action is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, as amended. Accordingly, OMB has reviewed this action.
As discussed above, the Bureau is concerned that the benefits of supervisory authority over nonbank covered persons with more than $10 million in annual receipts resulting from consumer debt collection activities may not justify the costs of increased compliance burdens for many entities that are considered larger participants under the current test.
1. Is $10 million in annual receipts an appropriate threshold for determining which entities should be considered larger participants in the consumer debt collection market? If not, what annual receipts threshold or other criterion and associated threshold would be more appropriate and why?
2. How would consumers be impacted by a potential increase in the threshold? Submissions of data related to the benefits or costs to consumers of the current rule and any particular change to the threshold are encouraged.
3. How would changing the current threshold for larger participants alter the behavior of participants in the consumer debt collection market? How would these changes benefit or harm consumers and participants? Would those changes in behavior have impacts beyond this specific market?
4. How would changing the current threshold for larger participants affect the Bureau's ability to address potential market failures in the consumer debt collection market and related areas?
5. What are the costs to covered entities that are specific to the Bureau's supervisory authority for larger participants in the consumer debt collection market? Specific figures as to staffing, staff time, and other resources are encouraged. How often are these costs incurred for larger participants under the current rule who are close to the current threshold for being larger participants?
6. What are the costs to covered persons that are not specific to the Bureau's supervisory authority, but are specific to being a larger participant in the consumer debt collection market? For instance, are there costs of monitoring status as a larger participant, or costs related to complying with relevant Federal statutes and regulations beyond what the firm would find reasonable absent the possibility of supervision?
7. Are there costs to covered persons from the current larger participant rule that specifically apply to firms whose annual receipts are lower than, but close to, the threshold?
8. Are there costs or benefits to consumers, including rural consumers, servicemembers, and veterans, of raising the larger participant threshold?
9. Do small business concerns, as defined by the SBA, or other smaller- or mid-size entities qualify as larger participants under the current threshold in the consumer debt collection market? Do these entities incur costs of compliance with their larger participant status that are not in proportion to their size relative to other larger participants in the consumer debt collection market?
10. Should the Bureau's test for defining larger participants in the consumer debt collection market account for the SBA's size standards? If so, how?
11. Are there significant recordkeeping requirements that would be reduced by raising the larger participant threshold?
12. What other specific costs or benefits, not mentioned above, would a change in the larger participant threshold have for consumers and covered persons?
13. Should the Bureau rely upon Economic Census data, SUSB data, or other sources of data to inform estimates of the current size of the firms in the consumer debt collection market and the number of firms that qualify as larger participants? What additional sources of data, if any, can reliably inform such estimates?
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend the Class D and Class E airspace at Burns Flat, OK, and update the name of the Clinton/Sherman Airport, Burns Flat, OK, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of an airspace review conducted due to the decommissioning of the Burns Flat localizer outer marker (LOM) and outer marker (OM). This action would bring the airspace into compliance with FAA orders and support instrument flight rule (IFR) procedures and operations.
Comments must be received on or before September 22, 2025.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2025-2245 and Airspace Docket No. 25-ASW-8 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
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 received 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 Office (see the
Class D and E airspace is published in paragraphs 5000 and 6005 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 subsequently 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
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by:
Modifying the Class D airspace at Clinton/Sherman Airport, Burns Flat, OK: (1) to within a 5.2-mile (increased from 4.7-mile) radius from the airport; (2) by reducing the vertical limit to 4,400 feet (previously 4,500 feet) MSL to comply with FAA Order JO 7400.2R, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; and (3) by updating the name of the airport (previously Clinton-Sherman Airport) to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
Modifying the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft above the surface at Clinton/Sherman Airport: (1) to within a 7.7-mile (increased from a 7.2-mile) radius of the airport; and (2) by updating the name of the airport (previously Clinton-Sherman Airport) to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
This action is the result of an airspace review conducted as part of the decommissioning of the Burns Flat LOM and OM.
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 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 FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
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 4,400 feet MSL within a 5.2-mile radius of Clinton/Sherman Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.7-mile radius of Clinton/Sherman Airport.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a special local regulation for the safety of life on certain waters of the Galveston Channel in Galveston County, TX. These regulations would be enforced during a boat parade which will be held annually, on the 3rd Saturday in September. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit entry of non-participants into the regulated area unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Houston-Galveston (COTP) or designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 18, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2025-0586 using the Federal Docket Management System at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Ignacio J. Fernández-Cuervo, Marine Safety Unit Texas City, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (281) 309-1617, email
Coast Guard regulations define “regatta or marine parade” as an organized water event of limited duration which is conducted according to a prearranged schedule. 33 CFR 100.05(a). And, as explained in 33 CFR 100.15, the Coast Guard requires that an organization planning to hold a regatta or marine event apply for a permit if the event, by its nature, circumstances, or location, will introduce extra or unusual hazards to the safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States. Upon the approval of an application, under 33 CFR 100.35(a), the COTP may promulgate such “Special Local Regulations” (SLR's) as he or she deems necessary to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the event.
Texian Navy submitted a marine event permit application in 2024 for a boat parade, and the event was permitted by the Coast Guard with a temporary SLR created for the event (which expired after the event completion). Texian Navy submitted a new marine event permit application again in 2025 and expressed intent to submit applications annually to hold event on the same day (third Saturday in September). We are proposing to incorporate the SLR into a permanent rule for these recurring events (33 CFR 100.801). This rule would not expire, but it would only be subject to enforcement during periods when the events are taking place. The Coast Guard would supplement the rule each year, when an application for the current year's event is approved, with a Notification of Enforcement providing specific information about enforcement times.
The regulated area for the event consists of a pre-staging area along the east end of Seawolf Park, a designated spectator zone east of Galveston Yacht Marina along the ship channel and a Parade transit zone starting in the east end of the Galveston Channel through terminal 10 and back. Among the hazards the event poses include a risk of collisions between event participants operating within or adjacent to the navigation channel designated for the event, and non-participants traveling through the channel, or within approaches to local marinas, boat facilities, and waterfront residential communities. The COTP has determined that the potential hazards associated with the boat parade would be a safety concern for anyone intending to participate in this event, and for vessels that operate within specified waters of the Galveston Channel. The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants, non-participants, and transiting vessels before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041.
The proposed enforcement periods and the size of the regulated area were chosen to ensure the safety of life on these navigable waters before, during, and after activities associated with the boat parade. As provided in 33 CFR 100.801, the Coast Guard would provide annual notice of the overall enforcement periods and periods of enforcement of particular zones within the regulated area in the Coast Guard Heartland District Local Notice to Mariners, and issue a marine information broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event dates and times.
Consistent with 33 CFR 100.35(a), the COTP and the Coast Guard Event PATCOM would have authority to forbid or control the movement of all vessels and persons, including event participants, in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol, a vessel or person in the regulated area would be required to immediately comply with the directions given by the COTP or Event PATCOM, as is now provided in 33 CFR 100.501(d). If a person or vessel fails to follow such directions, the Coast Guard may expel them from the area, issue them a citation for failure to comply, or both.
The COTP proposes to establish a special local regulation which may be subject to enforcement every year on the third Saturday in September. This proposed rule would modify 33 CFR 100.801 by listing a new recurring marine event in Table 3 of § 100.801, which covers the Coast Guard Sector Houston-Galveston COTP Zone. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041.
The regulated area created by this rule would encompass three zones to include a Pre-Staging Zone, Spectator Zone, and Parade Transit Zone as described below:
A person or vessel not registered with the event sponsor as a participant or assigned as official patrols would be considered a spectator. A spectator vessel must not loiter within the navigable channel while within the regulated area. Official patrol vessels would direct spectators to the designated spectator zone. Official Patrols are any vessel assigned or approved by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Houston-Galveston with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer onboard and displaying a Coast Guard ensign. Official Patrols enforcing this regulated area can be contacted on VHF-FM channel 12. All non-participants will be prohibited from entering the established pre-staging and parade transit zones without obtaining permission from the on-water Safety Officer or designated representative. To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by VHF Radio Channel 12. Those in the regulated area must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the designated representative.
The term “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston in the enforcement of the regulated areas.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of this special local regulation. The zone will be for only one day each year. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the regulated areas which would impact a small, designated area of the Galveston Channel for less than five hours. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule will allow vessels to seek permission to enter the regulated areas.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a marine event and special local regulation lasting only five hours that will prohibit entry within 200 yards of the vessel staging area, parade transit zone, and designate a vessel spectator zone. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
On February 5, 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) proposed tolerance and tolerance exemption actions for several pesticides under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). EPA is issuing this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to modify the previously proposed tolerance exemptions for one of those pesticides: maleic hydrazide.
Comments must be received on or before September 8, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0418, through
Robert Little, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508M), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-2219; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document might apply to them:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
EPA is issuing this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to modify the exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the pesticide maleic hydrazide previously proposed in
Section 408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e), authorizes EPA to establish, modify, or revoke tolerances or exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative.
Under FIFRA section 3(g), 7 U.S.C. 136a(g), EPA is required to periodically review all registered pesticides and determine if those pesticides continue to meet the standard for registration under FIFRA. As part of the registration review of a pesticide, EPA also evaluates the existing tolerances for the pesticide. Any tolerance changes identified as necessary or appropriate during registration review are summarized in the registration review decision documents for each pesticide active ingredient or registration review case (
Prior to issuing the final regulation, FFDCA section 408(e)(2) requires EPA to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking for a 60-day public comment period, unless the Administrator for good cause finds that it would be in the public interest to have a shorter period and states the reasons in the proposed rulemaking. EPA has determined that such good cause exists here. The Agency previously issued the 2019
1.
2.
This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking provides a 30-day public comment period. After considering comments that are received in response to this supplemental notice, EPA will issue a final rule. At the time of the final rule, you may file an objection or request a hearing on the action taken in the final rule. If you fail to file an objection to the final rule within the time period specified in the final rule, you will have waived the right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. After the filing deadline specified in the final rule, issues resolved in the final rule cannot be raised again in any subsequent proceedings.
A “tolerance” represents the maximum level for residues of a pesticide chemical legally allowed in or on food, which includes raw agricultural commodities and processed foods and feed for animals. Under the FFDCA, residues of a pesticide chemical that are not covered by a tolerance or exemption from the requirement of a tolerance are considered unsafe.
Under FIFRA section 3(g), 7 U.S.C. 136a(g), EPA is required to periodically review all registered pesticides and determine if those pesticides continue to meet the standard for registration under FIFRA.
FFDCA section 408(b) authorizes EPA to establish a tolerance, if the Agency determines that a tolerance is safe; FFDCA section 408(c) authorizes EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance if the Agency determines that the exemption is safe.
Furthermore, when establishing tolerances or exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance, FFDCA sections 408(b)(3) and (c)(3) require that there be a practical method for detecting and measuring pesticide chemical residue levels in or on food, unless in the case of exemptions, EPA determines that such method is not needed and states the reasons therefore in the rulemaking. 21 U.S.C. 346a(b) and (c).
Consistent with its obligations under FIFRA section 3(g), 7 U.S.C. 136a(g), and FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information on toxicity and exposure of maleic hydrazide. As part of registration review, the Agency has published a risk assessment detailing the risks from
After considering all available information, EPA has determined it is appropriate based on the underlying safety assessments to take the tolerance exemption action being proposed in this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
During registration review, EPA determined that there are no risks of concern from exposure to residues of maleic hydrazide, based on its low toxicity and lack of toxicological endpoints for human health risk assessment. The Agency concluded that it would be appropriate to revoke the existing tolerances for residues of maleic hydrazide in or on “Onion, bulb”, “Potato”, and “potato, chips” and establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for all commodities instead. In the registration review supporting document
In the 2019 Proposed Rule, the Agency proposed to revoke the existing tolerances for “Onion, bulb”, “Potato”, and “potato, chips”. However, rather than proposing to establish a single tolerance exemption covering all commodities, EPA instead proposed to establish tolerance exemptions covering only the commodities for which tolerances existed. Specifically, the Agency proposed to establish tolerance exemptions for residues of maleic hydrazide when used as a plant growth regulator or herbicide in or on onion, bulb and potato, and when present in or on potato chips as a result of application of maleic hydrazide to the growing potato plant. Moreover, the Agency did not propose to establish tolerances or exemptions for any livestock commodities.
This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking modifies the previously proposed tolerance exemptions by proposing to establish a single tolerance for all commodities, rather than limiting the exemption to specific commodities. Specifically, EPA is now proposing to establish a single tolerance exemption for residues of maleic hydrazide when used as a plant growth regulator or herbicide. This proposed modification is supported by the registration review of maleic hydrazide and is consistent with the Maleic Hydrazide Risk Assessment. Moreover, a tolerance exemption covering all commodities would eliminate the need for the Agency to establish tolerances or exemptions for livestock commodities. All supporting documents for the registration review of maleic hydrazide, including the Maleic Hydrazide Risk Assessment, can be found in the public docket online at
As discussed in Unit II.D., based on the supporting registration review documents, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or specifically to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to maleic hydrazide residues. The proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is considered safe. An analytical method is not needed for enforcement purposes since the Agency is not proposing to establish a numerical tolerance for residues of maleic hydrazide in or on any food commodities.
EPA is proposing that this tolerance exemption action would be effective on the date of publication of the final rule in the
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), because it proposes to establish or modify a pesticide tolerance or a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408.
Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) does not apply because actions that establish a tolerance or exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408 are exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA 44 U.S.C. 3501
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
Any comments about the Agency's determination for this rulemaking should be submitted to EPA along with comments on the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking and will be addressed in the final rule.
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars and adjusted annually for inflation) as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any Sate, local or Tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (See Unit V.A.), and because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. However, EPA's 2021
This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking modifies proposed tolerance exemption actions under the FFDCA, which requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or exemption and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .” (FFDCA 408(b)(2)(C) and (c)(2)(B)). The Agency's consideration is documented in the maleic hydrazide registration review documents, located in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0418 at
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355) (May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not involve technical standards that would require Agency consideration under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR chapter I as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of the pesticide maleic hydrazide, including its metabolites and degradates, when used as a plant growth regulator or herbicide.
Notice of comment period.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
PHMSA published a final rule containing a technical correction clarifying the applicability of the requirements for reconfirming the maximum allowable operating pressure of certain gas transmission lines. PHMSA received a petition for reconsideration of the final rule and is providing the public with the opportunity to submit comments on the technical correction and petition for reconsideration.
Comments are due on September 8, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by the Docket Number PHMSA-2025-0117 using any of the following methods:
Comments are posted without changes or edits to
Sayler Palabrica, Transportation Specialist, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, by phone at (202) 744-0825 or email at
On July 1, 2025, PHMSA published a final rule titled, “Pipeline Safety: Clarifying Recordkeeping Requirements for Testing in MAOP Reconfirmation Regulation.”
Pursuant to the authority provided in 49 CFR 190.337(a), PHMSA is providing the public with a 30-day period for submitting comments on the technical correction and petition for reconsideration.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice to solicit nominations for membership.
Through this notice, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is soliciting nominations for four (4) vacancies on the USDA Tribal Advisory Committee (“the Committee”). The Committee consists of eleven (11) members serving staggered terms. Three members will be appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture for a three-year term and one by the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Agriculture to serve the remainder of the vacancy term ending December 19, 2025. Members may only serve on one USDA advisory committee at a time. Candidates and alternates selected for potential appointments will undergo a USDA background check. Pursuant to the Committee's statutory authorization, only Indian tribes as defined by 25 U.S.C. 5304, Tribal organizations as defined by 25 U.S.C. 5304, or national or regional organizations with expertise in issues relating to the Committee may nominate candidates for consideration.
Complete nomination packages will include a nomination letter signed by a representative authorized to make decisions on behalf of the nominating entity, the nominee's resume, and a USDA Advisory Committee Membership Background Information form completed by the nominee (available online at
Nominations must be submitted via email September 22, 2025.
Please submit nominations and resumes for recognition and appointment by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Ranking members of the House Committee on Agriculture through Josiah Griffin, Designated Federal Officer, at
Inquiries may be sent to, Josiah Griffin, Designated Federal Officer, USDA, Office of Tribal Relations, at
1. Nomination letters. Nomination letters must include a brief summary, no more than two pages, explaining the nominee's qualifications to serve on the Tribal Advisory Committee and addressing the membership composition and criteria described above. The signatory of these letters must be authorized to represent the nominating entity.
2. Resume. A resume providing the nominee's background, experience, and educational qualifications.
3. Background Information Form. A completed Advisory Committee or Research and Promotion Background Information form (AD-755) signed by the nominee available online at
Equal opportunity practices, in accordance with USDA policies, will be followed in all membership appointments to the Committee.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD) or the State or local Agency that administers the program.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) 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) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by September 8, 2025 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
R&P Board members under each program are appointed by the Secretary and the Secretary has delegated his appointment authority for the MOA Boards to the mission area Administrator/Under Secretary. Some of the information contained on Form AD-755 is used by the Department to conduct the background clearances of prospective board members required by departmental regulation. The clearance is required for all candidates who are applying to be appointed to a USDA advisory committee or board by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Additionally, White House Liaison Office includes the AD-755 section for Race, Ethnicity and Gender (REG), veterans, and disability data collection. This data collection is optional but essential to ensure that USDA receives a demographic range of applicants for seats on agriculture related board and committees. Most boards require a specific number of seats for certain constituencies thus the collection of information such as race, ethnicity, and gender (REG), is imperative in the board and committee building process. Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) advisory committees must be fairly balanced in membership in terms of points of view represented and the functions to be performed. Therefore, this information will be utilized by the White House Liaison Office and the Office of Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights to determine the approach to outreach for all constituents while constructing each board or committee. If outreach is lower than desired, this information will help the WHLO increase the demographics of applicants and may require additional solicitations for additional outreach for boards and committees across the nation to have a greater pool of applicants.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is: (1) a revision of the currently approved collections for the reporting and recordkeeping burdens associated with the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) regulations and with the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) regulations; and (2) a consolidation of the SFMNP and WIC FMNP reporting and recordkeeping burdens into a single information collection to more accurately reflect consolidated program operations.
Written comments must be received on or before October 7, 2025.
The Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, invites interested persons to submit written comment.
•
•
•
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Allison Post at
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed 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 proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) is associated with the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). WIC provides supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education at no cost to low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum participants, infants, and children up to 5 years of age at nutritional risk. The purpose of WIC FMNP is to provide fresh, nutritious, unprepared, locally grown fruits and vegetables through farmers' markets and roadside stands to WIC participants, and to expand awareness and use of, and sales at, farmers' markets and roadside stands. WIC FMNP is administered by State agencies in 40 States, 7 Indian Tribal Organizations, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
WIC FMNP and SFMNP have near-identical program requirements and are often administered by the same State agency as a “consolidated” program. State agencies administering consolidated programs may accept a single application from a farmer, farmers' market, or roadside stand, for participation in both programs. Additionally, consolidated State agencies may combine farmer, farmers' market, and roadside stand monitoring and evaluation efforts, and may use the same coupon or electronic benefit management system for both programs allowing for combined maintenance and recordkeeping efforts. Consolidated WIC FMNP and SFMNP programs are administered by 23 States, 6 Indian Tribal Organizations, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
SFMNP statute (7 U.S.C. 3007) and regulations (7 CFR part 249), and WIC FMNP statute (42 U.S.C. 1786(m)(8)) and regulations (7 CFR part 248), require that certain program-related information be collected and that full and complete records concerning program operations are maintained. The information reporting and recordkeeping requirements are necessary to ensure appropriate and efficient management of both programs. The burden activities that are covered by this Information Collection Request (ICR) include requirements that involve the authorization and monitoring of local agencies; the certification of participants; the nutrition education that is provided to participants; farmer, farmers' market, roadside stand, and CSA program (SFMNP only) authorization, training, monitoring, and management; and financial and participation data.
State Plans are the principal source of information about how each State agency operates WIC FMNP and SFMNP. State agencies administering both programs may submit a single consolidated State Plan describing both WIC FMNP and SFMNP operations to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) (7 CFR 249.4(a)). State Plans are currently submitted to FNS electronically as Word or PDF documents using a web-based application called PartnerWeb. FNS's Waivers and State Plans (WiSP) application will allow State agencies to
Information from participants and local agencies is collected through State agency-developed forms or Management Information Systems. The information collected is used by FNS to manage, plan, evaluate, make decisions and report on SFMNP and WIC FMNP operations. Along with State Plans, all State agencies also submit the Federal-State Supplemental Nutrition Programs Agreement (FNS-339), for which the associated reporting and recordkeeping burden is approved under OMB Control Number: 0584-0332, Expiration Date: 7/31/2025.
Additionally, SFMNP financial and participation data are collected using the SFMNP Annual Financial and Program Data Report (FNS 683A), and WIC FMNP financial and participation data are collected using the WIC FMNP Annual Financial and Program Data Report (FNS 683B). These forms and their associated reporting burdens are approved under OMB Control Number: 0584-0594 Food Programs Reporting System (FPRS), Expiration Date: 9/30/2026. The recordkeeping burdens associated with forms FNS 683A and FNS 683B are not approved under OMB Control Number 0584-0594. State agencies must maintain records to support data reported in FPRS, and the recordkeeping burden for such record maintenance is captured in this ICR, OMB Control Number: 0584-0447 (and previously in OMB Control Number 0584-0541).
With this information collection, FNS is requesting a revision in the burden hours due to program changes and program adjustments. The most significant program changes reported in this revision are due to SFMNP State agencies transitioning from paper coupon systems to electronic benefit systems, and more accurate reporting of consolidated State agencies' burdens. Additional program changes include the creation of the WiSP application for WIC FMNP and SFMNP State agencies to submit State Plans; corrections to align estimates between programs or more accurately capture program requirements; and corrections to account for existing requirements that have been in use without Paperwork Reduction Act approval. The program adjustments account for changes in the number of participants, authorized outlets (farmers, farmers' markets, roadside stands, and—for SFMNP only—CSA programs), and State and local agencies across both programs.
To date, the WIC FMNP reporting and recordkeeping requirements have been approved under OMB Control Number 0584-0447 (expiration date: 8/31/2027), and the SFMNP reporting and recordkeeping requirements have been separately approved under OMB Control Number 0584-0541 (expiration date: 1/31/2026). This revision proposes to consolidate the SFMNP ICR and the WIC FMNP ICR into a single collection under OMB Control Number 0584-0447. Consolidating the two ICRs will allow FNS to more accurately and clearly capture the two programs' information collection burdens, place both programs on the same cycle of ICR renewals and reduce administrative inefficiencies at FNS.
The currently approved burden for the SFMNP collection is 1,137,363 hours, and the currently approved burden for the WIC FMNP collection is 1,175,964 hours (2,313,327 hours combined). FNS estimates the new, combined burden at 1,760,175 burden hours, which is a decrease of 553,152 hours. The currently approved number of responses for the SFMNP collection is 2,401,277 total annual responses, and the currently approved number of responses for the WIC FMNP collection is 4,149,393 total annual responses (6,550,670 annual responses combined). FNS estimates the new, combined number of responses at 6,965,338, which is an increase of 414,668 total annual responses.
See the table below for estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of virtual 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 District of Columbia Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a business meeting via Zoom. The purpose of this meeting is to review the first draft of the addendum on Access to Services for Students with Disabilities in DC Public Schools and make any necessary revisions.
Wednesday, August 24, 2025, from 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom.
Mallory Trachtenberg, DFO, at
This Committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested members of the public may attend this meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make oral comments as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the scheduled meeting. Written comments may be 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 meeting will be available via the file sharing website,
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of virtual business meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the New Jersey Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will a public meeting via Zoom. The purpose is for the committee to discuss topic ideas.
Monday, August 25, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Victoria Moreno, Designated Federal Officer, at
Committee meetings are available to the public through a registration link (above). Any interested members of the public may attend committee meetings. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make oral statements as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of each meeting will include a list of persons who are present. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the scheduled meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website,
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of public meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the Utah Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a public business meeting the last Monday of the month (August 2025 through October 2025) via Zoom at 3:00 p.m. MT. The purpose of these meetings is to discuss the Committee's report on the topic,
Monday, August 25, 2025, from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Mountain Time.
Monday, September 29, 2025, from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Mountain Time.
Monday, October 27, 2025, from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Mountain Time.
The meetings will be held via Zoom Webinar. Members of the public only need to register once.
Brooke Peery, 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 charges incurred. Callers will incur no charge for calls initiated 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 within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Brooke Peery at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that common alloy aluminum sheet (aluminum sheet) from the Sultanate of Oman (Oman) were made at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR), April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable August 8, 2025.
George McMahon, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1167.
On April 27, 2021, Commerce published in the
For details regarding the events that occurred subsequent to the initiation of this review,
The product covered by this
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act. Commerce calculated export price in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results,
We preliminarily determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period of April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing.
Upon completion of this administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), if OARC's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by OARC for which it did not know that the merchandise it sold to an intermediary (
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the company listed above will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), Commerce will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their case briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.213, and 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to Joint Stock Company Apatit (JSC Apatit), a producer and exporter of phosphate fertilizers from the Russian Federation (Russia). The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023. In addition, Commerce is rescinding this review with respect to Industrial Group Phosphorite LLC. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable August 8, 2025.
Shane Subler or Henry Wolfe, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6241 or (202) 482-0574, respectively.
On June 12, 2024, Commerce published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on phosphate fertilizers from Russia.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
The product covered by the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), Commerce will rescind an administrative review when there are no reviewable suspended entries. Based on our analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) information, we preliminarily determine that Industrial Group Phosphorite LLC, had no entries of subject merchandise during the POR. On July 9, 2024, we notified parties that we intended to rescind this administrative review with respect to the one company which had no reviewable suspended entries.
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following net countervailable subsidy rate exists for the POR, January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their briefs that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing.
Unless the deadline is extended, we intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of the issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), Commerce has preliminarily assigned a subsidy rate as indicated above. Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. For the company for which this review is rescinded, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023. We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
For the company remaining under review, Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce intends, upon publication of the final results, to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount indicated above with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit instructions, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies were provided to producers and exporters of certain aluminum foil (aluminum foil) from the People's Republic of China (China). The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023. In addition, Commerce is rescinding this review, in part, with respect to 18 companies. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable August 8, 2025.
Natasia Harrison, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1240.
On June 12, 2024, based on timely requests for review, Commerce initiated this administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The product covered by the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party or parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Commerce received timely-filed withdrawal requests with respect to 17 companies, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Because the withdrawal requests were timely filed, and no other parties requested a review of these companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce is rescinding this review of the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), Commerce will rescind an administrative review when there are no reviewable suspended entries. Based on our analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) information, we preliminarily determine that 26 companies had no entries of subject merchandise during the POR. On October 24, 2024, we notified parties that we intended to rescind this administrative review with respect to the companies that have no reviewable suspended entries.
The Act and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to apply to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(e)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. However, Commerce normally determines the rates for non-selected companies in reviews in a manner that is consistent with section 705(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation. Section 777A(e)(2) of the Act provides that “the individual countervailable subsidy rates determined under subparagraph (A) shall be used to determine the all-others rate under section 705(c)(5) {of the Act}.” Section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act states that for companies not investigated, in general, we will determine an all-others rate by weight averaging the countervailable subsidy rates established for each of the companies individually investigated, excluding zero and
Accordingly, to determine the rate for companies not selected for individual
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(l)(A) of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the POR, January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to those raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing.
Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
For the companies listed in Appendix II for which the review is being rescinded, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue rescission instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this rescission in the
For the companies remaining in the review, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at the subsidy rates calculated in the final results of this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount indicated above with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit instructions, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Unless the deadline is extended, we intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of the issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on carbon and alloy steel threaded rod (steel threaded rod) from India for the period of review (POR) April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024. Commerce preliminary finds that Mangal Steel Enterprises Limited (Mangal) did not make sales of subject merchandise at prices below normal value (NV) during the POR. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable August 8, 2025.
Robert Shore, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3261.
On April 9, 2020, Commerce published in the
On July 22, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative proceeding by seven days.
The product covered by the scope of this
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We calculated export price and constructed export price in accordance with sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, respectively. We calculated NV in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results,
We preliminarily determine that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists during the period April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024:
As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify certain information reported by Mangal prior to issuing its final results.
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties within five days after public announcement of the preliminary results or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs to Commerce no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this administrative review.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their briefs that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS.
Upon completion of the final results of this administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Mangal for which the company did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate established in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the publication date of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Mangal will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
Unless extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2) and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily finds that countervailable subsidies were provided to a producer and exporter of common alloy aluminum sheet (aluminum sheet) from Bahrain during the period of review (POR) from January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable August 8, 2025.
Dusten Hom, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5075.
On April 27, 2021, Commerce published in the
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
The products covered by the Order are aluminum sheet from Bahrain. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each subsidy program found countervailable, we preliminarily find that there is a subsidy (
Commerce preliminary determines that the following net countervailable subsidy rate exists for the period January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in the preliminary results of this administrative review within five days of the public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days after publication of this notice.
Interested parties will be provided an opportunity to submit written comments (
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. An electronically filed hearing request must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Unless extended, we intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of the issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we preliminarily determined the subsidy rate in the amount shown above for Gulf Aluminum Rolling Mill B.S.C (GARMCO). Upon completion of the administrative review, consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce also intends upon publication of the final results, to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect cash deposits of the estimated countervailing duties in the amounts calculated in the final results of this review for GARMCO listed above with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. If the rate calculated in the final results is zero or
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that certain producers and/or exporters made sales of certain aluminum foil (aluminum foil) at below normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR), April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of this review.
Applicable August 8, 2025.
Jacob Waddell, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1369.
On April 19, 2018, Commerce published the sales at less-than-fair-value order on aluminum foil from China.
For a summary of the events that occurred since the initiation of this review and the analysis for these preliminary results,
The merchandise subject to the
Consistent with Commerce's treatment of: (1) Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co., Ltd.; (2) Dingsheng Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Trading Co., Limited (Dingsheng Aluminium); (3) Hangzhou Dingsheng Import&Export Co., Ltd. (Hangzhou Dingsheng); (4) Hangzhou Five Star Aluminium Co., Ltd (Hangzhou Five Star); (5) Hangzhou Teemful Aluminium Co., Ltd. (Hangzhou Teamful); (6) Inner Mongolia Liansheng New Energy Material Co. (Inner Mongolia Liansheng); and (7) Inner Mongolia Xinxing New Energy Material Co., Ltd. (Inner Mongolia Xinxing) in a prior
Consistent with Commerce's treatment of: (1) Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co., Ltd. (Zhongji); (2) Jiangsu Huafeng Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu Huafeng); and (3) Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co., (HK) Limited (Zhongji HK) in a prior segment of this proceeding,
In the
The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address what dumping margin to apply to respondents that are not selected for individual examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the dumping margin for respondents that are not individually examined in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
In these preliminary results, we calculated rates for Dingsheng and Zhongji that are not zero,
In the
Commerce also preliminarily determines that, after failing to submit an SRA or SRC, (1) Dongwon Systems Corp. (Dongwon); (2) Gränges Aluminum (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (Gränges); (3) Sama Aluminium Co Ltd, (Sama); and (4) Shanghai Shenhuo Aluminium Foil Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Shenhuo) are not eligible for a separate rate and are, therefore, considered part of the China-wide entity.
Under Commerce's policy regarding the conditional review of the China-wide entity, the China-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or Commerce self-initiates, a review of the entity.
Anhui Zhongji
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We calculated export prices in accordance with section 772 of the Act.
Because Commerce has determined that China is a non-market economy country
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for these preliminary results to interested parties within five days after public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their briefs that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined.
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the publication date of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, unless otherwise extended.
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, upon issuance of the final results, Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
For Dingheng and Zhongji, Commerce intends to calculate importer or customer-specific assessment rates, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
Commerce will base the assessment rate of any company not selected for individual examination that qualifies for a separate rate on the weighted-average dumping margin that it calculates for Dingheng and Zhongji in the final results of this review.
Pursuant to Commerce's refinement to its practice, for sales that were not reported in the U.S. sales database submitted by an exporter individually examined during this review, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate the entry of such merchandise at the dumping margin for the China-wide entity.
For the final results, if we continue to treat: (1) Dongwon; (2) Gränges; (3) Sama; (4) Shanghai Shenyan; and (5) Shanghai Shenhuo as part of the China-wide entity, we will instruct CBP to apply an
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the exporters listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
Unless the deadline is extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised by interested parties in the written comments, within 120 after the date of publication of these preliminary results in the
This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies were provided to producers and/or exporters of common alloy aluminum sheet (aluminum sheet) from the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye), during the period of review (POR) January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review.
Applicable August 8, 2025.
Charles DeFilippo and Jacob Saude, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3797 and (202) 482-0981, respectively.
On June 12, 2024, Commerce published in the
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The merchandise subject to the
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs preliminarily found to be countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy,
The Act and Commerce's regulations do not directly address the subsidy rate
Accordingly, to determine the rate for companies not selected for individual examination, Commerce's practice is to weight average the net subsidy rates for the selected mandatory respondents, excluding rates that are zero,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy rates for the period January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023, to be:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results to interested parties within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead request that parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs. Further, we request that interested parties limit their public executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the public executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final determination in this investigation. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the public executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date of the hearing.
Consistent with section 75l(a)(l) of the Act and 19 CFR 35l.212(b)(2), upon issuance of the final results, Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review at the applicable ad valorem assessment rates listed for the corresponding time period (
If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce also intends upon publication of the final results, to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of the estimated countervailing duties in the amounts calculated in the final results of this review for the respective companies listed above with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. If the rate calculated in the final results is zero or
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised by parties in their comments, within 120 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(l) and 777(i)(l) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that the sole mandatory respondent under review sold 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane (R-134a) from the People's Republic of China (China) at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable August 8, 2025.
John Conniff, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1009.
On April 19, 2017, Commerce published in the
For a complete description of the events that occurred since the
The merchandise covered by the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of
Commerce's policy regarding conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative review.
We are conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213. We calculated export prices for Zhejiang Sanmei in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Because China is a non-market economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary results of this review,
We preliminarily determine that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this administrative review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically via Commerce's electric records system, ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Unless otherwise extended, we intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
Upon issuance of the final results, Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 35 days after the publication of the final results of this review. If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (
We will calculate importer/customer-specific assessment rates equal to the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for examined sales to a particular importer/customer to the total entered value of those sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
Pursuant to Commerce's refinement to its practice, for sales that were not reported in the U.S. sales database submitted by a respondent individually examined during this review, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate the entry of such merchandise at the dumping margin assigned to the China-wide entity.
For the companies for which this review is rescinded with these preliminary results, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the POR, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(l)(i). For the companies rescinded from review, Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 35 days after the publication of this notice in the
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of ADs on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated antidumping duties, where applicable.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Zhejiang Sanmei will be that rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing the preliminary results of this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(l) and 777(i)(l) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1), and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that companies under review sold certain mobile access equipment and subassemblies thereof (MAE) at prices below normal value during the period of review April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024. In addition, Commerce is rescinding this review with respect to Xuzhou Construction Machinery Group Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. (Xuzhou). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review.
Applicable August 8, 2025.
Christopher Williams, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5166.
On April 14, 2022, Commerce published in the
On July 22, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this review by seven days.
The merchandise covered by the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. On July 25, 2024, Xuzhou timely withdrew its request for an administrative review.
We preliminarily granted a separate rate to certain companies that we did not select for individual examination.
Commerce calculated an individual estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Dingli that is not zero,
Commerce's policy regarding the conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative review.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results,
We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations performed to interested parties in these preliminary results of this administrative review within five days of its public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days after publication of this notice in the
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce no later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their briefs that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this administrative review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Unless the deadline is extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Upon completion of the final results of this administrative review, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, Commerce shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by this review.
For the company for which this review is rescinded with these preliminary results, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period of review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue these rescission instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
The final results of this administrative review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on, or after, the publication date of the final results of review, as provided in section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the subject merchandise exported by the companies listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review (except, if the rate is zero or
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of this administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of paper file folders (file folders) from Sri Lanka are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation is October 1, 2023, through September 30, 2024.
Applicable August 8, 2025.
Rachel Jennings, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1110.
On May 29, 2025, Commerce published in the
The product covered by this investigation is file folders from Sri Lanka. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
We received no comments from interested parties on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the
As stated in the
In the
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated dumping margin for all other producers and exporters not individually investigated shall be equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated excluding rates that are zero,
In the
Commerce determines that the following estimated dumping margins exist:
Normally, Commerce will disclose to the parties in a proceeding the calculations performed in connection with a final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final determination in the
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise, as described in the appendix to this notice, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after May 29, 2025, which is the date of publication of the affirmative
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), where appropriate, Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate as follows: (1) the cash deposit rate for the respondent listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated dumping margins determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated dumping margin. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of file folders from Sri Lanka no later than 45 days after this final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all cash deposits will be refunded, and suspension of liquidation will be lifted. If the ITC determines that material injury, or the threat of material injury, exists, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Suspension of Liquidation” section.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The products within the scope of this investigation are file folders consisting primarily of paper, paperboard, pressboard, or other cellulose material, whether coated or uncoated, that has been folded (or creased in preparation to be folded), glued, taped, bound, or otherwise assembled to be suitable for holding documents. The scope includes all such folders, regardless of color, whether or not expanding, whether or not laminated, and with or without tabs, fasteners, closures, hooks, rods, hangers, pockets, gussets, or internal dividers. The term “primarily” as used in the first sentence of this scope means 50 percent or more of the total product weight, exclusive of the weight of fasteners, closures, hooks, rods, hangers, removable tabs, and similar accessories, and exclusive of the weight of the packaging.
Subject folders have the following dimensions in their folded and closed position: lengths and widths of at least 8 inches and no greater than 17 inches, regardless of depth.
The scope covers all varieties of folders, including but not limited to manila folders, hanging folders, fastener holders, classification folders, expanding folders, pockets, jackets, and wallets.
Excluded from the scope are:
• mailing envelopes with a flap bearing one or more adhesive strips that can be used permanently to seal the entire length of a side such that, when sealed, the folder is closed on all four sides;
• binders, with two or more rings to hold documents in place, made of paperboard or pressboard encased entirely in plastic;
• binders consisting of a front cover, back cover, and spine, with or without a flap; to be excluded, a mechanism with two or more metal rings must be included on or adjacent to the interior spine;
• non-expanding folders with a depth exceeding 2.5 inches and that are closed or closeable on the top, bottom, and all four sides (
• expanding folders that have: (1) 13 or more pockets; (2) a flap covering the top; (3) a latching mechanism made of plastic and/or metal to close the flap; and (4) an affixed plastic or metal carry handle;
• folders that have an outer surface (other than the gusset, handles, and/or closing mechanisms, if any) that is covered entirely with fabric, leather, and/or faux leather;
• fashion folders, which are defined as folders with all of the following characteristics: (1) plastic lamination covering the entire exterior of the folder; (2) printing, foil stamping, embossing (
• portfolios, which are folders having: (1) a width of at least 16 inches when open flat; (2) no tabs or dividers; and (3) one or more pockets that are suitable for holding letter size documents and that cover at least 15 percent of the surface area of the relevant interior side or sides; and
• report covers, which are folders having: (1) no tabs, dividers, or pockets; and (2) one or more fasteners or clips, each of which is permanently affixed to the center fold, to hold papers securely in place.
Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) category 4820.30.0040. Subject imports may also enter under other HTSUS classifications. While the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that certain producers/exporters sold common alloy aluminum sheet (aluminum sheet) from the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye) in the United States at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024. Additionally, Commerce is rescinding this administrative review with respect to three companies under review. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable August 8, 2025.
Gene H. Calvert, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3586.
On April 27, 2021, Commerce published in the
The mandatory respondents are: (1) Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., Kibar Americas, and Kibar Dis (collectively, Assan) and (2) Teknik. On July 22, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative proceeding by seven days.
For a detailed description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The merchandise subject to the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of an AD order where it determines that there were no suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Thus, normally, upon completion of an administrative review, suspended entries of subject merchandise are liquidated at the AD assessment rate calculated for the review period.
The entry data that Commerce obtained from CBP showed no suspended entries of subject merchandise from Panda, PMS Metals, and TAC Metals. On July 29, 2025, Commerce notified interested parties of our intent to rescind this administrative review with respect to these three companies.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Act. We calculated constructed export price in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We calculated NV in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results,
Generally, when calculating margins for non-selected respondents, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act for guidance, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that when calculating the all-others rate, Commerce will exclude any zero and
We preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins for the period April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024.
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to interested parties for the preliminary results of review within five days of public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
As provided to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this administrative review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; (3) whether any participant is a foreign national; and (4) a list of issues the party intends to discuss. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a date and time to be determined.
All submissions, including case and rebuttal briefs, should be filed via ACCESS.
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review in the
If Assan's or Teknik's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Assan or Teknik for which they did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
For ASAS, which was not selected for individual review, we will assign an assessment rate based on the review-specific rate, calculated as noted in the “Rate for Companies Not Individually Examined” section, above. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
For Panda, PMS Metals, and TAC Metals for which Commerce is rescinding this review, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the POR in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(l)(i). Commerce intends to issue rescission instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the publication of these preliminary results in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review in the
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(4).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a hybrid meeting of its On-Demand Fishing Gear Conflict Working Group to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 26, 2025 at 10 a.m. Webinar registration URL information:
This meeting will be held at Four Points by Sheraton, One Audubon Road, Wakefield, MA 01880. Phone (781) 245-9300.
Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The On-Demand Fishing Gear Conflict Working Group (ODWG) will meet to develop recommendations to the Council to address Term of Reference 3B as well as provide feedback regarding the Joint Alternative Gear-Marking Framework. The Group will address additional terms of reference, as needed and receive updates regarding on-demand fishing-related activity and other relevant topics, as available. Other business will be discussed as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, 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 New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is holding a public hybrid meeting of its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 19, 2025, beginning at 9 a.m. Webinar Registration information:
This meeting is being held at the Courtyard Marriot Boston Logan; 225 McClellan Highway; Boston, MA 02128; Phone: (617) 569-5250.
Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will meet to consider the information provided by the Council's Monkfish and Skate Plan Development Teams (PDT) including data updates from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center and recommend the overfishing limits (OFL) and acceptable biological catches (ABC) for: Northern and Southern monkfish for fishing years (FY) 2026-2030 and Northeast skate complex for FY 2026-2030. They will also consider outcomes of the 2025 Atlantic Sea scallop research track assessment and Scallop PDT's recommended approach for developing specifications considering biological reference points; make recommendations for developing specifications to present to the SSC in October. The SSC will also review outcomes of the June 2025 inaugural meeting of the SSC Social Sciences Subcommittee and provide input on the Subcommittee's workplan. Other business will be discussed as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, at 978-465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that the Institute of Marine Sciences, University of California at Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 (responsible party: Roxanne Beltran, Ph.D.), has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on northern elephant seals (
Written comments must be received on or before September 8, 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 (16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant requests authorization to continue a long-term research program started in 1968 to study northern elephant seal population growth and status, reproductive strategies, behavioral and physiological adaptations for diving and fasting, general physiology and metabolism, and sensory physiology. Northern elephant seals may be captured and handled for research, as well as harassed during research. Research methods include behavioral observations, marking, flipper tagging, capture and sampling, active and passive acoustics, attachment of instruments, translocation studies, short-term captive holding for laboratory studies, use of hormone challenges and standard clinical tracer techniques for physiology studies. Research would include all age and sex classes of northern elephant seals over the entire calendar year. Proposed research locations include haul-out sites from California to Washington, but primarily Año Nuevo. Unintentional harassment of northern elephant seals, California sea lions (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a new information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 8, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Carolyn Rose, (202) 453-5967.
The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice and request for comments.
EIA invites public comment on the proposed three-year extension, without change, to the
EIA must receive all comments on this proposed information collection no later than October 7, 2025. If you anticipate any difficulties in submitting your comments by the deadline, contact the person listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by OMB control number 1905-0210, by email at
Kenneth Pick, EIA Clearance Officer, at (202) 586-5562 or by email at
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
• Information gathered will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency;
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions;
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study;
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future; and
• With the exception of information needed to provide remuneration for participants of focus groups and cognitive laboratory studies, personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained.
If these conditions are not met, EIA will submit an information collection request to OMB for approval through the normal PRA process. The solicitation of feedback on Agency Service Delivery includes topics such as: timeliness of publishing, understanding of questions and terminology used in EIA products, perceptions on data confidentiality and security, appropriateness and relevancy of information published, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses are assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. Advances in technology and service delivery systems in the private sector, have increased the public's expectations of the Government's customer service promise. The Federal Government has a responsibility to streamline and make more efficient its service delivery to better serve the public.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Comments are invited on whether or not: (a) The proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions, including whether the information will have a practical utility; (b) EIA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used, is accurate; (c) EIA can improve the quality, utility, and clarity of the information it will collect; and (d) EIA can minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, such as automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments must be received on or before September 8, 2025 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
To request additional information, please contact Edward Coppola,
The information collection tool can be reviewed at:
The Report of Premiums Payable for Financial Institutions Only is used to determine the eligibility of the shipment(s) and to calculate the premium due to EXIM for its support of the shipment(s) under its insurance program. Export-Import Bank customers will be able to submit this form on paper or electronically.
Export-Import Bank of the U.S.
Submission for OMB Review and Comments Request.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments should be received on or before September 8, 2025 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
To request additional information, please contact Donna Schneider <
EXIM enables U.S. exporters to compete fairly in foreign markets on the basis of price and product by neutralizing the effect of export credit insurance and guarantees offered by foreign governments and by absorbing credit risks that the private section will not accept.
The following item was adopted by the Commission on August 04, 2025 and deleted from the list of items scheduled for consideration at the August 07, 2025, Open Meeting. The item was previously listed in the Commission's Sunshine Notice on Thursday, July 31, 2025.
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), 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. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid 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 should be submitted on or before October 7, 2025. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before October 7, 2025. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
To ensure the required information under section 18.213 (for which the Commission is seeking continued OMB approval) on industrial, scientific and medical equipment shall be provided to the user in the instruction manual or on the packaging of an instruction manual is not provided for any type of ISM equipment. The Commission requires respondents to apply uniformly. (a) The interference potential of the device or system; (b) maintenance of the system; (c) simple measures that can be taken by the user to correct interference; and (d) manufacturers of RF lighting devices must provide documentation, similar to the following: This product may cause interference to radio equipment and should not be installed near maritime safety communications equipment or other critical navigation or communication equipment operating between 0.45-30 MHz.
Variations of this language are permitted provided all the points of the statement are addressed and may be presented in any legible font or text style.
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 25, 2025.
1.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Office of Government Ethics (OGE).
Notice of request for agency and public comments.
After this second round notice, the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) plans to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) renew its approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of an existing information collection, consisting of twelve model certificates and model documents for qualified trusts.
Jennifer Matis at the U.S. Office of Government Ethics; telephone: 202-482-9216; TTY: 800-877-8339; Email:
In order to ensure that all applicable requirements are met, OGE is the sponsoring agency for twelve model certificates and model trust documents for qualified blind and diversified trusts. See 5 CFR 2634.402(e)(3), 2634.402(f)(3), 2634.404(e)-(g), 2634.405(d)(2), 2634.407(a); 2634.408(b)(1)-(3), 2634.408(d)(4), 2634.409, and 2634.414. The various model certificates and model trust documents are used by settlors, trustees, and other fiduciaries in establishing and administering these qualified trusts. OGE plans to submit these model certificates and model trust documents (described in detail in the table below) to OMB for renewed approval pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
The twelve model documents, along with their burden estimates, are as follows:
These estimates are based on the amount of time imposed on professional trust administrators or private representatives. OGE notes that only one set of the various model trust provisions (items (B) through (H)) will be prepared for a single qualified trust, and only prior to the establishment of that qualified trust. Likewise, other model documents listed above are used in connection with establishing the qualified trust (items (I), (J), and (K)). The remaining model documents are used after the trust's creation (items (A) and (L)). Accordingly, OGE notes that the majority of the time burden for any given trust is imposed during the creation of the trust.
At the present time, there are no active qualified trusts in the executive branch. However, OGE anticipates possible limited use of these model documents during the forthcoming three-year period. OGE estimates that there may be an average of one individual per year who initiates a qualified trust using these model documents during calendar years 2026 through 2028. OGE has accordingly estimated the average annual number of respondents to be two, which represents one respondent establishing a qualified trust and one respondent maintaining a previously established qualified trust. Based on the above, OGE estimates an average annual time burden during the next three years of 120 hours. Using an estimated rate of $300 per hour for the services of a professional trust administrator or private representative, the estimated annual cost burden is $36,000.
Under OMB's implementing regulations for the Paperwork Reduction Act, any recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirement contained in a rule of general applicability is deemed to involve ten or more persons. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4)(i). OGE intends to submit all twelve qualified trust model certificates and model documents described above (all of which are included under OMB paperwork control number 3209-0007) for a three-year extension of approval without modification.
A
Specifically, OGE seeks public comment on the following:
• Do the model qualified blind trusts provide sufficient direction to establish a trust under the Qualified Trust Program? If not, what provisions could be clearer or what language should be changed?
• Do the model qualified diversified trusts provide sufficient direction to establish a trust under the Qualified Trust Program? If not, what provisions could be clearer or what language should be changed?
• Do the Additional Trust Documents provide sufficient information for individuals to comply with the logistical requirements (
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is announcing the availability of a revised draft guidance for industry entitled “Draft Guidance on Iron Sucrose.” This revised draft guidance, when finalized, will provide product-specific recommendations on, among other things, the design of bioequivalence (BE) studies to support abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for iron sucrose intravenous injectable.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by October 7, 2025 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
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.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its 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
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Joseph Kotsybar, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 3623A, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-1062,
In the
As described in that guidance, FDA adopted this process as a means to develop and disseminate product-specific guidances and provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to consider and comment on those guidances. This notice announces the availability of a revised draft product-specific guidance on generic iron sucrose intravenous injectable.
FDA initially approved new drug application (NDA) 021135 VENOFER (iron sucrose intravenous injectable) in November 2000 and NDA 205109 VELPHORO (sucroferric oxyhydroxide oral tablet) in November 2013.
In August 2021, Sidley Austin LLP, on behalf of Vifor (International) Inc., Switzerland (Vifor),
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Draft Guidance on Iron Sucrose.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
As we develop final guidance on this topic, FDA will consider comments on costs or cost savings the guidance may generate, relevant for Executive Order 14192.
While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 for investigational new drugs have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 for applications for FDA approval to market a new drug and in 21 CFR part 320 for bioavailability and bioequivalence requirements have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the establishment of a docket to solicit public comments on issues related to accelerating the establishment of new pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities in the United States. FDA is also announcing the following public meeting entitled “Onshoring Manufacturing of Drugs and Biological Products.” At this meeting, FDA will present a draft framework that seeks to facilitate onshoring of pharmaceutical manufacturing. Participants will then engage in a guided discussion regarding the proposed framework, its strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities. The group will also discuss additional considerations that may help overcome current challenges faced by industry to onshoring the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals, including active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and finished drug and biological products, and ideas and options within the bounds of FDA's statutory authority that could facilitate such onshoring of manufacturing.
The hybrid public meeting will be held on September 30, 2025, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time and will take place in person and virtually. Either electronic or written comments on this public meeting must be submitted by October 30, 2025. See the
The public meeting will be held in person at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002 and virtually using Microsoft Teams. Participants must be REAL ID compliant to access federal facilities. For additional information regarding REAL ID, refer to
You may submit comments 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.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its 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
Maya Thompson, Office of External Affairs, Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5335, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0001, 301-837-7398,
A resilient supply chain for medical products, and specifically, pharmaceuticals (
Until the 2000s, pharmaceutical manufacturing was largely a domestic enterprise. In the last several decades, however, such manufacturing has increasingly moved offshore. Today, more than half of the pharmaceuticals distributed in the U.S. are manufactured overseas. As of June 2025, approximately 53% of brand drug products and 69% of generic drug products have at least one manufacturer outside of the United States. Additionally, as of 2025, 9% of API (Type II) Drug Master File (DMF) holders are in the United States, 22% are in China, and 44% are in India.
To help bolster pharmaceutical supply chain resiliency in the U.S., on May 5, 2025, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14293, “Regulatory Relief to Promote Domestic Production of Critical Medicines.” E.O. 14293 sets forth a policy intended to streamline the regulation of manufacturing pharmaceutical products to facilitate the restoration of a robust domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing base. E.O. 14293 directs FDA to review existing regulations and guidance that pertain to the development of domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing and take steps to “eliminate any duplicative or unnecessary requirements . . .; maximize the timeliness and predictability of agency review; and streamline and accelerate the development of domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing.”
In response to E.O. 14293, FDA has developed a proposal, “FDA PreCheck,” to accelerate the establishment of high priority new pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities in the U.S. and strengthen the domestic pharmaceutical supply chain. Specifically, the proposal consists of a two-phase approach: (1) Facility Readiness Phase, and (2) Application Submission Phase.
The following elements of the Facility Readiness Phase are intended to help enable early facility engagement and support:
• Enables manufacturers to seek FDA feedback, as applicable, at critical facility development stages including facility design, pre-construction, construction/equipment installation and qualification, and pre-production phases.
• Provides manufacturers insight into whether their planned facility and manufacturing operations as designed are likely to comply with Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) requirements.
• Offers industry an opportunity to provide FDA with a comprehensive master file that contains facility-specific information including, for example, site operations layout and description found in a Site Master File, Pharmaceutical Quality System elements, and Quality Management Maturity practices.
• Helps FDA to provide timely feedback on consistency and effectiveness of quality procedures to reduce the risk of CGMP deficiencies that could compromise product quality, patient safety, and application approval.
• Serves as a living document that is updated throughout the facility lifecycle that, as appropriate, can be incorporated by reference into a drug application, and can be leveraged to streamline facility assessments during application reviews.
The following element of the Application Submission Phase is intended to help facilitate enhanced and accelerated quality assessment:
• Provide applicants and their manufacturers the opportunity to give FDA advanced awareness of facility and manufacturing strategies for specific drugs in forthcoming applications, while enabling earlier assessment and inspection activities within the review cycle.
• Enable FDA to provide Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls (CMC) feedback on anticipated data or logistical needs to support timely review and inspection processes.
• Allow FDA to accelerate quality element assessments for applications from new U.S. facilities through early facility engagement and frontloaded assessment activities.
FDA PreCheck aims to support faster establishment of new U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity through earlier regulatory input, enhanced engagement, and efficient CMC assessments. FDA PreCheck support will be commensurate with regulatory resources available to operationalize the effort.
To facilitate discussion on enhancing domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing, FDA has developed a proposal to facilitate the establishment of new pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities in the U.S. to strengthen the domestic pharmaceutical supply chain. FDA is seeking input on the proposal, as well as other ideas to incentivize or strengthen pharmaceutical manufacturing in the U.S. In all cases, FDA encourages stakeholders to provide the specific rationale and basis for their comments, including any available supporting data and information. FDA will also post a planned agenda for the meeting on the FDA website at
On the proposal, FDA is seeking specific input on the following:
1. What do you consider the most significant regulatory hurdle in establishing a new domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing facility?
2. Which element(s) described in the FDA PreCheck proposal are most likely to help the establishment of new US pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities?
3. Are there additional elements or implementation considerations that should be considered in the FDA PreCheck proposal?
4. Would your company be willing to provide information about manufacturing facilities relevant to FDA oversight (
FDA is also interested in participants' other ideas relevant to FDA authorities that may help incentivize or strengthen pharmaceutical manufacturing in the U.S.
Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority for in-person participation given to registrants that, in FDA's view, represent higher priority areas for Domestic Manufacturing. Persons interested in attending this public meeting must register by September 2, 2025, 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. Register to attend the public meeting in-person or virtually at this link:
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Maya Thompson, Office of External Affairs, Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5335, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0001, 301-837-7398,
Although FDA verified the website addresses in this document, please note that websites are subject to change over time.
Notice of this meeting is given pursuant to 21 CFR 10.65.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Neurological Disorders and Stroke Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting can be accessed from the NIH Videocast at the following link:
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or 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 grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Council of Councils.
The meeting will be held as a hybrid meeting held in-person and virtually and is open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations, to view the meeting should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The open session will be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting website
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material,
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has procedures at
Information is also available on the Council of Council's home page at
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board.
The meeting will be held in-person and is open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations to view the meeting should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting can be accessed from the NIH Videocast at the following link:
A portion of the meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NCI-Shady Grove campus. All visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: NCAB:
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee (DMICC) will hold a meeting on September 30th, 2025. The topic for this meeting will be “COVID-19 and New-Onset Diabetes.”
The meeting will be held on September 30th, 2025, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EDT.
This meeting will be held via Teams online video conferencing platform. For details, and to register, please go to the virtual event's page:
For further information concerning this meeting, including a draft agenda, which will be posted when available, see the DMICC website,
In accordance with 42 U.S.C.285c-3, the DMICC, chaired by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) and comprising members of the Department of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies that support diabetes-related activities, facilitates cooperation, communication, and collaboration on diabetes among government entities. DMICC meetings, held several times a year, provide an opportunity for Committee members to learn about and discuss current and future diabetes programs in DMICC member organizations and to identify opportunities for collaboration. The September 30, 2025 DMICC meeting will focus on “COVID-19 and New-Onset Diabetes.”
Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the Committee should notify the contact person listed on this notice at least 5 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives or organizations should submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a written copy of their oral presentation in advance of the meeting. Only one representative of an organization will be allowed to present; oral comments and presentations will be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes. Printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the Committee by forwarding their statement to the contact person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. Because of time constraints for the meeting, oral comments will be allowed on a first-come, first-serve basis.
Members of the public who would like to receive email notification about future DMICC meetings can select to be added to the DMICC listserv when registering on the meeting's event page:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public. The open sessions will be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting website:
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice no later than 15 days after the meeting at
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
On February 12, 2024, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a notice in the
The GBI Test will continue through February 23, 2027, subject to any extension, modification, or early termination as announced in the
For policy-related questions, contact Garrett Wright, Director, Trade Modernization Division, Trade Policy and Programs Directorate, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, at (202) 897-9877 or via email at
On December 2, 2022, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a General Notice (the December 2022 Notice) in the
First, CBP is renaming the test from the “Global Business Identifier Evaluative Proof of Concept” and the resulting acronym “GBI EPoC,” to the “Global Business Identifier Test” and “GBI Test,” to align with the regulatory definition of a test under section 101.9 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 101.9). Second, CBP is announcing that it has entered into an agreement with Altana Technologies USG Inc. (Altana) to serve as an identity management company (IMC) and has added Altana to the list of existing IMCs: Dun & Bradstreet (D&B), GS1, and the Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF). Background subsection I.B now provides that test participants may include identifiers provided by Altana in the field assigned to any one of the three current GBIs.
Third, CBP is modifying subsection III.A by adding reference to Altana throughout the subsection and including the Altana web address for test participants' use when contacting Altana, adding the Altana ID as a fourth identifier, and adding Altana as a fourth IMC. Fourth, this notice is further modifying subsection III.B by dividing the section into two subsections, with subsection 1 providing guidance to importers of record and licensed customs brokers wishing to participate in the GBI Test, and subsection 2 providing guidance to identifier and traceability companies that are interested in supporting CBP by becoming GBI Test IMCs.
For ease of reference, the February 2024 Notice is republished below, with the changes described above.
The National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) was established by Subtitle B of Title VI—Customs Modernization, in the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Customs Modernization Act) (Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057, 2170, December 8, 1993) (19 U.S.C. 1411). Through the NCAP, the thrust of customs modernization was focused on informed trade compliance and the development of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), the planned successor to the Automated Commercial System (ACS). ACE is an automated and electronic data interchange system for commercial trade processing, intended to streamline business processes, facilitate growth in trade, ensure cargo security, and foster participation in global commerce, while facilitating compliance with U.S. laws and regulations and reducing costs for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and all of its communities of interest. The ability to meet these objectives depends on successfully modernizing CBP's business functions and the information technology that supports those functions. CBP's modernization efforts are accomplished through phased releases of ACE component functionality, which update the system and add new functionality.
Sections 411 through 414 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1411-1414), as amended, define and list the existing and planned components of the NCAP (Section 411), promulgate program goals (Section 412), provide for the implementation and evaluation of the program (Section 413), and provide for Remote Location Filing (Section 414). Section 411(a)(1)(A) lists the electronic entry of merchandise, Section 411(a)(1)(B) lists the electronic entry summary of required information, and Section 411(a)(1)(D) lists the electronic transmission of manifest information, as existing NCAP components. Section 411(d)(2)(A) provides for the periodic review of data elements collected in order to update the standard set of data elements, as necessary.
ACE is the system through which the U.S. Government has implemented the “Single Window,” the primary system for processing trade-related import and export data required by the Partner Government Agencies (PGAs) that work alongside CBP in regulating specific commodities. The transition away from paper-based procedures has resulted in faster, more streamlined processes for both the U.S. Government and industry. To continue this progress, CBP began working with the Border Interagency Executive Council (BIEC) and the Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC), starting in 2017, to discuss the continuing viability of the data element known as the
Currently, importers of record provide the MID at the time of filing of the entry summary.
CBP has thus engaged in regular outreach with stakeholders, including, but not limited to, importers of record, licensed customs brokers, trade associations, and PGAs, with a goal of obtaining meaningful feedback on their existing systems and operations in order to establish a mutually beneficial global entity identifier system. As a result of these discussions, CBP developed the Global Business Identifier (GBI) Test, which is an interagency trade transformation project that aims to test global business identifiers as a supply chain traceability solution, for industry and the U.S. Government alike. The GBI Test seeks to amplify the U.S. Government's visibility into the supply chain of goods entering the United States and explore opportunities for CBP and PGAs to leverage verifiable information regarding parties in the supply chain to improve risk assessment and admissibility decisions.
For purposes of the GBI Test, ACE has been modified to permit test participants to provide the following entity identifiers (GBIs) associated with manufacturers, shippers, sellers, exporters, distributors, and packagers of merchandise covered by entries that meet the GBI Test criteria described in this notice: nine (9)-digit Data Universal Numbering System (D-U-N-S®), thirteen (13)-digit Global Location Number (GLN), twenty (20)-digit Legal Entity Identifier (LEI), and twenty (20)-digit Altana ID identifier. These GBIs will be provided to CBP, through ACE, in addition to other required entry data (which may include the MID); any GBIs associated with the importer of record itself need not be provided as part of this test. The GBIs associated with the manufacturers, shippers and sellers will be provided with the CBP Form 3461 (Entry/Immediate Delivery) data transmission via the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) in ACE for certain formal entries for consumption (“entry type 01” in ACE) and informal entries (“entry type 11” in ACE). CBP will then access the underlying data (GBI data) associated with the D-U-N-S®, GLN, LEI, and Altana ID, as set forth in the agreements that CBP has entered into with D&B, GS1, GLEIF, and Altana, respectively, in order to connect a specific entry and merchandise to a more complete picture of those entities' ownership, structure, and affiliations, among other information. D&B, GS1, GLEIF, and Altana are collectively referred to as the IMCs.
Through the GBI Test, CBP aims to leverage existing entity identifiers—the D-U-N-S®, GLN, LEI, and Altana ID—to develop a systematic, accurate, and efficient method for the trade to report, and the U.S. Government to uniquely identify, legal business entities, their different business locations and addresses, and their various functions and supply chain roles. CBP will review whether these GBIs ensure that CBP and PGAs receive standardized trade data in a universally compatible trade language. Moreover, CBP will examine whether the GBIs submitted to CBP can be easily verified, thus reducing uncertainties that may be associated with the information related to shipments of imported merchandise. CBP will also consider whether the GBI Test may ultimately prove to be a more far-reaching, interagency initiative, one that keeps with the vision and actualized promise of the “Single Window,” by providing better visibility into the supply chain for CBP and PGAs, thereby further reducing paper processing, expediting cargo release, and enhancing the traceability of supply chains. As it pursues this broader traceability vision, CBP will continue to explore the merits of the identifiers mentioned in this notice.
The Customs Modernization Act authorizes the Commissioner of CBP to conduct limited test programs or procedures designed to evaluate planned components of the NCAP. The GBI Test is authorized pursuant to 19 CFR 101.9(b), which provides for the testing of NCAP programs or procedures.
The test is voluntary, and importers of record and licensed customs brokers who wish to participate in the test must comply with all of the conditions set forth below. The full effect of access to additional entity-related data based on submission of the GBIs will be a key evaluation metric of the test.
Participation in the test may provide certain opportunities to participants while also allowing for a more efficient deployment of CBP enforcement measures. First, participation may enable test participants to better secure their supply chains by assisting the trade industry with authenticating and verifying supply chain actors, helping companies to manage risk in their supply chains, and assisting with compliance with emerging requirements and mandates. Second, participation may assist with determining how CBP and PGAs can leverage global business identifiers to drive harmonized risk decision-making across the U.S. Government—thereby enhancing predictability, lowering costs, and creating opportunity for additional efficiencies for compliant trade. Third, participation may provide an opportunity to shape the future of GBI-enabled traceability. Participant feedback shared throughout the GBI Test will inform the ongoing evolution of GBI, including enhancements to better meet industry and government's supply chain traceability needs. Lastly, participation may result in the streamlined processing of legitimate trade. Identifiers may provide CBP with more valuable data with which to assess and identify low-risk and generally compliant imports, thereby better positioning CBP to efficiently process lawful goods and focus resources toward preventing violative goods from entering the United States. For example, identifiers may be leveraged to demonstrate that a supply chain is low-risk, to potentially reduce detentions for low-risk traders that have provided CBP with extensive visibility into their supply chains, and to resolve requests for additional information from CBP earlier on in the importation process.
Importers of record and licensed customs brokers who are interested in participating in the test must arrange to obtain any combination of the required D-U-N-S®, GLN, LEI, and/or Altana ID entity identifiers (the GBIs) from the manufacturers, shippers, and sellers of merchandise that are intended to be covered by future entries that will meet the conditions of the test. For purposes of providing the information required for the test, the parties are defined as follows for each covered entry:
• Manufacturer (or supplier)—The party that last manufactures, assembles, produces, or grows the goods or the party supplying the finished goods in the country from which the goods are leaving for the United States.
• Shipper—The party that enters into a contract for carriage with, and arranges for delivery of the goods to, a carrier or transport intermediary for transportation to the United States.
• Seller—The last known party by whom the goods are sold or agreed to be sold. If the goods are to be imported otherwise than in pursuance of a purchase, the owner of the goods must be provided.
Optionally, test participants may also arrange to obtain the GBIs for exporters, distributors, and packagers that will be associated with these future entries and provide them to CBP on qualifying entries covered by this test.
A party may obtain its own GBI by contacting Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) at
Once the manufacturers, shippers, and sellers (and, optionally, the exporters, distributors, and packagers) have obtained their own GBIs (the D-U-N-S®, GLN, LEI, and Altana ID), these parties should provide the resulting GBIs to the relevant importer of record or licensed customs broker participating in the test. If these parties experience any difficulty with obtaining any of the GBIs, the importer of record or licensed customs broker seeking to participate in the test should reach out to CBP by email at
Importers of record and licensed customs brokers are reminded that they are responsible for obtaining any necessary permissions with respect to providing to CBP the GBIs for manufacturers, shippers, and sellers (and, optionally, for exporters, distributors, and packagers) in the supply chains of the imported merchandise for which they file the specified types of entries subject to the conditions of the test. Therefore, prior to submitting their request to participate in the test to CBP, as discussed below, importers of record and licensed customs brokers should consult with these parties to ensure that these parties are willing to grant any necessary permissions to share their GBIs under the auspices of the test (which will also result in CBP's access to the underlying GBI data associated with those GBIs, as described above).
The test is open to all importers of record and licensed customs brokers provided that these parties have requested permission and are approved by CBP to participate in the test. Importers of record and licensed customs brokers seeking to participate in the test should send an email to the GBI Inbox (
Test participants who are importers of record and do not self-file must advise CBP in their request that they have authorized their licensed customs broker(s) to file qualifying entries under the test on their behalf. Test participants who are licensed customs brokers must advise CBP that they have been authorized to file qualifying entries on behalf of importers of record whose shipments meet the test criteria as set forth below.
CBP began accepting requests to participate in the test on December 2, 2022, and will continue to accept requests until the test concludes. Anyone providing incomplete information, or otherwise not meeting the test requirements, will be notified by email, and may be given the opportunity to resubmit the request to participate in the test.
Identity and supply chain traceability companies interested in becoming IMCs should send an email to the GBI Inbox (
A party who wishes to participate in this test is eligible to do so as long as it is an importer of record or licensed customs broker who files type 01 (formal) or type 11 (informal) entries of merchandise, and that party obtains one or more GBIs from its supply chain partners. After receipt of a request to participate in the test, CBP will notify, by email, the importers of record and licensed customs brokers who are approved for participation and inform them of the starting date of their participation (noting that test participants may have different starting dates). Test participants must provide the GBIs they have received to CBP prior to the starting date of their participation (participants will also provide the GBIs to CBP again with each qualified entry filing meeting the requirements of the test). Test participants are considered to be bound by the terms and conditions of this notice and any subsequent modifications published in the
The test will be limited to type 01 and type 11 entries and is open to merchandise classifiable in any subheading of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Test participants are encouraged to submit GBIs with all qualified entry filings that meet the conditions of the test so that CBP has a fulsome data set to evaluate; however, entries will not be rejected if GBIs are not submitted.
The test is open to merchandise from any country of origin.
Test participants must coordinate with their software vendors or technical teams to ensure that their electronic systems are capable of transmitting the D-U-N-S®, GLN, LEI, and Altana ID entity identifiers to CBP. During this test, CBP will only accept electronic submissions of GBIs via ABI in ACE with CBP Form 3461 (Entry/Immediate Delivery) filings for type 01 and type 11 entries. Upon selection to participate in the test, the test participants will be provided with technical information and guidance regarding the transmission of the GBIs to CBP with the CBP Form 3461 filings. The assigned ABI client representatives of the test participants will provide additional technical support, as needed. Pending programming updates, test participants may include an Altana ID identifier in the field assigned to any one of the three other GBIs. The D-U-N-S®, GLN, and LEI identifiers can continue to be inputted via their respective fields.
As part of the test, CBP has entered into agreements with D&B, GS1, GLEIF, and Altana (the IMCs) for limited access to the underlying data (GBI data) that is associated with the GBIs for the duration of the test and for testing of CBP's automated systems.
Consistent with the agreements, CBP may access GBI data, combine it with CBP data, and evaluate the GBIs that the test participants provide with an entry filing. The GBI data will assist CBP and PGAs in determining the optimal identifiers (the GBIs) that will provide the U.S. Government with sufficient entity data needed to support identification, monitoring, and enforcement procedures to better equip the U.S. Government to focus on high-risk shipments and bad actors.
CBP will process entries submitted with a GBI(s) pursuant to the test by analyzing the GBIs submitted via ABI in ACE and ensuring that the GBIs are submitted correctly. CBP will then evaluate the submitted entries to assess the ease and cost of obtaining each of the GBIs, evaluating each GBI to ensure that it is being submitted properly per the technical requirements that will be set forth in CBP and Trade Automated Interface Requirements (CATAIR), and ensuring that CBP is able to validate that each GBI is accurate using the underlying GBI data from the IMCs or otherwise known to CBP.
PGAs are important to the success of the test. Certain PGAs, which may receive GBIs and GBI data and are intended as core test beneficiaries, may use the GBIs and GBI data to improve risk management and import compliance. This may result in smarter, more efficient, and more effective compliance efforts. CBP will announce the PGAs who will receive GBIs and GBI data pursuant to the test in a notice to be published in the
The test began on December 19, 2022, and will run through February 23, 2027, subject to any extensions, modifications or early termination as announced by way of a notice to be published in the
Misconduct under the test may include, but is not limited to, submitting false GBIs with an entry filing. CBP does not anticipate shipment delays due to the failure to file or the erroneous filing of GBIs. However, test participants are expected to follow all other applicable regulations and requirements associated with the entry process.
After an initial six-month period (or at such earlier time as CBP deems appropriate), a test participant may be subject to discontinuance from participation in this test for any of the following actions:
• Failure to follow the terms and conditions of this test;
• Failure to exercise due diligence in the execution of participant obligations;
• Failure to abide by applicable laws and regulations that have not been waived; or
• Failure to deposit duties or fees in a timely manner.
If the Director, Trade Modernization Division (TMOD), Trade Policy and Programs (TPP), Office of Trade (OT), finds that there is a basis to discontinue a participant's participation in the test, then CBP will provide written notice, via email, proposing the discontinuance with a description of the facts or conduct supporting the proposal. The test participant will be offered the opportunity to respond to the Director's proposal in writing within 10 business days of the date of the written notice. The response must be sent to the Director, TMOD, TPP, OT, by email to
The Director, TMOD, will issue a final decision in writing on the proposed action within 30 business days after receiving a timely filed response from the test participant, unless such time is extended for good cause. If no timely response is received, the proposed notice becomes the final decision of CBP as of the date that the response period expires. A proposed discontinuance of a test participant's privileges will not take effect unless the response process under this paragraph has been concluded with a written decision that is adverse to the test participant, which will be provided via email.
Data submitted and entered into ACE may include confidential commercial or financial information which may be protected under the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905), the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). However, as stated in previous notices, participation in this or any of the previous ACE tests is not confidential and, therefore, upon receipt of a written Freedom of Information Act request, the name(s) of an approved participant(s) will be disclosed by CBP in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552.
All interested parties are invited to comment on any aspect of this test at any time. CBP requests comments and
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that CBP consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. An agency may not conduct, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The collection of GBI information gathered under this test has been approved by OMB in accordance with the requirements of the PRA under OMB control number 1651-0141. In addition, the Entry/Immediate Delivery Application and ACE Cargo Release (CBP Form 3461 and 3461 ALT) collection of information, which collects the GBI when entry is made, has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1651-0024.
The test is intended to evaluate the feasibility of utilizing GBIs to address data gaps in the use of the MID, in addition to exploring opportunities to enhance supply chain traceability and visibility more broadly—including examining how CBP, PGAs, and the trade industry might leverage GBIs to comply with growing supply chain traceability needs. This will involve exploring the use of GBIs to accurately identify legal business entities, their different business locations and addresses, as well as their various functions and supply chain roles, based upon information derived from the unique D-U-N-S®, GLN, LEI, and Altana ID entity identifiers. The test aims to assist CBP in enforcing applicable laws and protecting the revenue, while fulfilling trade modernization efforts by assisting the agency in verifying the roles, functions and responsibilities that various entities play in a given participant's importation of merchandise. CBP's evaluation of the test, including the review of any comments submitted to CBP during the duration of the test, will be ongoing with a view to possible extension or expansion of the test.
CBP will evaluate whether the test: (1) improves foreign entity data for efficient deployment of enforcement resources, trade processing, risk management, and statistical integrity; (2) ensures U.S. Government access to foreign entity data; (3) institutionalizes a global, managed identification system; (4) implements a cost-effective solution; (5) obtains stakeholder buy-in; and (6) facilitates legal compliance across the U.S. Government. At the conclusion of the test, an evaluation will be conducted to assess the efficacy of the information received throughout the course of the test. The final results of the evaluation will be published in the
Should the GBI Test be successful and ultimately be codified under the CBP regulations, CBP anticipates that this data would greatly enhance ongoing trade entity identification and resolution, reduce risk, and improve compliance operations. CBP would also anticipate greater supply chain visibility and verified, validated information on legal entities, which will support better decision-making during customs clearance processes.
Office of the General Counsel, HUD.
Notice.
Section 106 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (the HUD Reform Act) requires HUD to publish quarterly
For general information about this notice, contact Amanda Wahlig, Acting Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10282, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone 202-402-3743 (this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech and communication disabilities.
To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit please visit:
For information concerning a particular waiver that was granted and for which public notice is provided in this document, contact the person whose name and address follow the description of the waiver granted in the accompanying list of waivers that have been granted in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2024.
Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act added a new section 7(q) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(q)), which provides that:
1. Any waiver of a regulation must be in writing and must specify the grounds for approving the waiver;
2. Authority to approve a waiver of a regulation may be delegated by the Secretary only to an individual of Assistant Secretary or equivalent rank, and the person to whom authority to waive is delegated must also have authority to issue the particular regulation to be waived;
3. Not less than quarterly, the Secretary must notify the public of all waivers of regulations that HUD has approved, by publishing a notice in the
a. Identify the project, activity, or undertaking involved;
b. Describe the nature of the provision waived and the designation of the provision;
c. Indicate the name and title of the person who granted the waiver request;
d. Describe briefly the grounds for approval of the request; and
e. State how additional information about a particular waiver may be obtained.
Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act also contains requirements applicable to waivers of HUD handbook provisions that are not relevant to the purpose of this notice.
This notice follows procedures provided in HUD's Statement of Policy on Waiver of Regulations and Directives issued on April 22, 1991 (56 FR 16337). In accordance with those procedures and with the requirements of section 106 of the HUD Reform Act, waivers of regulations are granted by the Assistant Secretary with jurisdiction over the regulations for which a waiver was requested. In those cases in which a General Deputy Assistant Secretary granted the waiver, the General Deputy Assistant Secretary was serving in the absence of the Assistant Secretary in accordance with the office's Order of Succession.
This notice covers waivers of regulations granted by HUD from November 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024. For ease of reference, the waivers granted by HUD are listed by HUD program office (for example, the Office of Community Planning and Development, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, the Office of Housing, and the Office of Public and Indian Housing, etc.). Within each program office grouping, the waivers are listed sequentially by the regulatory section of title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that is being waived. For example, a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 58 would be listed before a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 570.
Where more than one regulatory provision is involved in the grant of a particular waiver request, the action is listed under the section number of the first regulatory requirement that appears in 24 CFR and that is being waived. For example, a waiver of both § 58.73 and § 58.74 would appear sequentially in the listing under § 58.73.
Waiver of regulations that involve the same initial regulatory citation are in time sequence beginning with the earliest-dated regulatory waiver.
Should HUD receive additional information about waivers granted during the period covered by this report (the fourth quarter of calendar year 2024) before the next report is published (the first quarter of calendar year 2025), HUD will include any additional waivers granted for the fourth quarter in the next report.
Accordingly, information about approved waiver requests pertaining to HUD regulations is provided in the Appendix that follows this notice.
The regulatory waivers granted appear in the following order:
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
○
•
•
○
HUD homelessness programs are designed to assist program participants to quickly obtain and maintain stable housing. MI-501's change in prioritization to match high acuity individuals with RRH programs contributes to this goal; however, without continued housing subsidies, many of these high acuity individuals and families will return to homelessness after the 24-month limit on rental assistance. Therefore, in order to provide additional time for program staff to identify on-going rental subsidies or affordable housing options for program participants, HUD determined that there is good cause for a waiver of 24 CFR 578.37(a)(1)(ii) and 24 CFR 578.51(a)(1)(i) that define medium term rental assistance from 3 to 24 months and waiving 24 CFR 578.37(a)(l)(ii)(C) which limits rapid rehousing assistance to no more than 24 months.
•
In addition to providing waiver flexibilities to HCD, the December 26, 2024 memorandum provides a simplified notification process for ESG recipients in California to use the waiver flexibilities to expedite the delivery of ESG rental assistance.
•
Further, the vacancy rate in California is 5.2 percent for the second quarter of 2024, according to iPropertyManagement.com, compared to a rate of 6.6 percent nationally for the same time period. One way the state is attempting to increase housing stock is
The waiver would only be used to allow Arcata House Partnership and Mendocino County Health and Human Services Agency to provide RRH tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA) to program participants who choose to live in units these subrecipients own. This waiver does not apply to project-based rental assistance.
As part of this waiver request, HCD proposes that its subrecipients, Arcata House Partnership and Mendocino County Health and Human Services Agency, continue their current practice of supporting the costs charged to the grant and setting forth the terms of the tenant's rental assistance (including subsidy amount and period of assistance) in the lease, which includes all tenants as signatories. HCD further indicates that HCD will conduct closer, more frequent monitoring of the subrecipients utilizing this waiver, including unit site visits, review of rent reasonableness documentation, and compliance with habitability standards at 24 CFR 576.403.
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
(c) The improvements shall constitute a single project. Not less than five rental dwelling units or personal care units, 20 medical care beds, or 50 manufactured home pads, shall be on one site, except that such limitations do not apply to group practice facilities.
Pursuant to the authority contained in 24 CFR 5.110, good cause has been shown that it is in the public's best interest to approve this waiver. Therefore, 24 CFR 200.73 (c) is hereby waived. This waiver is for this specific project only.
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
•
•
•
•
○
○ According to Allegheny County's Department of Human Services (DHS), 1,026 individuals were experiencing homelessness on a single night in January 2024 in the county in which the HACP operates. This was an increase from the 2023 Point-in-Time count of 913 (12.3 percent).
○ The need for affordable housing in Pittsburgh was evident when the HACP opened its waiting list in March 2024 and had over 11,000 applicants in five days.
• The HACP has a homeless preference for its HCV, PBV, and Public Housing waiting lists, and has partnered with the Allegheny County DHS, the area's Continuum of Care, for referrals.
○ The HACP has housed 133 homeless families since 2021 through the Emergency Housing Voucher (EHV) program and has joined a local initiative to house 500 homeless families in 500 days.
○ During EHV program implementation, the HACP found that even with caseworker support, gathering identity and income documentation caused delays.
○ The process of obtaining a photo identification in Pennsylvania typically takes between 10-20 days with a cost of $42.50; obtaining a Social Security card takes approximately 14 days from the date of the appointment at the Social Security Administration office, but the wait for an appointment can be several weeks long; and birth certificates typically take about two weeks to process with a cost of $30 (which can be waived).
○ If all three documents need to be obtained, the process can take up to 48 days.
○ Homeless families often change addresses or phone numbers, which complicates communication and follow-up in obtaining these documents.
HUD found this to be good cause and has granted the aforementioned waivers.
•
•
•
○
○
○
○ 24 CFR § 983.301: (a)
○
•
○ The PHA is project-basing units for a significant number of persons experiencing homelessness. The PHA's local coordinated entry system/Continuum of Care is the point of entry for referral to these PBV units. Individuals seeking a PBV unit are continuing to experience delays with acquiring the documentation needed. When there are significant delays with documentation, the units remain vacant. The waivers would allow the HACN to conditionally move forward with the process, while documentation is acquired and processed. • In the last two years within the City of Napa there have been two new housing projects, totaling 144 units, that were primarily permanent supportive housing. Combined, these projects had 74 PBV units, and 98 coordinated entry dedicated units. With this focus, most of Napa's leasing in the last two years has been coordinated entry units.
○ Over the course of leasing the two permanent supportive housing projects, the Housing Authority team worked closely with the homeless services provider, talking almost daily. On average, HCV clients take 6-10 weeks to determine eligibility while the PHA found that clients in the coordinated entry system take 12-16 weeks to determine eligibility, even when working with the service provider. The most frequent documentation concern that the HACN sees related to folks experiencing homelessness is getting birth certificates and social security documentation. A recent example of an individual born to active military overseas delayed the homeless client's placement into housing by three months. Because birth certificates are managed at a county level and not centralized into a national database, the service provider is typically sleuthing to determine what county someone was born in. From there, many counties take eight or more weeks to send the birth certificate. Being able to place these households relieves the entire homeless system by freeing up beds and allowing others to cycle through to shelter.
○ The PHA is also actively pulling applicants from their HCV waiting list. Many of these applicants are experiencing homelessness. In the PHA's experience, all persons experiencing homelessness have faced similar barriers in collecting paperwork to qualify for the PHA's housing programs HUD found the above reasons to be good cause and granted the waiver.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
This notice is to inform the public of the official filing of the plat of survey of the land described below in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Arizona State Office in Phoenix, Arizona. The survey announced in this notice is necessary for the management of lands administered by the agency indicated.
Protests must be received by the BLM prior to the scheduled date of official filing by September 8, 2025.
This plat will be available for inspection in the Arizona State Office, Bureau of Land Management, One North Central Avenue, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4427. Protests of the survey should be sent to the Arizona State Director at the above address.
R. Reece Henry, Acting Chief Cadastral Surveyor of Arizona; (480) 744-5242;
The supplemental plat, in one sheet, showing the amended lotting in section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, accepted June 16, 2025, and officially filed June 18, 2025, for Group 9121, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
A person or party who wishes to protest against this survey must file a written notice of protest by the date listed in the
A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest to the State Director, or the statement of reasons must be filed with the State Director within 30-calendar days after the protest is filed.
Before including your address, or other personally identifiable information in your protest, please be aware that your entire protest, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of coal lease sale.
Notice is hereby given that Federal coal resources in lands in McLean County, North Dakota, will be offered for competitive lease by sealed bid in accordance with the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended.
The lease sale will be held at 10 a.m. Mountain Time (MT) on September 10, 2025.
The lease sale will be held in the main conference room of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669. Sealed bids must be submitted to the Cashier, BLM Montana State Office, at this same address.
Tessa Wallace, by telephone at 406-896-5086, or by email at
This sale is being held in response to a lease-by-application filed by Falkirk Mining Company. The Federal coal resources to be offered are within five tracts located on the following described lands:
The areas described aggregate 799.96 acres, according to the official plats of the surveys on file with the BLM.
The coal in the tracts have two coal beds, which are designated as the Hagel A and Hagel B coal beds. Both of these beds are considered minable. The Hagel A bed in all five tracts ranges from 4.7 to 7.02 feet thick. The Hagel B bed in the four tracts where it occurs rages from 3.2 to 4.8 feet thick. The Hagel B bed is not found in T. 144 N., R. 84 W., sec. 12, NW
The tracts will be leased to the qualified bidder of the highest cash amount, provided that the high bid meets or exceeds the BLM's estimate of the fair market value (FMV) of the tracts. The minimum bid for the tract is $100 per acre or fraction thereof. The minimum bid is not intended to represent FMV. The authorized officer will determine if the bids meet FMV.
The sealed bids should be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, or be hand delivered to the Public Room, BLM Montana State Office (see
Prior to lease issuance, the high bidder, if other than the applicant, must pay the BLM the cost recovery fee in the amount of $206,727.00, in addition to all processing costs incurred by the BLM after the date of this sale notice (43 CFR 3473.2(f)).
A lease issued as a result of this offering will require payment of an annual rental of $3 per acre, or fraction thereof, and a royalty payable to the United States pursuant to section 7(a) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 207(a)) as amended.
Bidding instructions for the tracts offered and the terms and conditions of the proposed coal lease are included in the detailed statement of lease sale, with copies available at the BLM Montana State Office (see
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) proposes to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 7, 2025.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by either of the following methods listed below:
• Electronically go to
• Email
Kelly Odom by email at
In accordance with the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), all information collections require approval under the PRA. We may not conduct, or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency 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 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.
The BSEE uses the information collected under subpart E to ensure that planned well-completion operations will protect personnel and natural resources. They use the analysis and evaluation results in the decision to approve, disapprove, or require modification to the proposed well-completion operations. Specifically, BSEE uses the information to ensure:
• compliance with personnel safety training requirements;
• crown block safety device is operating and can be expected to function to avoid accidents;
• proposed operation of the annular preventer is technically correct and provides adequate protection for personnel, property, and natural resources;
• blowout prevention equipment complies with the most recent WCR and API Standard 53;
• well-completion operations are conducted on well casings that are structurally competent; and
• sustained casing pressures are within acceptable limits.
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
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
August 5, 2025.
Keysha Martinez (202-205-2136), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
On May 22, 2025, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the final phase of the subject investigations (90 FR 23359, June 2, 2025). On July 28, 2025, counsel for Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc. filed a request that the Commission cancel the scheduled hearing for these investigations and indicated a willingness to respond to any Commission questions in lieu of an actual hearing. On August 1, 2025, counsel for Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc. filed a request to appear at the hearing. No other parties submitted a request to appear at the hearing. Consequently, the public hearing in connection with these investigations, scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, August 7, 2025, is cancelled. Parties to these investigations should respond to any written questions posed by the Commission in their posthearing briefs, which are due to be filed on August 14, 2025.
For further information concerning this proceeding, see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
By order of the Commission.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Chemtos, LLC has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before October 7, 2025. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before October 7, 2025.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on July 4, 2025, Chemtos, LLC, 16713 Picadilly Court, Round Rock, Texas 78664-8544, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances for distribution as reference standards to its customers. In reference to drug codes 7360 (Marihuana), and 7370 (Tetrahydrocannabinols), the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), 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 October 7, 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, contact: Meghan Tisserand, Division Staff, National Firearms Act Division, either by mail at National Firearms Act Division; Division Staff Office; 244 Needy Road; Martinsburg, WV 25405, by email at
We encourage written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed information collection. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Information Collection (IC) OMB 1140-0014 is being revised to reflect an increase in the number of applicants per year, rising from 123,339 applicants during the last renewal to 546,424, an increase of 423,085. However, there has also been a decrease in the time burden due to changes in technology allowing electronic forms, reducing the number of respondents who must provide fingerprints and reducing the number of copies, allowing electronic fingerprints on-site, reducing respondents who must provide photographs, allowing cell phone photographs, and allowing photocopied identification cards instead, all submitted electronically. In addition, the requirement to complete an extra copy of the form and submit it to local law enforcement is going away, and the fillable forms have made it possible to populate the second copy at the same time as the first copy, both of which reduce the time burden even more. As a result, there has been a corresponding decrease in the burden hours per respondent, from .5 hours to .2 hours each, resulting in a reduction in total annual burden hours from 446,755 to 109,285 (a decrease of 337,470 hours).
The Department is also making the following changes to ATF Form 5320.4 (“Form 4”) due to statutory changes to the transfer tax that was previously required to accompany documents submitted pursuant to this IC:
In addition, the Department is making the following changes to Form 4 in anticipation of upcoming regulatory changes, and to make the form easier to read, correct minor errors, and adjust for updated technology:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
If additional information is required, contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), 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 October 7, 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, contact: Meghan Tisserand, Division Staff, National Firearms Act Division, either by mail at National Firearms Act Division; Division Staff Office; 244 Needy Road; Martinsburg, WV 25405, by email at
We encourage written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed information collection. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Information Collection (IC) OMB 1140-0011 is being revised to reflect an increase in the number of applicants per year, rising from 25,716 applicants during the last renewal to 148,975, an increase of 123,259. However, there has also been a decrease in the time burden due to changes in technology allowing electronic forms, reducing the number of respondents who must provide fingerprints and reducing the number of copies, allowing electronic fingerprints on-site, reducing respondents who must provide photographs, allowing cell phone photographs, and allowing photocopied identification cards instead, all submitted electronically. In addition, the requirement to complete an extra copy of the form and submit it to local law enforcement is going away, and the fillable forms have made it possible to populate the second copy at the same time as the first copy, both of which reduce the time burden even more. As a result, there has been a corresponding decrease in the burden hours per respondent, from .5 hours to .2 hours each, resulting in a reduction in total annual burden hours from 102,808 to 29,795 (a decrease of 73,013 hours).
The Department is also making the following changes to ATF Form 5320.1 (“Form 1”) due to statutory changes to the transfer tax that was previously required to accompany documents submitted pursuant to this IC:
In addition, the Department is making the following changes to Form 1 in anticipation of upcoming regulatory changes, and to make the form easier to read, correct minor errors, and adjust for updated technology:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
If additional information is required, contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC.
United States Trustee Program, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, United States Trustee Program, is 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.
The Department of Justice encourages public comment and will accept input until September 8, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The BAPCPA requires any individual who wishes to file for bankruptcy to obtain credit counseling, within 180 days before filing for bankruptcy relief, from a nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency that has been approved by the United States Trustee. The Application collects information from such agencies in order to ensure compliance with the law and the Rule.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
United States Trustee Program, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, United States Trustee Program, is 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.
The Department of Justice encourages public comment and will accept input until September 8, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The BAPCPA requires individual debtors in bankruptcy cases to complete a personal financial management instructional course given by a provider that has been approved by the United States Trustee as a condition of receiving a discharge. The Application collects information from such providers in order to ensure compliance with the law and the Rule.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)-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 September 8, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
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.
Nicole Bouchet by telephone at 202-693-0213, or by email at
The Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses is the primary indicator of the Nation's progress in providing every working man and woman safe and healthful working conditions. The survey measures the overall rate of work injuries and illnesses by industry. Survey data are also used to evaluate the effectiveness of Federal and State programs and to prioritize scarce resources. Respondents include employers who maintain Occupational Safety and Health Administration records in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act and employers who are normally exempt from OSHA recordkeeping. Each year a sample of exempt employers is required to keep records and participate in the survey. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
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.
National Science Foundation.
Request for public comment; extension of comment period.
On July 21, 2025, the National Science Foundation (NSF) published in the
The end of the comment period for the document entitled “Request for Information” published on July 21, 2025 (90 FR 34302), is extended from October 15, 2025, until November 15, 2025.
Interested individuals and organizations should submit comments electronically via email to
Please contact the IARPC Executive Secretary, Dr. Lesley Anderson, at 571-565-6963, or by email at
The Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 (ARPA), 15 U.S.C. Chapter 67, provides for a comprehensive national policy to identify and address national research needs and objectives in the Arctic. The ARPA established an Arctic Research Commission (USARC), designated the National Science Foundation as the lead
IARPC is required by law to prepare and execute a 5-year Arctic Research Plan, which helps to coordinate the overall Federal effort in Arctic research. To date, three five-year Arctic Research Plans have been released and implemented, the most recent covering 2022-2026, and the current Implementation Plan for 2025-2026 is available at
These Arctic Research Plans reflect the goals and missions of the Federal agencies supporting research in the Arctic and focus on research which will be enhanced through collaboration among Federal agencies, as opposed to agencies working alone. The updated Arctic Research Plan will guide Federal coordination of Arctic research for the period 2027-2031, positioning the United States to remain a global leader in Arctic research and stewardship for many years to come.
As called for in the ARPA, IARPC seeks input from any interested individuals and organizations to ensure that the research interests and needs of all are addressed appropriately in the updated Plan. IARPC is committed to an open engagement process throughout the development of the Plan.
In particular, IARPC is interested in feedback in response to the following questions regarding what updates should be made to the Arctic Research Plan 2027-2031:
1. What are the critical issues and needs where federally funded science, engineering, and technology research should provide knowledge to promote sound decision-making at all levels related to the Arctic?
2. What are examples of research questions that address these issues?
For context, the current Plan “Arctic Research Plan 2022-2026” has four policy drivers, four priority areas, and five foundational activities.
The policy drivers for the Arctic Research Plan FY2022-2026 are:
The priority areas for the Arctic Research Plan FY2022-2026 are:
The foundational activities for the current Arctic Research Plan, which are meant to undergird the priority areas, are:
For the full Arctic Research Plan 2022-2026, see:
For the full Arctic Research Plan 2017-2021, see:
For the full Arctic Research Plan 2013-2017, see:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft guide; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment Revision 1 to draft Regulatory Guide (DG), DG-1422, “Preparing Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics Submittals.” This DG is proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.245, “Preparing Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics Submittals.” DG-1422, Revision 1, describes a framework to develop the contents of a licensing submittal that the staff of the NRC considers acceptable when performing probabilistic fracture mechanics (PFM) analyses in support of regulatory applications.
Submit comments by September 8, 2025. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website.
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Christopher Nellis, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, telephone: 301-415-5973; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0036 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions.
The NRC is issuing for public comment a DG in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, to explain techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and to describe information that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
The DG, entitled “Preparing Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics Submittals,” is temporarily identified by its task number, DG-1422, Revision 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML24312A308).
The NRC previously published a notice of the availability of DG-1422 in the
DG-1422, Revision 1, contains guidance on the contents of PFM information in regulatory applications and constitutes proposed Revision 1 to RG 1.245. The use of this proposed RG should increase the efficiency of NRC reviews of regulatory applications that use PFM as a supporting technical basis by providing a set of common guidelines for reviewers and licensees. This proposed RG presents guidance on justifying the acceptability of the methods used to generate and report PFM results. This proposed RG does not describe how the results of PFM may be used to support a regulatory application. Regulatory applications typically contain information other than fracture mechanics analyses; this proposed RG does not address the review of that other information. The revisions made to RG 1.245, Revision 0, clarify guidance for applications that leverage risk insights, such as PFM. These changes are reflected in Regulatory Positions 2.1, “Regulatory Context,” and 2.2, “Information Made Available to the NRC Staff with a Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics Submittal.”
The staff is also issuing for public comment a revised draft regulatory analysis (ADAMS Accession No. ML24312A310). The staff developed the regulatory analysis to assess the value of revising RG 1.245, Revision 0.
Issuance of DG-1422, Revision 1, would not constitute backfitting as defined in section 50.109 of title 10 of the
A member of the public may, at any time, submit suggestions to the NRC for improvement of existing RGs or for the development of new RGs. Suggestions can be submitted on the NRC's public website at
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determined that this DG is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to the Commission's regulations,
This proceeding involves the twenty-year subsequent license renewal of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56, which currently authorize Constellation Energy Generation, LLC to operate Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3 until, respectively, August 8, 2033, and July 2, 2034. In response to a notice published in the
The Board is comprised of the following Administrative Judges:
All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule.
Rockville, Maryland.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment a draft generic environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) regarding the proposed issuance of a multi-site service provider license to Disa Technologies, Inc., (Disa) for its high-pressure slurry ablation (HPSA) technology to remediate abandoned uranium mine (AUM) waste. Disa's request is to use the HPSA technology to perform remediation at certain AUM sites after additional site-specific safety and environmental information is provided to and approved by the NRC.
Submit comments by September 8, 2025. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website.
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Christine Pineda, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6789; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0084 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC is considering issuance of a multi-site, service provider license to Disa, for operation of its HPSA process at AUM sites located in fourteen western States, namely Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, and the Navajo Nation. As required by section 51.21 of
Disa would use its HPSA technology in the form of mobile units to treat mine waste at AUM sites. Use of the HPSA process to separate uranium and thorium fines from mine waste rock and soils would result in licensable quantities and concentrations of source material. The NRC is proposing to issue a license to Disa under 10 CFR part 40, “Domestic Licensing of Source Material,” for the possession and processing of source material ore. If granted, the license would allow Disa to operate HPSA at AUM sites after the NRC has reviewed the site-specific characteristics and operating plans that Disa would submit before mobilizing to a site.
The length of time Disa would operate at each site depends on the amount of material to be processed and could range from about 6 months for small sites to almost 13 years for large sites. HPSA uses mechanical and kinetic energy to separate mineral-rich patinas containing source material (uranium and/or thorium) and other metals from host sand grains. The HPSA treatment would generate two products: coarse material and fines concentrates. Disa states that the coarse material would be an inert sand and would be reintegrated into the mine sites, assuming the material meets NRC and other regulatory requirements. The fines concentrates, which would contain uranium and/or thorium and other metals, would be transported to a licensed recipient such as a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility, a uranium recovery facility, or a storage facility. After HPSA operations conclude, Disa would demobilize and leave the site, including deposited coarse material, in a condition that meets NRC requirements for unrestricted release.
The proposed action is in accordance with the applicant's application dated March 28, 2025 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML25087A094) as supplemented by letters dated June 16, 2025 (ADAMS Accession No. ML25167A328) and July 31, 2025 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML25213A083).
The purpose of the proposed NRC action, issuance of the license, is to allow Disa to conduct HPSA activities safely in accordance with the conditions of the license and with applicable NRC requirements under 10 CFR part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation,” and part 40, “Domestic Licensing of Source Material.” Disa proposes to conduct HPSA activities in part to respond to a need identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to remediate abandoned uranium mine sites. The EPA has documented approximately 15,000 AUMs primarily in 14 western States, including areas on the Navajo Nation. These sites resulted from a uranium mining industry that began in the 1940s to produce uranium for weapons and later for nuclear fuel.
The NRC staff developed a generic assessment of the potential environmental impacts of operating the HPSA process at AUM sites. The NRC staff assessed the potential impacts on land use; historic and cultural resources; visual and scenic resources; air quality; geology and soils; water resources; ecological resources; socioeconomics; noise; transportation; public and occupational health and safety; and waste management. The NRC staff determined that the proposed action would not have significant impacts on these resource areas if all of the assumptions described in the draft generic EA are met at a given site. Before mobilizing to a site, Disa would provide site-specific information to the NRC in a premobilization notification, which the NRC staff would review to determine whether the generic EA's assumptions apply for a site. If any assumptions for a specific site would not be met, the NRC staff would conduct a site-specific review to assess the impacts for that site. In all cases, the NRC or its designee would conduct site-specific consultations to fulfill its consultation responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In all cases, the NRC staff will evaluate the potential impacts of depositing the coarse material back onto the site after HPSA operations conclude.
As an alternative to the proposed issuance of a license to Disa, the NRC considered the no-action alternative. Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not issue the license and Disa would not be allowed to operate its HPSA units at AUM sites. A consequence of denying the license could be that Disa submits a revised application, or that AUM sites potentially suitable for HPSA would need to be remediated using other means. In the absence of HPSA operations, the NRC would not be involved in AUM site cleanup unless the remedial activity involves another NRC licensee or applicant.
The potential environmental impacts of the no-action alternative would include the direct impacts of continuing current site conditions (
The NRC has published the draft generic EA to receive comments from individual members of the public, Federal and State agencies, American Indian Tribes, organizations, and other entities. Disa would submit site-specific information to the NRC approximately 90 days before mobilizing to a site. During its review of this information about HPSA operations at a particular site, the NRC staff would consult as needed with the state, agencies of interested American Indian Tribes, and other Federal agencies.
On the basis of the draft generic EA, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
As described in the draft generic EA, before Disa mobilizes to a site, the NRC staff would review Disa's operating plans and the conditions at that site. The NRC staff would compare the site-specific information to the assumptions in the generic EA. If HPSA operations at a site would meet all of the assumptions in the EA, the FONSI would apply for that site. If some assumptions are not met, the NRC staff would conduct an analysis to identify the site-specific impacts for those environmental areas. In all cases, the NRC or its designee will conduct site-specific reviews and consultations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and will assess the site-specific impacts of depositing coarse material onto the site. This site-specific analysis would result in a FONSI or, if necessary, a determination that an environmental impact statement should be prepared.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to the Commission's regulations,
Holtec Palisades, LLC seeks an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20 to modify certain license conditions associated with the Palisades Nuclear Plant fire protection program. In response to a notice filed in the
The Board is comprised of the following Administrative Judges:
All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule.
Rockville, Maryland.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft guide; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment a draft Regulatory Guide (DG), DG-1439, “Guidance for Technology-Inclusive Risk-Informed Change Evaluation.” This DG is a proposed new regulatory guide that describes an approach that the staff of the NRC finds acceptable for using a technology-inclusive risk-informed change evaluation process for changes to a facility described in final safety analysis reports (as updated). Subject to the clarifications in Section C of this DG, the DG endorses the methodology described in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 22-05, Revision 0, “Technology Inclusive Risk Informed Change Evaluation (TIRICE), Guidance for the Evaluation of Changes to Facilities Utilizing NEI 18-04 and NEI 21-07,” issued January 2024, for plants licensed using the guidance in NEI 18-04, “Risk-Informed Performance-Based Technology Inclusive Guidance for Non-Light Water Reactor Licensing Basis Development,” and NEI 21-07, “Technology Inclusive Guidance for Non-Light Water Reactors, Safety Analysis Report Content for Applicants Using the NEI 18-04 Methodology.”
Submit comments by September 8, 2025. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website.
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Roel Brusselmans, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301-415-0829; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0148 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC is issuing for public comment a DG in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, to explain techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and to describe information that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
The DG, entitled “Guidance for Technology-Inclusive Risk-Informed Change Evaluation,” is temporarily identified by its task number, DG-1439. The DG is a proposed new regulatory guide that endorses, subject to the clarifications in Section C of the DG, NEI 22-05 as one acceptable alternative to using the criteria in section 50.59 of title 10 of the
The NRC is also issuing for public comment a regulatory analysis (ADAMS Accession No. ML24295A188). The NRC develops a regulatory analysis to assess the value of issuing or revising a RG as well as alternative courses of action.
Licensees generally are not required to comply with the guidance in this proposed RG. If the NRC proposes to use this RG in an action that would constitute backfitting, as that term is defined in 10 CFR 50.109, “Backfitting,” and as described in NRC Management Directive (MD) 8.4, “Management of Backfitting, Forward Fitting, Issue Finality, and Information Requests”; affect the issue finality of an approval issued under 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants;” or constitute forward fitting, as that term is defined in MD 8.4, then the NRC staff will apply the applicable policy in MD 8.4 to justify the action. If a licensee believes that the NRC is using this DG in a manner inconsistent with the discussion in the Implementation section, then the licensee may inform the NRC staff in accordance with MD 8.4.
A member of the public may, at any time, submit suggestions to the NRC for improvement of existing regulatory guides or for the development of new regulatory guides. Suggestions can be submitted on the NRC's public website at
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determined that this DG is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has published a final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), issued as NUREG-1437, Supplement 63, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding License Renewal for Clinton Power Station, Unit 1, Final Report.” This SEIS evaluates the environmental impacts of the license renewal of Facility Operating License No. NPF-62 for an additional 20 years of operation for Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 (CPS), as well as alternatives to license renewal. CPS is located in DeWitt County, approximately six miles east of the city of Clinton in east-central Illinois. Alternatives to the proposed action of license renewal for CPS include the no-action alternative and reasonable replacement power alternatives.
NUREG-1437, Supplement 63 is available as of August 1, 2025.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0046 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ashley Waldron, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7317; email:
In accordance with section 51.118 of title 10 of the
The draft SEIS (NUREG-1437, Supplement 63, Draft Report for Comment) was issued for public comment. The final SEIS (NUREG-1437, Supplement 63, Final Report) addresses the comments received on the draft SEIS. As discussed in Chapter 4 of the final SEIS, the NRC staff has determined that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for CPS (
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Peace Corps.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Peace Corps will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The purpose of this notice is to allow 30 days for public comment in the
Submit comments on or before September 8, 2025.
Comments should be addressed to James Olin, FOIA/Privacy Act Officer. James Olin can be contacted by email at
James Olin, Peace Corps, at
a.
b.
c.
d.
This notice is issued in Washington, DC, on August 6, 2025.
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.
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 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .01 to Exchange Rule 1801 to update the name of an index on which the Exchange may list and trade options.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .01 to Exchange Rule 1801 to update the table of reporting authorities
On March 10, 2025, the Exchange filed its proposal with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) to amend certain of the Exchange's rules in connection with the Exchange's plan to list and trade options on the B500 Index.
As announced, BISL plans to rebrand the Bloomberg US Large Cap Price Return Index as the Bloomberg 500 Index.
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 that the proposed rule change removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market a national market system, and protects investors and the public interest by updating the Exchange's rules listing reporting authorities for certain indexes to reflect the rebranded name of the B500 Index on which the Exchange is authorized to list and trade options. The Exchange believes this promotes transparency in its rules and may eliminate any potential confusion
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned solely with updating the name of the B500 Index. The proposed rule change has no impact on the dissemination of index values for the B500 Index. Further, the Exchange has not yet listed options for trading on the B500 Index.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned solely with updating the name of the B500 Index. The proposed rule change has no impact on the dissemination of index values for the B500 Index. Further, the Exchange has not yet listed options for trading on the B500 Index.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 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.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 307, Position Limits, and Exchange Rule 309, Exercise Limits to increase the position and exercise limits for iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (“IBIT”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 307, Position Limits, and Exchange Rule 309, Exercise Limits,
IBIT is an Exchange-Traded Funds (“ETF”) that holds bitcoin and is listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC.
Per the Commission “rules regarding position and exercise limits are intended to prevent the establishment of options positions that can be used or might create incentives to manipulate or disrupt the underlying market so as to benefit the options positions.”
While the Exchange proposed an aggregated 25,000 contract position limit for IBIT options in its IBIT Approval Order, it nonetheless believed that evidence existed to support a much higher position limit. Specifically, the Commission has considered and reviewed the Exchange's analysis and ISE's analysis as it was presented by the Exchange in the IBIT Approval Order that the exercisable risk associated with a position limit of 25,000 contracts represented only 0.4% of the outstanding shares of IBIT.
IBIT currently qualifies for a 250,000 contract position limit pursuant to the criteria in Exchange Rule 307(d)(5), which requires that, for the most recent six-month period, trading volume for the underlying security be at least 100 million shares.
Position limits, and exercise limits, are designed to limit the number of options contracts traded on the exchange in an underlying security that an investor, acting alone or in concert with others directly or indirectly, may control. These limits, which are described in Exchange Rules 307 and 309, are intended to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impacts surrounding the use of options, such as disrupting the market in the security underlying the options. Position and exercise limits must balance concerns regarding mitigating potential manipulation and the cost of inhibiting potential hedging activity that could be used for legitimate economic purposes.
To achieve this balance, the Exchange proposes to remove IBIT from the table of position limits in Interpretation and Policy .01 to Exchange Rule 307 as well as the table of exercise limits in Interpretation and Policy .01 to Exchange Rule 309 so that options on IBIT may trade similar to all other options for which the Exchange has not filed to otherwise increase the position limits to levels outside of the limits of Exchange Rule 307(d). As a result of removing IBIT from the aforementioned tables, it would increase the position and exercise limits for options on IBIT from 25,000 to 250,000 contracts based on the parameters of Exchange Rule 307(d). By removing IBIT from the aforementioned tables, IBIT would be subject to subsequent six (6) month reviews to determine future position and exercise limits similar to all other options subject to Exchange Rules 307 and 309.
In addition to IBIT's Exchange Rule 307(d) eligibility for 250,000 contracts, the Exchange performed additional analysis relying on data presented in Amendment No. 2, with respect to IBIT. First, in Amendment No. 2, ISE considered IBIT's market capitalization and ADV, and prospective position limit in relation to other securities. In measuring IBIT against other securities, ISE aggregated market capitalization and volume data for securities that have defined position limits utilizing data from The Options Clearing Corporations (“OCC”).
Based on the above table, as presented in Amendment No. 2,
ISE, in Amendment No. 2, also analyzed the position limits for IBIT by regressing the market capitalization figures and 90-day ADV of all non-ETF equities, against their respective position limit figures.
Based on the aforementioned analysis, as performed by ISE in Amendment No. 2, the Exchange believes that the proposed 250,000 contracts for position and exercise limits is appropriate.
Second, ISE reviewed IBIT's data relative to the market capitalization of the entire bitcoin market in terms of exercise risk and availability of deliverables. As of November 25, 2024, there are 19,787,762 bitcoins in circulation.
Third, ISE reviewed the proposed position limit by comparing it to position limits for derivative products regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). While the CFTC, through the relevant Designated Contract Markets, only regulates options positions based upon delta equivalents (creating a less stringent standard), ISE examined equivalent bitcoin futures position limits. In particular, ISE looked at the CME bitcoin futures contract
Fourth, ISE analyzed a position and exercise limit of 250,000 for IBIT options against other options on ETFs with an underling commodity, namely SPDR Gold Shares (“GLD”) ETF, iShares Silver Trust (“SLV”) ETF, and ProShares Bitcoin ETF (“BITO”).
Fifth, the Exchange and ISE note that IBIT began trading in penny increments as of January 2, 2025 pursuant to the Penny Interval Program.
The Exchange believes that IBIT options has demonstrated that it has more than sufficient liquidity to garner an increased position and exercise limit of 250,000 contracts. The Exchange believes that any concerns related to manipulation and protection of investors are mollified by the significant liquidity provision in IBIT. The Exchange states that, as a general principle, increases in active trading volume and deep liquidity of the underlying securities do not lead to manipulation and/or disruption.
The Exchange believes that increasing the position (and exercise) limits for IBIT options would lead to a more liquid and competitive market environment for IBIT options, which will benefit customers that trade these options. Further, the reporting requirement for such options would remain unchanged. Thus, the Exchange will still require that each member organization that maintains positions in impacted options on the same side of the market, for its own account or for the account of a customer, report certain information to the Exchange. This information includes, but would not be limited to, the options' positions, whether such positions are hedged and, if so, a description of the hedge(s). Market-Makers
The Exchange also has no reason to believe that the growth in trading volume in IBIT will not continue. Rather, the Exchange expects continued options volume growth in IBIT as opportunities for investors to participate in the options markets increase and evolve. The Exchange believes that the current position and exercise limits in IBIT options are restrictive and will hamper the listed options markets from being able to compete fairly and effectively with the over-the-counter (“OTC”) markets. OTC transactions occur through bilateral agreements, the terms of which are not publicly disclosed to the marketplace. As such, OTC transactions do not contribute to the price discovery process on a public exchange or other lit markets. The Exchange believes that without the proposed changes to position and exercise limits for IBIT options, market participants will find the 25,000 contract position limit an impediment to their business and investment objectives as well as an impediment to efficient pricing. As such, market participants may find the less
The Exchange represents that the same surveillance procedures applicable to all other options on other ETFs currently listed and traded on the Exchange will apply to options on the Trust. Also the Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the new option series. The Exchange believes that its existing surveillance and reporting safeguards are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior which might potentially arise from listing and trading options on ETFs, including the proposed Trust options.
The Exchange believes that the existing surveillance procedures and reporting requirements at the Exchange are capable of properly identifying disruptive and/or manipulative trading activity. The Exchange also represents that it has adequate surveillances in place to detect potential manipulation, as well as reviews in place to identify continued compliance with the Exchange's listing standards. These procedures monitor market activity via automated surveillance techniques to identify unusual activity in both options and the underlyings, as applicable. The Exchange also notes that large stock holdings must be disclosed to the Commission by way of Schedules 13D or 13G,
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 that removing IBIT from the table of position limits in Interpretation and Policy .01 to Exchange Rule 307 and the table of exercise limits in Interpretation and Policy .01 to Exchange Rule 309, so its position limit would be reviewed similar to all other options for which the Exchange has not filed to otherwise establish the position limits to levels outside of the position limits of Exchange Rule 307(d) is consistent with the Act. This proposal will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, because it will provide market participants with the ability to more effectively execute their trading and hedging activities. Also, based on current trading volume, the resulting increase in the position (and exercise) limits for IBIT options may allow Market-Makers to maintain their liquidity in these options in amounts commensurate with the continued high consumer demand in IBIT options. Subjecting options on IBIT to the position limits in Exchange Rule 307(d) and corresponding exercise limits in Exchange Rule 309 may also encourage other liquidity providers to continue to trade on the Exchange rather than shift their volume to OTC markets, which will enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow. Further, this proposed change would allow institutional investors to utilize IBIT options for prudent risk management purposes. The Exchange notes that IBIT's position limits would be reviewed on a six month basis, pursuant to Exchange Rule 307(d), similar to other options.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the current liquidity in IBIT will mitigate concerns regarding potential manipulation of IBIT options and/or disruption of IBIT upon amending the table of position limits in Interpretation and Policy .01 to Exchange Rule 307 and the table of exercise limits in Interpretation and Policy .01 to Exchange Rule 309.
Additionally, the regression model performed by ISE demonstrates that the proposed position limit is half of the modeled limit given the liquidity of IBIT. Comparing IBIT's data relative to the market capitalization of the entire bitcoin market in terms of exercise risk and availability of deliverables, the Exchange was able to conclude that if a position limit of 250,000 contracts were considered, the exercisable risk would represent 2.89%
Comparing a position limit of 250,000 for IBIT options against other options on ETFs with an underling commodity, namely GLD, SLV and BITO, a position limit exercise in GLD represents 8.17% of the float of GLD, a position limit exercise in SLV represents 4.8% of the float of SLV, and a position limit exercise of BITO represents 23.22% of the float of BITO. In comparison, a 250,000 contract position limit in IBIT
The Exchange notes that IBIT began trading in penny increments as of January 2, 2025 pursuant to the Penny Interval Program.
Finally, as discussed above, the Exchange's surveillance and reporting safeguards continue to be designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior that might arise from increasing or eliminating position and exercise limits in certain classes. The Exchange believes that the current financial requirements imposed by the Exchange and by the Commission adequately address concerns regarding potentially large, unhedged positions in the options on the underlying securities, further promoting just and equitable principles of trading, the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and the protection of investors.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard and as indicated above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a competitive response to filings submitted by ISE.
The Exchange's proposal does not burden intra-market competition because all Members would be subject to the position limits in Exchange Rule 307(d) and corresponding exercise limits in Exchange Rule 309. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will also provide additional opportunities for market participants to continue to efficiently achieve their investment and trading objectives for equity options on the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on inter-market competition as the proposal is not competitive in nature. The Exchange expects that all option exchanges will adopt substantively similar proposals, such that the Exchange's proposal would benefit competition. For these reasons, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 10, 2025, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3A, Section 3, FLEX Option Listings; Options 3A, Section 18, Position Limits; Options 9, Section 13, Position Limits; and Options 9, Section 15, Exercise Limits, with respect to options on the Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust ETF (“BTC”), the Bitwise Bitcoin ETF (“BITB”) and the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF (“GBTC”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3A, Section 3, FLEX Option Listings; Options 3A, Section 18, Position Limits; Options 9, Section 13, Position Limits; and Options 9, Section 15, Exercise Limits with respect to options on the Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust ETF (“BTC”), the Bitwise Bitcoin ETF (“BITB”) and the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF (“GBTC”). Each change will be described below.
Recently, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Arca”) received approval to eliminate the current 25,000 contract position and exercise limit for options on BTC and BITB.
The Exchange proposes to similarly amend its position limit rules at ISE Options 9, Section 13 and exercise limit rules at ISE Options 9, Section 15 to likewise eliminate the current 25,000 contract position and exercise limit for options on BTC, BITB and GTBC. As a result, BTC, BITB and GTBC would be subject to the position limits described in ISE Options 9, Section 13 which provides that the position limits for equity options are 25,000 or 50,000 or 75,000 or 200,000 or 250,000 option contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market or such other number of option contracts as may be fixed from time to time by the Exchange. Further, ISE Options 9, Section 13(d) describes how the Exchange determines which of the five position limit amounts will apply to an equity option class (
On October 18, 2024, the Commission approved the listing and trading of BTC and BITB on Arca.
First, Arca reviewed the ETFs' data relative to the market capitalization of the entire bitcoin market in terms of exercise risk and availability of deliverables. Arca noted that, as noted above, as of November 25, 2024, there were 19,787,762 bitcoins in circulation.
Next, Arca reviewed the proposed position limit by comparing it to position limits for derivative products regulated by the CFTC. While the CFTC, through the relevant Designated Contract Markets, only regulates options positions based upon delta equivalents (creating a less stringent standard), the Exchange examined equivalent bitcoin futures position limits. In particular, the Exchange looked to the CME bitcoin futures contract
Of note, unlike options contracts, CME position limits are calculated on a net futures-equivalent basis by contract and include contracts that aggregate into one or more base contracts according to an aggregation ratio(s).
Finally, Arca analyzed a position and exercise limit of 250,000 for BTC and BITB against other options on commodity ETFs, namely SPDR Gold Shares (“GLD”) and iShares Silver Trust (“SLV”).
Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that BTC and BITB each have more than sufficient liquidity to garner an increased position and exercise limit of 250,000 same-side contracts pursuant to Options 9, Sections 13 and 15. The Exchange believes that the significant liquidity present in each ETF mitigates against the potential for manipulation.
The Exchange believes that allowing options on each ETF to have increased aggregated position and exercise limits would lead to a more liquid and competitive market environment for such options, which will benefit customers that trade these options. Further, the reporting requirement for such options would remain unchanged. Thus, the Exchange will still require that each member that maintains positions in options on BTC or BITB, on the same side of the market, for its own account or for the account of a customer, report certain information to the Exchange. This information includes, but would not be limited to, the options positions, whether such positions are hedged and, if so, a description of the hedge(s). Market Makers
On October 18, 2024, the Commission approved the listing and trading of GBTC options on Arca.
First, Arca reviewed GBTC's data relative to the market capitalization of the entire bitcoin market in terms of exercise risk and availability of deliverables. As noted above, as of November 25, 2024, there were 19,787,762 bitcoins in circulation.
Next, Arca reviewed the proposed position limit by comparing it to position limits for derivative products regulated by the CFTC. While the CFTC, through the relevant Designated Contract Markets, only regulates options positions based upon delta equivalents (creating a less stringent standard), Arca examined equivalent bitcoin futures position limits. In particular, Arca looked to the CME bitcoin futures contract,
Of note, unlike options contracts, CME position limits are calculated on a net futures-equivalent basis by contract and include contracts that aggregate into one or more base contracts according to an aggregation ratio(s).
Finally, Arca analyzed a position and exercise limit of 250,000 for GBTC against options on SPDR Gold Shares (“GLD”), which (like GBTC), is a commodity-backed ETF.
Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that GBTC has more than sufficient liquidity to garner an increased position and exercise limit of 250,000 same-side contracts. The Exchange believes that the significant liquidity present in GBTC mitigates against the potential for manipulation.
The Exchange also has no reason to believe that the growth in trading volume in BTC, BITB, and GBTC options will not continue. Rather, the Exchange expects continued options volume growth in BTC, BITB, and GBTC as opportunities for investors to participate in the options markets increase and evolve. The Exchange believes that the current position and exercise limits in BTC, BITB, and GBTC options are restrictive and will hamper the listed options markets from being able to compete fairly and effectively with the over-the-counter (“OTC”) markets. OTC transactions occur through bilateral agreements, the terms of which are not publicly disclosed to the marketplace. As such, OTC transactions do not contribute to the price discovery process on a public exchange or other lit markets. The Exchange believes that without the proposed changes to position and exercise limits for BTC, BITB, and GBTC options, market participants will find the 25,000-contract position limit an impediment to their business and investment objectives as well as an impediment to efficient pricing. As a result, market participants may find the less transparent OTC markets a more attractive alternative to achieve their investment and hedging objectives, leading to a retreat from the listed options markets, where trades are subject to reporting requirements and daily surveillance.
The Exchange believes that the existing surveillance procedures and reporting requirements at the Exchange are capable of properly identifying disruptive and/or manipulative trading activity. The Exchange also represents that it has adequate surveillances in place to detect potential manipulation, as well as reviews in place to identify continued compliance with the Exchange's listing standards. These procedures monitor market activity to identify unusual activity in both options and the underlying equities.
Arca recently received approval to permit BTC, BITB and GTBC to trade as “FLEX Options.”
The Exchange understands that FLEX Options on ETFs are currently traded in the OTC market by a variety of market participants,
The Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the listing of FLEX Options. The Exchange believes any additional traffic that would be generated from the trading of FLEX Options would be manageable. The Exchange believes OTP Holders will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposed rule change. The Exchange also represents that it does not believe this proposed rule change will cause fragmentation of liquidity. The Exchange will monitor the trading
The Exchange represents that the same surveillance procedures applicable to the Exchange's other options products listed and traded on the Exchange, including non-FLEX Options, will apply to FLEX Options, and that it has the necessary systems capacity to support such options. FLEX Options products (and their respective symbols) are integrated into the Exchange's existing surveillance system architecture and are thus subject to the relevant surveillance processes. The Exchange's market surveillance staff (including staff of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) who perform surveillance and investigative work on behalf of the Exchange pursuant to a regulatory services agreement) conducts surveillances with respect to BTC, BITB and GTBC (the underlying ETFs) and, as appropriate, would review activity in BTC, BITB and GTBC when conducting surveillances for market abuse or manipulation in the FLEX options on each ETF. The Exchange does not believe that allowing FLEX Options would render the marketplace for non-FLEX Options, or equity options in general, more susceptible to manipulative practices.
The Exchange represents that its existing trading surveillances are adequate to monitor the trading in BTC, BITB and GTBC as well as any subsequent trading of FLEX Options on the Exchange. Additionally, the Exchange is a member of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) under the ISG Agreement. ISG members work together to coordinate surveillance and investigative information sharing in the stock, options, and futures markets. In addition to the surveillance that is conducted by the Exchange's market surveillance staff, the Exchange would also be able to obtain information regarding trading in shares of BTC, BITB and GTBC on other exchanges through ISG. In addition, and as referenced above, the Exchange has a regulatory services agreement with FINRA, pursuant to which FINRA conducts certain surveillances on behalf of the Exchange. Further, pursuant to a multi-party 17d-2 joint plan, all options exchanges allocate regulatory responsibilities to FINRA to conduct certain options-related market surveillances.
The proposed rule change is designed to allow investors seeking to trade options on BTC, BITB and GTBC to utilize FLEX Options. The Exchange believes that offering innovative products flows to the benefit of the investing public. A robust and competitive market requires that exchanges respond to member's evolving needs by constantly improving their offerings. Such efforts would be stymied if exchanges were prohibited from offering innovative products such as the proposed FLEX Options. The Exchange believes that introducing FLEX Options would further broaden the base of investors that use FLEX Options (and options on BTC, BITB and GTBC, in general) to manage their trading and investment risk, including investors that currently trade in the OTC market for customized options. The proposed rule change is also designed to encourage Market Makers to shift liquidity from the OTC market on the Exchange, which, it believes, will enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to remove the 25,000-contract position (and exercise) limit on BTC and BITB options thus allowing such options to qualify for higher aggregated limits will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest as it will provide market participants with the ability to more effectively execute their trading and hedging activities. In addition, this proposed change may allow Market Makers to maintain their liquidity in these options in amounts commensurate with the continued demand for BTC and BITB options. Further, an increased aggregated position (and exercise) limit on BTC and BITB options may encourage other liquidity providers to continue to trade on the Exchange rather than shift their volume to OTC markets, which will enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow. The Exchange notes that permitting a higher aggregated position (and exercise) limit on BTC and BITB options would further allow institutional investors to utilize such options for prudent risk management purposes.
As noted herein, Arca analyzed several data points that support the appropriateness of an aggregated position (and exercise) limit of 250,000 contracts for BTC and BITB options based on recent trading volume in each ETF. Specifically, Arca noted that a comparison of each ETF's market capitalization to the bitcoin market in terms of exercise risk and availability of deliverables revealed that the exercisable risk of an aggregated limit of 250,000 contracts represented 30.14% and 31.27% of BTC and BITB shares outstanding. Further, since each ETF has a creation and redemption process managed through the issuer (whereby bitcoin is used to create BTC or BITB shares, as applicable), a 250,000-contract position (and exercise) limit as compared to the market capitalization of the bitcoin market indicated that the exercisable risk for options on each ETF represented less than 0.06% (BTC) or 0.07% (BITB) of all bitcoin outstanding as noted by Arca. Moreover, a comparison of a 250,000-contract position limit for options on each ETF to the (actual) position limits for
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to remove the 25,000-contract position (and exercise) limit on GBTC options thus allowing such options to qualify for higher aggregated limits will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest as it will provide market participants with the ability to more effectively execute their trading and hedging activities. In addition, this proposed change may allow Market Makers to maintain their liquidity in these options in amounts commensurate with the continued demand for GBTC options. Further, an increased aggregated position (and exercise) limit on GBTC options may encourage other liquidity providers to continue to trade on the Exchange rather than shift their volume to OTC markets, which will enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow. The Exchange notes that permitting a higher aggregated position (and exercise) limit on GBTC options would further allow institutional investors to utilize such options for prudent risk management purposes.
As noted herein, Arca analyzed several data points that support the appropriateness of an aggregated position (and exercise) limit of 250,000 contracts for GBTC options based on recent trading volume in GBTC. Specifically, Arca noted that a comparison of GBTC's market capitalization to the bitcoin market in terms of exercise risk and availability of deliverables revealed that the exercisable risk of an aggregated limit of 250,000 contracts represented 9.13% of GBTC shares outstanding. Further, since GBTC has a creation and redemption process managed through the issuer (whereby bitcoin is used to create GBTC shares), a 250,000-contract position (and exercise) limit as compared to the market capitalization of the bitcoin market indicated that the exercisable risk for GBTC options represented less than 0.10% of all bitcoin outstanding as noted by Arca. Moreover, a comparison of a 250,000-contract position limit for GBTC options to the (actual) position limits for equivalent bitcoin futures revealed that a 250,000-contract limit would be appropriate. Finally, Arca compared an aggregated position limit of 250,000 contracts for GBTC options against GLD, another commodity backed ETF. Arca noted that a position limit exercise in GLD represents 8.17% of the float of GLD. By comparison, a position limit exercise in GBTC options (assuming a 250,000-contract limit) would represent 9.13% of the GBTC float. Although a 250,000-contract position (and exercise) limit on GBTC options would not be as conservative as the standard applied to GLD, it is comparable and therefore appropriate.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to permit FLEX Options and to require aggregation of any FLEX and non-FLEX positions in the same underlying ETF for BTC, BITB and GTBC for purposes of calculating position and exercise limits would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market for several reasons. First, the Exchange believes that offering FLEX Options will benefit investors by providing them with an additional, relatively lower cost investing tool to gain exposure to the price of bitcoin and provide a hedging vehicle to meet their investment needs in connection with a bitcoin-related product. Moreover, the proposal would broaden the base of investors that use FLEX Options to manage their trading and investment risk, including investors that currently trade in the OTC market for customized options. By trading a product in an exchange-traded environment (that is currently being used in the OTC market), the Exchange would be able to compete more effectively with the OTC market. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that it would lead to the migration of options currently trading in the OTC market to trading to the Exchange. Also, any migration to the Exchange from the OTC market would result in increased market transparency and enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow. The Exchange also believes that offering FLEX Options may open up the market for options on BTC, BITB and GTBC to more retail investors.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest because FLEX Options are designed to create greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility. The proposed rule change should also result in enhanced efficiency in initiating and closing out positions and heightened contra-party creditworthiness due to the role of OCC as issuer and guarantor of FLEX Options. Further, the proposed rule change would result in increased competition by permitting the Exchange to offer products that are currently used in the OTC market.
The Exchange believes that offering innovative products flows to the benefit of the investing public. A robust and competitive market requires that exchanges respond to members' evolving needs by constantly improving their offerings. Such efforts would be stymied if exchanges were prohibited from offering innovative products such as the proposed FLEX Options. The Exchange does not believe that allowing FLEX Options would render the marketplace for equity options more susceptible to manipulative practices.
Finally, the Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance program in place to detect manipulative trading in FLEX Options. Regarding the proposed FLEX Options, the Exchange would use the same surveillance procedures currently utilized for FLEX Options listed on the Exchange (as well as for non-FLEX Options). For surveillance purposes, the Exchange would have access to information regarding trading activity in BTC, BITB and GTBC the underlying ETFs). In light of surveillance measures related to both options trading on BTC, BITB and GTBC and the underlying funds, the Exchange believes that existing surveillance procedures are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior which might potentially arise from listing and trading the proposed FLEX Options.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange's proposal does not burden intra-market competition because all ISE Members would be subject to the position limits in Options 9, Sections 13(d) and corresponding exercise limits in Options 9, Section 15. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will also provide additional opportunities for market participants to continue to efficiently achieve their investment and trading objectives for equity options on the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on inter-market competition. The Exchange expects that all option exchanges will adopt substantively similar proposals, such that the Exchange's proposal would benefit competition. For these reasons, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to permit FLEX Options will not impose any burden on intra-market competition as all market participants can opt to utilize this product or not. The proposed rule change is designed to allow investors seeking option exposure to bitcoin to trade FLEX Options. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposal to permit FLEX Options would broaden the base of investors that use FLEX Options to manage their trading and investment risk, including investors that currently trade in the OTC market for customized options. The Exchange believes that the proposed FLEX Options will not impose any burden on inter-market competition but will instead encourage competition by increasing the variety of options products available for trading on the Exchange, which products will provide a valuable tool for investors to manage risk. Should this proposal be approved, competing options exchanges will be free to offer products like the proposed FLEX Options.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BYX”) proposes to amend fees for Cboe Timestamping Service reports to allow Sponsored Participants to purchase these reports directly.
The text of the proposed rule change is 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 IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend fees for Cboe Timestamping Service reports, effective July 25, 2025. The Exchange previously adopted a data product known as the Cboe Timestamping Service
The Cancels Report provides response time details for orders that rest on the book where the subscribing firm attempted to cancel that resting order or any other resting order but was unable to do so as the resting order was executed before the system processed the cancel message. The Cancels Report assists the subscribing firm in determining by how much time that order missed being canceled instead of executing.
The Missed Liquidity Report provides time details for executions of orders that rest on the book where the subscribing firm attempted to execute against that resting order within an Exchange-determined amount of time (not to exceed 1 millisecond) after receipt of the first attempt to execute against the resting order and within an Exchange-determined amount of time (not to exceed 100 microseconds) before receipt of the first attempt to execute against the resting order.
The Exchange notes that the data included in the reports are based only on the data of the market participant that opts to subscribe to the reports (“Recipient Firm”) and do not include information related to any firm other than the Recipient Firm. Additionally, neither report includes real-time market data. Rather, the reports contain historical data from the prior trading day and are available after the end of the trading day, generally on a T+1 basis.
Currently, the Exchange assess the following monthly fees for Members that purchase the Cancels Report and/or the Missed Liquidity Report. The Exchange assess a monthly flat fee of $1,000 for the Cancels Report for a subscribing Member. The Exchange also proposes a progressive monthly fee structure for the Missed Liquidity Report based on the Member's subscribing logical (FIX or BOE) order entry ports (the “Ports”)
Currently, a Member who has Sponsored Participants may choose to purchase one or both of these reports and can provide this data to its
The Exchange now proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to allow a Member's Sponsored Participants to subscribe and be charged directly for this report. This will permit a Sponsored Participant to request and have access to their information directly. The same fees that are currently in place shall apply to a Sponsored Participant.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) and broker dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to consumers of such data. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to users and consumers of such data and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes that the proposed reports are the sort of market data product that the Commission envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS.
The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS—by deregulating the market in proprietary data—would itself further the Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and competition: “[E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive (and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal analysis of the need for such data.”
By removing “unnecessary regulatory restrictions” on the ability of exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. The Cboe Timestamping Service (
The reports are designed for firms that are interested in gaining insight into latency in connection with their respective (1) orders that failed to execute against an order resting on the Exchange order book and/or (2) cancel messages that failed to cancel resting orders. The Exchange believes that providing this optional data to be purchased directly by Sponsored Participants if they desire to receive this is consistent with facilitating transactions in securities, removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protecting investors and the public interest because it provides Sponsored Participants with an opportunity to receive additional information and insight into their trading activity on the Exchange, that they may not otherwise receive from their Sponsoring Members.
The Exchange previously only allowed Members to subscribe and be billed for this as during the initial launch, it did not yet have the capabilities to pull activities on a per Sponsored Participant basis. Due to requests from Sponsored Participants and Members alike to permit Sponsored Participants to subscribe directly, the Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to allow a Sponsored Participant to subscribe and be billed directly for this.
The Exchange believes the fee proposals for both the Missed Liquidity Report and Cancels Report are reasonable as the Exchange is offering any Sponsored Participant or Member access to subscribe to one or both report(s) in the firm's sole discretion based on their unique business needs. The Exchange notes that these existing fees have previously been established
The proposal would also not permit unfair discrimination as both the Cancels Report and Missed Liquidity Report will be available to all Sponsored Participants, in addition to Members, who may opt to subscribe to one, both, or neither, and will help to protect a free and open market by continuing to provide additional non-core data (offered on an optional basis for a fee) to the marketplace and by providing investors with greater choices.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes expanding the scope of who may directly subscribe to the reports will contribute to robust competition among national securities exchanges. The Missed Liquidity Report and Cancels Report further enhances competition between exchanges by allowing the Exchange to provide these reports directly to a broader group similar to reports that are currently offered by other exchanges.
The Exchange also does not believe the proposed fees would cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intermarket competition as other exchanges are free to introduce their own comparable reports with lower prices to better compete with the Exchange's offerings and this fee does not change based on if a subscribing firm is a Member or Sponsored Participant The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price the reports is constrained by competition among exchanges who choose to adopt similar products. The Exchange must consider this in its pricing discipline in order to compete for subscribers of the Exchange's market data via the reports. For example, proposing fees that are excessively higher than fees for potentially similar data products would simply serve to reduce demand for the Exchange's reports, which as discussed, firms are under no obligation to utilize. In this competitive environment, potential purchasers are free to choose which, if any, similar product to purchase to satisfy their need for market information. As a result, the Exchange believes this proposed rule change permits fair competition among national securities exchanges.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change would cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intramarket competition. Particularly, the proposed fees apply uniformly to any purchaser in that the Exchange does not differentiate between the different subscribing firms that may purchase the reports directly from the Exchange. The proposed fees are set at a modest level that would allow any interested Member or Sponsored Participant to purchase such data based on their business needs.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's fee schedule applicable to Members
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Options Fee Schedule to (i) decrease the transaction rebate for executions of contracts where the underlying security of the applicable option is in the Penny Interval program (“Penny options”)
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The Exchange is one of only 17 options venues to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more than approximately 18.1% of the market share and currently the Exchange represents only approximately 3.7% of the market share.
Currently, the Exchange provides a standard transaction rebate of $0.42 per contract for executions of Penny options (as defined above) in the Professional, Firm, Away Market Maker, and Broker Dealer capacities which add liquidity to the MEMX Options Book. Now, the Exchange proposes to reduce the standard transaction rebate on such contracts from $0.42 per contract to $0.40 per contract. The purpose of reducing the rebate is for business and competitive reasons as the Exchange believes that reducing such rebate would decrease the Exchange's expenditures with respect to its transaction pricing in a manner that is still consistent with the Exchange's overall pricing philosophy of encouraging executions which add liquidity to the MEMX Options Book. The Exchange believes that the reduced rebate continues to be in line with or exceeds the rebates provided by other national securities exchanges and will continue to incentivize Members to route order flow to the Exchange.
The Exchange is also proposing to introduce a tiered pricing structure applicable to the rebate provided for executions that add liquidity in Penny options that are made in the Professional capacity (“Added Professional Penny Volume”).
The Exchange proposes to exclude from the calculation of ADAV and TCV any trading day that the Exchange's system experiences a disruption that lasts for more than 60 minutes during regular trading hours and on any day with a scheduled early market close, and the Exchange is proposing to add this information to a new “Notes” section of the Fee Schedule which will be placed directly following the existing “Definitions” section.
The Exchange believes that the proposed tiered pricing structure provides an incremental incentive for Members to strive for higher ADAV on the Exchange to receive the proposed enhanced rebate for executions of Added Professional Penny Volume. As such, the proposed Volume Tier is designed to encourage Members that provide liquidity on the Exchange to maintain or increase their order flow, thereby contributing to a deeper and more liquid market to the benefit of all market participants and enhancing the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue. Further, as noted above,
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Options Fee Schedule is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
MEMX Options operates in a highly fragmented and competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient, and the Exchange represents only a small percentage of the overall market. The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and also recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
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 which the Exchange believes would promote price discovery and enhance liquidity and market quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members and market participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to reduce the rebate for executions on Penny options in the Professional, Firm, Away Market Maker and Broker-dealer capacities that add liquidity to the Exchange to $0.40 per contract is reasonable and equitable because it is designed to decrease the Exchange's expenditures with respect to its transaction pricing in a manner that is still consistent with the Exchange's overall pricing philosophy of encouraging executions which add liquidity to the MEMX Options Book in Penny options. The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the reduced rebate will apply to all market participants who make executions of Penny options in a Professional, Firm, Away Market Maker and/or Broker dealer capacity which add liquidity to the MEMX Options Book.
The Exchange further believes the proposed reduced rebate is appropriate because it exceeds or is comparable to, and competitive with, the rebates provided by other exchanges for executions in the same capacities in Penny options which add liquidity.
As noted above, Volume Tiers like that proposed in this filing have been widely adopted by options exchanges and are equitable are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are open to all members on an equal basis and provide rebates that are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery process.
Additionally, the Exchange believes that excluding days when the Exchange closes early or when there is a Exchange system disruption lasting longer than 60 minutes when determining whether a Member qualifies for the proposed Volume Tier during a month 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 the proposed Volume Tier due to Exchange system disruptions and/or abnormal market conditions. The Exchange notes that the exclusion of Exchange system disruption days and days with a scheduled early market close 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, including calculations of ADAV for Volume Tiers specifically.
For the reasons discussed above, the Exchange submits that its proposed change to the Options Transaction Fee Schedule satisfies the requirements of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the proposal is intended to decrease the Exchange's expenditures, generate additional revenue with respect to its transaction pricing, and incentivize market participants to direct additional order flow to the MEMX Options platform, which the Exchange believes would promote price discovery and enhance liquidity and market quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members and market participants. Further, MEMX Options' proposed reduced rebate and proposed new Volume Tier are both in line with rebates assessed by other options exchanges.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed reduced rebate and Volume Tier apply equally to all Options Members. The proposed reduced rebate for executions of added volume in Penny options made in a Professional, Firm, Away Market Maker or Broker Dealer capacity is intended to decrease the Exchange's expenditures and generate additional revenue with respect to its transaction pricing, in a manner that is comparable with the rebates offered by other exchanges for executions in the same capacities that add liquidity in Penny options. Similarly, the opportunity to qualify for the Volume Tier and thus received an enhanced rebate for executions of Added Professional Penny Volume would be available to all Members that meet the associated volume requirement in any month. The Exchange believes the volume requirement of the Volume Tier is attainable for several market participants who execute Added Professional Volume on the Exchange and is reasonably related to the enhanced market quality that the Volume Tier is designed to promote. As such, the Exchange does not believe the proposed changes would impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order flow, including 16 other options exchanges and off-exchange venues. Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of option order flow. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposal will increase competition and is intended to encourage market participants to trade on the exchange by providing rebates and a new Volume Tier that is comparable to those offered by other exchanges, which the Exchange believes will help to encourage Members to send orders to the Exchange to the benefit of all Exchange participants.
Additionally, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to make a number of minor, non-substantive edits to the Exchange's Rulebook.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 516(d) to remove the definition of WAIT Orders. Currently, Exchange Rule 516(d) provides that “WAIT” shall mean for orders so designated, that upon entry into the System, the order is held for one second without processing for potential display and/or execution. After one second, the order is processed for potential display and/or execution in accordance with all order entry instructions as determined by the entering party. The Exchange notes that WAIT Orders have never been implemented and are not currently in use. The Exchange proposes to remove the definition of WAIT Orders and then insert “Reserved” so as to keep the remainder of the Rulebook as currently formatted. The purpose of proposed rule change is to remove obsolete rule text and provide greater clarity to Members
The Exchange proposes to update citations to Rule 600(b) of Regulation NMS in Interpretation and Policy .01 to Exchange Rule 518, Complex Orders, Exchange Rule 530, Limit Up-Limit Down, and Exchange Rule 1701, Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance Rule—Definitions.
In 2024, the Commission amended Regulation NMS under the Act to update the rule that requires disclosures for order executions in national market system (“NMS”) stocks.
The Exchange accordingly proposes to update the relevant citations to Rule 600(b) in its rules as follows:
• The citations to the definition of NMS Stock in Interpretation and Policy .01(b) to Exchange Rules 518 and 1701(qq) would be changed to Rule 600(b)(65) of Regulation NMS.
• The citations to the definition of Trading Center in Interpretation and Policy .01(b) to Exchange Rule 518 would be changed to Rule 600(b)(106) of Regulation NMS.
• The citation to the definition of Regular Trading Hours in Exchange Rule 530(a) would be changed to Rule 600(b)(88) of Regulation NMS.
• The citation to the definition of Listed Option in Exchange Rule 1701(y) would be changed to Rule 600(b)(52) of Regulation NMS.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1014(d)(5) to make a minor, non-substantive edit to provide accuracy and precision within the rule text.
Currently, the table in Exchange Rule 1014(d)(5) provides the number of violations of Exchange Rule 520(b) regarding limitations on orders entered into the System by Electronic Exchange Members
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1308(a) to remove an extra hyphen in the heading. Accordingly, with the proposed rule change, Exchange Rule 1308(a) will read as follows:
(a) Duty to Supervise—Non-Member Accounts. The general partners or directors of each Member that conducts a non-member customer business shall provide for appropriate supervisory control and shall designate a general partner or executive officer, who shall be identified to the Exchange, to assume overall authority and responsibility for internal supervision and control of the organization and compliance with securities laws and regulations. This person, who may be the same individual designated pursuant to substantially similar New York Stock Exchange or FINRA rules, shall:
In addition, the Exchange proposes to remove Interpretation and Policy .01 to Exchange Rule 1308. On March 18, 2025, the Exchange filed its proposal (SR-MIAX-2025-12) to amend Exchange Rule 1308 to align the annual obligations for Members with industry standard approaches.
The Exchange notes that Exchange Rule 1308 as proposed to be amended by this filing, is incorporated by reference into the rulebooks of the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX PEARL, LLC (“MIAX Pearl”), MIAX Emerald, LLC (“MIAX Emerald”), and MIAX Sapphire, LLC (“MIAX Sapphire”). As such, the amendments to Exchange Rule 1308 proposed herein will also apply to MIAX Pearl, MIAX Emerald, and MIAX Sapphire members.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1703(a)(2) to remove an extra closing parenthesis after the phrase “Industry Member Data”. The proposed rule change is to correct grammatical error and provide greater clarity to Members and the public regarding the Exchange's Rulebook. Accordingly, with the proposed rule change, Exchange Rule 1703(a)(2) will read as follows:
Subject to paragraph (3) below, each Industry Member shall record and report to the Central Repository the following, as applicable (“Received Industry Member Data” and collectively with the information referred to in Rule 1703(a)(1) “Industry Member Data”) in the manner prescribed by the Operating Committee pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan:
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes are consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The proposed changes to replace “16 or 20” with “16 to 20” in Exchange Rule 1014(d)(5), remove an extra hyphen in Exchange Rule 1308(a), and remove an extra closing parenthesis in Exchange Rule 1703(a)(2), [
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes also further the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes do not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as there is no functional change to the Exchange's System
The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes do not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule changes are not intended to address competitive issues but rather are concerned solely with correcting grammatical errors, removing obsolete rule text, and updating citations to Rule 600(b) of Regulation NMS. The purpose of the proposed changes is to provide accuracy and consistency within the Exchange's Rulebook and eliminate the potential for confusion.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of this 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
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 9, Section 13, Position Limits, and Options 9, Section 15, Exercise Limits, with respect to options on the iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (“IBIT”), the Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust ETF (“BTC”), the Bitwise Bitcoin ETF (“BITB”) and the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF (“GBTC”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 9, Section 13, Position Limits, and Options 9, Section 15, Exercise Limits, with respect to options on the iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (“IBIT”), the Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust ETF (“BTC”), the Bitwise Bitcoin ETF (“BITB”) and the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF (“GBTC”). Each change will be described below.
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules relating to position limits at Options 9, Section 13, and exercise limits at Options 9, Section 15. Recently, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE”) received approval to eliminate the current 25,000 contract position and exercise limit for options on IBIT.
The Exchange proposes to similarly amend its position limit rules at BX Options 9, Section 13 and exercise limits at Options 9, Section 15 to likewise eliminate the current 25,000 contract position and exercise limit for options on IBIT, BTC, BITB and GTBC. As a result, IBIT, BTC, BITB and GTBC would be subject to the position limits described in BX Options 9, Section 13 and the corresponding exercise limits in BX Options 9, Section 15.
IBIT is an Exchange-Traded Fund (“ETF”) that holds bitcoin and is listed on The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC.
Per the Commission “rules regarding position and exercise limits are intended to prevent the establishment of options positions that can be used or might create incentives to manipulate or disrupt the underlying market so as to benefit the options positions.”
While ISE proposed an aggregated 25,000 contract position limit for IBIT options in its IBIT Approval Order, it nonetheless believed that evidence existed to support a much higher position limit. Specifically, the Commission has considered and reviewed the ISE's analysis in its IBIT Approval Order that the exercisable risk associated with a position limit of 25,000 contracts represented only 0.4% of the outstanding shares of IBIT.
IBIT currently qualifies for a 250,000 contract position limit pursuant to the criteria in Options 9, Section 13, which requires that, for the most recent six-month period, trading volume for the underlying security be at least 100 million shares.
Position limits, and exercise limits, are designed to limit the number of options contracts traded on the exchange in an underlying security that an investor, acting alone or in concert with others directly or indirectly, may control. These limits, which are described in BX Options 9, Sections 13 and 15, are intended to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impacts surrounding the use of options, such as disrupting the market in the security underlying the options. Position and exercise limits must balance concerns regarding mitigating potential manipulation and the cost of inhibiting potential hedging activity that could be used for legitimate economic purposes.
To achieve this balance, BX proposes to remove IBIT from Options 9, Section 13(a)(1), regarding position limits, and Options 9, Section 15(a)(1), regarding exercise limits, so that options on IBIT may trade similar to all other options for which the Exchange has not filed to otherwise increase the position limits. As a result of removing the limitations for options in IBIT from Options 9, Sections 13(a)(1) and 15(a)(1), it would increase the position and exercise limits for options on IBIT from 25,000 to 250,000 contracts based on the current limits set by other exchanges, such as ISE. Like other options, IBIT would be subject to subsequent six (6) month reviews to determine future position and exercise limits similar to all other options as noted in other exchange rules such as ISE Options 9, Section 13(d).
In addition to IBIT's eligibility for 250,000 contracts, ISE performed additional analysis with respect to IBIT. First, ISE considered IBIT's market capitalization and Average Daily Volume (“ADV”), and prospective position limit in relation to other securities. In measuring IBIT against other securities, ISE aggregated market capitalization and volume data for securities that have defined position limits utilizing data from The Options
Based on the above table, ISE noted that if IBIT were compared to the 1,934 stocks that have position limits of 250,000 contracts to less than 500,000 contracts it would rank in the 88th percentile for market capitalization and the 99th percentile for ADV.
ISE also analyzed the position limits for IBIT by regressing the market capitalization figures and 90-day ADV of all non-ETF equities, against their respective position limit figures. From this regression, ISE was able to determine the implied coefficients to create a formulaic method for determining an appropriate position limit.
Based on the aforementioned analysis, the Exchange believes that the proposed 250,000 contracts for position and exercise limits is appropriate.
Second, ISE reviewed IBIT's data relative to the market capitalization of the entire bitcoin market in terms of exercise risk and availability of deliverables. ISE noted that, as of November 25, 2024, there are 19,787,762 bitcoins in circulation.
Third, ISE reviewed the proposed position limit by comparing it to position limits for derivative products regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). While the CFTC, through the relevant Designated Contract Markets, only regulates options positions based upon delta equivalents (creating a less stringent standard), ISE examined equivalent bitcoin futures position limits. In particular, ISE looked to the CME bitcoin futures contract
Fourth, ISE analyzed a position and exercise limit of 250,000 for IBIT options against other options on ETFs with an underling commodity, namely SPDR Gold Shares (“GLD”), iShares Silver Trust (“SLV”), and ProShares Bitcoin ETF (“BITO”).
Fifth, ISE noted that IBIT began trading in penny increments as of January 2, 2025pursuant to the Penny Interval Program.
The Exchange believes that IBIT options has demonstrated that it has more than sufficient liquidity to garner an increased position and exercise limit of 250,000 contracts. The Exchange believes that any concerns related to manipulation and protection of investors are mollified by the significant liquidity provision in IBIT. The Exchange states that, as a general principle, increases in active trading volume and deep liquidity of the underlying securities do not lead to manipulation and/or disruption.
The Exchange believes that increasing the position (and exercise) limits for IBIT options would lead to a more liquid and competitive market environment for IBIT options, which will benefit customers that trade these options. Further, the reporting requirement for such options would remain unchanged. Thus, the Exchange will still require that each Participant that maintains positions in impacted options on the same side of the market, for its own account or for the account of a customer, report certain information to the Exchange. This information includes, but would not be limited to, the options' positions, whether such positions are hedged and, if so, a description of the hedge(s). Market Makers would continue to be exempt from this reporting requirement, however, the Exchange may access Market Maker position information.
The Exchange also has no reason to believe that the growth in trading volume in IBIT will not continue. Rather, the Exchange expects continued options volume growth in IBIT as opportunities for investors to participate in the options markets increase and evolve. The Exchange believes that the current position and exercise limits in IBIT options are restrictive and will hamper the listed options markets from being able to compete fairly and effectively with the over-the-counter (“OTC”) markets. OTC transactions occur through bilateral agreements, the terms of which are not publicly disclosed to the marketplace. As such, OTC transactions do not contribute to the price discovery process on a public exchange or other lit markets. The Exchange believes that without the proposed changes to position and exercise limits for IBIT options, market participants will find the 25,000 contract position limit an impediment to their business and investment objectives as well as an impediment to efficient pricing. As such, market participants may find the less transparent OTC markets a more attractive alternative to achieve their investment and hedging objectives, leading to a retreat from the listed options markets, where trades are subject to reporting requirements and daily surveillance. However, the Exchange notes that IBIT's position limits would be reviewed on a six month basis, pursuant the rules of other options exchange such as ISE Options 9, Section 13(d), similar to other options.
The Exchange believes that the existing surveillance procedures and reporting requirements at the Exchange are capable of properly identifying disruptive and/or manipulative trading activity. The Exchange also represents that it has adequate surveillances in place to detect potential manipulation, as well as reviews in place to identify continued compliance with the Exchange's listing standards. These procedures monitor market activity via automated surveillance techniques to identify unusual activity in both options and the underlyings, as applicable. The Exchange also notes that large stock holdings must be disclosed to the Commission by way of Schedules 13D or 13G,
On October 18, 2024, the Commission approved the listing and trading of BTC and BITB on Arca.
First, Arca reviewed the ETFs' data relative to the market capitalization of the entire bitcoin market in terms of exercise risk and availability of deliverables. Arca noted that, as noted above, as of November 25, 2024, there were 19,787,762 bitcoins in circulation.
Next, Arca reviewed the proposed position limit by comparing it to position limits for derivative products regulated by the CFTC. While the CFTC, through the relevant Designated Contract Markets, only regulates options positions based upon delta equivalents (creating a less stringent standard), the Exchange examined equivalent bitcoin futures position limits. In particular, the Exchange looked to the CME bitcoin futures contract
Of note, unlike options contracts, CME position limits are calculated on a net futures-equivalent basis by contract and include contracts that aggregate into one or more base contracts according to an aggregation ratio(s).
Finally, Arca analyzed a position and exercise limit of 250,000 for BTC and BITB against other options on commodity ETFs, namely SPDR Gold Shares (“GLD”) and iShares Silver Trust (“SLV”).
Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that it has demonstrated that BTC and BITB each have more than sufficient liquidity to garner an increased position and exercise limit of 250,000 same-side contracts. The Exchange believes that the significant liquidity present in each ETF mitigates against the potential for manipulation.
The Exchange believes that allowing options on each ETF to have increased aggregated position and exercise limits would lead to a more liquid and competitive market environment for such options, which will benefit customers that trade these options. Further, the reporting requirement for such options would remain unchanged. Thus, the Exchange will still require that each Participant that maintains positions in options on BTC or BITB, on the same side of the market, for its own account or for the account of a customer, report certain information to the Exchange. This information includes, but would not be limited to, the options positions, whether such positions are hedged and, if so, a description of the hedge(s). Market Makers
On October 18, 2024, the Commission approved the listing and trading of GBTC options on Arca.
First, Arca reviewed GBTC's data relative to the market capitalization of the entire bitcoin market in terms of exercise risk and availability of deliverables. As noted above, as of November 25, 2024, Arca noted that there were 19,787,762 bitcoins in circulation.
Next, Arca reviewed the proposed position limit by comparing it to position limits for derivative products regulated by the CFTC. While the CFTC, through the relevant Designated Contract Markets, only regulates options positions based upon delta equivalents (creating a less stringent standard), Arca examined equivalent bitcoin futures position limits. In particular, Arca looked to the CME bitcoin futures contract,
Of note, unlike options contracts, CME position limits are calculated on a net futures-equivalent basis by contract and include contracts that aggregate into one or more base contracts according to an aggregation ratio(s).
Finally, Arca analyzed a position and exercise limit of 250,000 for GBTC against options on SPDR Gold Shares (“GLD”), which (like GBTC), is a commodity-backed ETF.
Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that it has demonstrated that GBTC has more than sufficient liquidity to garner an increased position and exercise limit of 250,000 same-side contracts. The Exchange believes that the significant liquidity present in GBTC mitigates against the potential for manipulation.
The Exchange also has no reason to believe that the growth in trading volume in IBIT, BTC, BITB, and GBTC options will not continue. Rather, the Exchange expects continued options volume growth in IBIT, BTC, BITB, and GBTC as opportunities for investors to participate in the options markets increase and evolve. The Exchange believes that the current position and exercise limits in IBIT, BTC, BITB, and GBTC options are restrictive and will hamper the listed options markets from being able to compete fairly and effectively with the over-the-counter (“OTC”) markets. OTC transactions occur through bilateral agreements, the terms of which are not publicly disclosed to the marketplace. As such, OTC transactions do not contribute to the price discovery process on a public exchange or other lit markets. The Exchange believes that without the proposed changes to position and exercise limits for IBIT, BTC, BITB, and GBTC options, market participants will find the 25,000- contract position limit an impediment to their business and investment objectives as well as an impediment to efficient pricing. As a result, market participants may find the less transparent OTC markets a more attractive alternative to achieve their investment and hedging objectives, leading to a retreat from the listed options markets, where trades are subject to reporting requirements and daily surveillance.
The Exchange believes that the existing surveillance procedures and reporting requirements at the Exchange are capable of properly identifying disruptive and/or manipulative trading activity. The Exchange also represents that it has adequate surveillances in place to detect potential manipulation, as well as reviews in place to identify continued compliance with the Exchange's listing standards. These procedures monitor market activity to identify unusual activity in both options and the underlying equities.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that removing the limitation of 25,000 contracts for options on IBIT in Options 9, Sections 13(a)(1) and 15(a)(1) would increase the position and exercise limits for options on IBIT from 25,000 to 250,000 contracts based on the current limits set by other exchanges, such as ISE, so its position limit would be reviewed similar to all other options is consistent with the Act. This proposal will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, because it will provide market participants with the ability to more effectively execute their trading and hedging activities. Also, based on current trading volume, the resulting increase in the position (and exercise) limits for IBIT options may allow Market Makers to maintain their liquidity in these options in amounts commensurate with the continued high consumer demand in IBIT options. Subjecting options on IBIT to the position limits in Options 9, Sections 13 and corresponding exercise limits in Options 9, Section 15 may also encourage other liquidity providers to continue to trade on the Exchange rather than shift their volume to OTC markets, which will enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow. Further, this amendment would allow institutional investors to utilize IBIT options for prudent risk management purposes. The Exchange notes that IBIT's position limits would be reviewed on a six month basis, based on the rules of other options markets such as ISE Options 9, Section 13(d), similar to other options.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the current liquidity in IBIT will mitigate concerns regarding potential manipulation of IBIT options and/or disruption of IBIT upon amending Options 9, Sections 13 and 15 to remove the 25,000 position and exercise limit for options on IBIT.
Additionally, the regression model performed by ISE demonstrates that the proposed position limit is half of the modeled limit given the liquidity of IBIT. Comparing IBIT's data relative to the market capitalization of the entire bitcoin market in terms of exercise risk and availability of deliverables, ISE was able to conclude that if a position limit of 250,000 contracts were considered, the exercisable risk would represent 2.89%
Comparing a position limit of 250,000 for IBIT options against other options on ETFs with an underling commodity, namely GLD, SLV and BITO, ISE noted that a position limit exercise in GLD represents 8.17% of the float of GLD, a position limit exercise in SLV represents 4.8% of the float of SLV, and a position limit exercise of BITO represents 23.22% of the float of BITO. In comparison, ISE noted that a 250,000 contract position limit in IBIT options would represent 2.89% of the float of IBIT. Consequently, a 250,000 IBIT options position limit is more conservative than the standard applied to GLD, SLV and BITO, and appropriate. Also, ISE noted that Cboe's proprietary CBTX and MBTX indices weight IBIT the highest (at 20%) in its index composition among the other ETFs that comprise the index.
ISE noted that IBIT began trading in penny increments on January 2, 2025 pursuant to the Penny Interval Program.
Finally, as discussed above, the Exchange's surveillance and reporting safeguards continue to be designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior that might arise from increasing or eliminating position and exercise limits in certain classes. The Exchange believes that the current financial requirements imposed by the Exchange and by the Commission adequately address concerns regarding potentially large, unhedged positions in the options on the underlying securities, further promoting just and equitable principles of trading, the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and the protection of investors.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to remove the 25,000-contract position (and exercise) limit on BTC and BITB options thus allowing such options to qualify for higher aggregated limits will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest as it will provide market participants with the ability to more effectively execute their trading and hedging activities. In addition, this proposed change may allow Market Makers to maintain their liquidity in these options in amounts commensurate with the continued demand for BTC and BITB options. Further, an increased aggregated position (and exercise) limit on BTC and BITB options may encourage other liquidity providers to continue to trade on the Exchange rather than shift their volume to OTC markets, which will enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow. The Exchange notes that permitting a higher aggregated position (and exercise) limit on BTC and BITB options would further allow institutional investors to utilize such options for prudent risk management purposes.
As noted herein, Arca analyzed several data points that support the appropriateness of an aggregated position (and exercise) limit of 250,000 contracts for BTC and BITB options based on recent trading volume in each ETF. Specifically, Arca noted that a comparison of each ETF's market capitalization to the bitcoin market in terms of exercise risk and availability of deliverables revealed that the exercisable risk of an aggregated limit of 250,000 contracts represented 30.14% and 31.27% of BTC and BITB shares outstanding. Further, Arca noted that since each ETF has a creation and redemption process managed through the issuer (whereby bitcoin is used to create BTC or BITB shares, as applicable), a 250,000-contract position (and exercise) limit as compared to the market capitalization of the bitcoin market indicated that the exercisable risk for options on each ETF represented less than 0.06% (BTC) or 0.07% (BITB) of all bitcoin outstanding as noted by Arca. Moreover, a comparison of a 250,000-contract position limit for options on each ETF to the (actual) position limits for equivalent bitcoin futures revealed that a 250,000-contract limit for each ETF would be appropriate. Finally, Arca compared an aggregated position limit of 250,000 contracts for each ETF against GLD, another commodity-backed ETF. Arca noted that a position limit exercise in GLD represents 8.17% of the float of GLD. By comparison, Arca noted that a position limit exercise in each ETF (assuming a 250,000-contract limit would represent 30.14% (BTC) and 31.27% (BITB) of that ETF's float. Although a 250,000-contract position (and exercise) limit on BTC and BITB options would not be as conservative as the standard applied to GLD, it is comparable and therefore appropriate.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to remove the 25,000-contract position (and exercise) limit on GBTC options thus allowing such options to qualify for higher aggregated limits will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest as it will provide market participants with the ability to more effectively execute their trading and hedging activities. In addition, this proposed change may allow Market Makers to maintain their liquidity in these options in amounts commensurate with the continued demand for GBTC options. Further, an increased aggregated position (and exercise) limit on GBTC options may encourage other liquidity providers to continue to trade on the Exchange rather than shift their volume to OTC markets, which will enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow. The Exchange notes that permitting a higher aggregated position (and exercise) limit on GBTC options would further allow institutional investors to utilize such options for prudent risk management purposes.
As noted herein, Arca analyzed several data points that support the appropriateness of an aggregated position (and exercise) limit of 250,000 contracts for GBTC options based on recent trading volume in GBTC. Specifically, Arca noted that a comparison of GBTC's market capitalization to the bitcoin market in terms of exercise risk and availability of deliverables revealed that the exercisable risk of an aggregated limit of 250,000 contracts represented 9.13% of GBTC shares outstanding. Further, since GBTC has a creation and redemption process managed through the issuer (whereby bitcoin is used to create GBTC shares), Arca noted that a 250,000-contract position (and exercise) limit as compared to the market capitalization of the bitcoin market indicated that the exercisable risk for GBTC options represented less than 0.10% of all bitcoin outstanding as noted by Arca. Moreover, a comparison of a 250,000-contract position limit for GBTC options to the (actual) position limits for equivalent bitcoin futures revealed that a 250,000-contract limit would be appropriate. Finally, Arca compared an aggregated position limit of 250,000 contracts for GBTC options against GLD, another commodity backed ETF. Arca noted that a position limit exercise in GLD represents 8.17% of the float of GLD. By comparison, Arca noted that a position limit exercise in GBTC options (assuming a 250,000-contract limit) would represent 9.13% of the GBTC float. Although a 250,000-contract position (and exercise) limit on GBTC options would not be as conservative as the standard applied to GLD, it is comparable and therefore appropriate.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange's proposal does not burden intra-market competition because all Participants would be subject to the position limits in Options 9, Sections 13 and corresponding exercise limits in Options 9, Section 15. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will also provide additional opportunities for market
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on inter-market competition. The Exchange expects that all option exchanges will adopt substantively similar proposals, such that the Exchange's proposal would benefit competition. For these reasons, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend The Nasdaq Options Market LLC (“NOM”) Rules at Options 9, Section 13, Position Limits, and Options 9, Section 15, Exercise Limits, with respect to options on the iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (“IBIT”), the Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust ETF (“BTC”), the Bitwise Bitcoin ETF (“BITB”) and the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF (“GBTC”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 9, Section 13, Position Limits, and Options 9, Section 15, Exercise Limits, with respect to options on the iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (“IBIT”), the Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust ETF (“BTC”), the Bitwise Bitcoin ETF (“BITB”) and the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF (“GBTC”). Each change will be described below.
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules relating to position limits at Options 9, Section 13, and exercise limits at Options 9, Section 15. Recently, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE”) received approval to eliminate the current 25,000 contract position and exercise limit for options on IBIT.
The Exchange proposes to similarly amend its position limit rules at NOM Options 9, Section 13 and exercise limits at Options 9, Section 15 to likewise eliminate the current 25,000 contract position and exercise limit for options on IBIT, BTC, BITB and GTBC. As a result, IBIT, BTC, BITB and GTBC would be subject to the position limits described in NOM Options 9, Section 13 and the corresponding exercise limits in NOM Options 9, Section 15.
IBIT is an Exchange-Traded Fund (“ETF”) that holds bitcoin and is listed on The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC.
Per the Commission “rules regarding position and exercise limits are intended to prevent the establishment of options positions that can be used or might create incentives to manipulate or disrupt the underlying market so as to benefit the options positions.”
While ISE proposed an aggregated 25,000 contract position limit for IBIT options in its IBIT Approval Order, it nonetheless believed that evidence existed to support a much higher position limit. Specifically, the Commission has considered and reviewed the ISE's analysis in its IBIT Approval Order that the exercisable risk associated with a position limit of 25,000 contracts represented only 0.4% of the outstanding shares of IBIT.
IBIT currently qualifies for a 250,000 contract position limit pursuant to the criteria in Options 9, Section 13, which requires that, for the most recent six-month period, trading volume for the underlying security be at least 100 million shares.
Position limits, and exercise limits, are designed to limit the number of options contracts traded on the exchange in an underlying security that an investor, acting alone or in concert with others directly or indirectly, may control. These limits, which are described in NOM Options 9, Sections 13 and 15, are intended to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impacts surrounding the use of options, such as disrupting the market in the security underlying the options. Position and exercise limits must balance concerns regarding mitigating potential manipulation and the cost of inhibiting potential hedging activity that could be used for legitimate economic purposes.
To achieve this balance, NOM proposes to remove IBIT from Options 9, Section 13(a)(1), regarding position limits, and Options 9, Section 15(a)(1), regarding exercise limits, so that options on IBIT may trade similar to all other options for which the Exchange has not filed to otherwise increase the position limits. As a result of removing the limitations for options in IBIT from Options 9, Sections 13(a)(1) and 15(a)(1), it would increase the position and exercise limits for options on IBIT from 25,000 to 250,000 contracts based on the current limits set by other exchanges, such as ISE. Like other options, IBIT would be subject to subsequent six (6) month reviews to determine future position and exercise limits similar to all other options as noted in other exchange rules such as ISE Options 9, Section 13(d).
In addition to IBIT's eligibility for 250,000 contracts, ISE performed additional analysis with respect to IBIT. First, ISE considered IBIT's market capitalization and Average Daily Volume (“ADV”), and prospective position limit in relation to other securities. In measuring IBIT against other securities, ISE aggregated market capitalization and volume data for securities that have defined position limits utilizing data from The Options Clearing Corporations (“OCC”).
Based on the above table, ISE noted that if IBIT were compared to the 1,934 stocks that have position limits of 250,000 contracts to less than 500,000 contracts it would rank in the 88th percentile for market capitalization and the 99th percentile for ADV.
ISE also analyzed the position limits for IBIT by regressing the market capitalization figures and 90-day ADV of all non-ETF equities, against their respective position limit figures. From this regression, ISE was able to determine the implied coefficients to create a formulaic method for determining an appropriate position limit.
Based on the aforementioned analysis, the Exchange believes that the proposed 250,000 contracts for position and exercise limits is appropriate.
Second, ISE reviewed IBIT's data relative to the market capitalization of the entire bitcoin market in terms of exercise risk and availability of deliverables. ISE noted that, as of November 25, 2024, there are 19,787,762 bitcoins in circulation.
Third, ISE reviewed the proposed position limit by comparing it to position limits for derivative products regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). While the CFTC, through the relevant Designated Contract Markets, only regulates options positions based upon delta equivalents (creating a less stringent standard), ISE examined equivalent bitcoin futures position limits. In particular, ISE looked to the CME bitcoin futures contract
Fourth, ISE analyzed a position and exercise limit of 250,000 for IBIT options against other options on ETFs with an underling commodity, namely SPDR Gold Shares (“GLD”), iShares Silver Trust (“SLV”), and ProShares Bitcoin ETF (“BITO”).
Fifth, ISE noted that IBIT began trading in penny increments as of January 2, 2025 pursuant to the Penny Interval Program.
The Exchange believes that IBIT options has demonstrated that it has more than sufficient liquidity to garner an increased position and exercise limit of 250,000 contracts. The Exchange believes that any concerns related to manipulation and protection of investors are mollified by the significant liquidity provision in IBIT. The Exchange states that, as a general principle, increases in active trading volume and deep liquidity of the underlying securities do not lead to manipulation and/or disruption.
The Exchange believes that increasing the position (and exercise) limits for IBIT options would lead to a more liquid and competitive market environment for IBIT options, which will benefit customers that trade these options. Further, the reporting requirement for such options would remain unchanged. Thus, the Exchange will still require that each Participant that maintains positions in impacted options on the same side of the market, for its own account or for the account of a customer, report certain information to the Exchange. This information includes, but would not be limited to, the options' positions, whether such positions are hedged and, if so, a description of the hedge(s). Market Makers would continue to be exempt from this reporting requirement, however, the Exchange may access Market Maker position information.
The Exchange also has no reason to believe that the growth in trading volume in IBIT will not continue. Rather, the Exchange expects continued options volume growth in IBIT as opportunities for investors to participate in the options markets increase and evolve. The Exchange believes that the current position and exercise limits in IBIT options are restrictive and will hamper the listed options markets from being able to compete fairly and effectively with the over-the-counter (“OTC”) markets. OTC transactions occur through bilateral agreements, the terms of which are not publicly disclosed to the marketplace. As such, OTC transactions do not contribute to the price discovery process on a public exchange or other lit markets. The Exchange believes that without the proposed changes to position and exercise limits for IBIT options, market participants will find the 25,000 contract position limit an impediment to their business and investment objectives as well as an impediment to efficient pricing. As such, market participants may find the less transparent OTC markets a more attractive alternative to achieve their investment and hedging objectives, leading to a retreat from the listed options markets, where trades are subject to reporting requirements and daily surveillance. However, the Exchange notes that IBIT's position limits would be reviewed on a six month basis, pursuant the rules of other options exchange such as ISE Options 9, Section 13(d), similar to other options.
The Exchange believes that the existing surveillance procedures and reporting requirements at the Exchange are capable of properly identifying disruptive and/or manipulative trading activity. The Exchange also represents that it has adequate surveillances in place to detect potential manipulation, as well as reviews in place to identify continued compliance with the Exchange's listing standards. These procedures monitor market activity via automated surveillance techniques to identify unusual activity in both options and the underlyings, as applicable. The Exchange also notes that large stock holdings must be disclosed to the Commission by way of Schedules 13D or 13G,
On October 18, 2024, the Commission approved the listing and trading of BTC and BITB on Arca.
First, Arca reviewed the ETFs' data relative to the market capitalization of the entire bitcoin market in terms of exercise risk and availability of deliverables. Arca noted that, as noted above, as of November 25, 2024, there were 19,787,762 bitcoins in circulation.
Next, Arca reviewed the proposed position limit by comparing it to position limits for derivative products regulated by the CFTC. While the CFTC, through the relevant Designated Contract Markets, only regulates options positions based upon delta equivalents (creating a less stringent standard), the Exchange examined equivalent bitcoin futures position limits. In particular, the Exchange looked to the CME bitcoin futures contract
Of note, unlike options contracts, CME position limits are calculated on a net futures-equivalent basis by contract and include contracts that aggregate into one or more base contracts according to an aggregation ratio(s).
Finally, Arca analyzed a position and exercise limit of 250,000 for BTC and BITB against other options on commodity ETFs, namely SPDR Gold Shares (“GLD”) and iShares Silver Trust (“SLV”).
Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that it has demonstrated that BTC and BITB each have more than sufficient liquidity to garner an increased position and exercise limit of 250,000 same-side contracts. The Exchange believes that the significant liquidity present in each ETF mitigates against the potential for manipulation.
The Exchange believes that allowing options on each ETF to have increased aggregated position and exercise limits would lead to a more liquid and competitive market environment for such options, which will benefit customers that trade these options. Further, the reporting requirement for such options would remain unchanged. Thus, the Exchange will still require that each Participant that maintains positions in options on BTC or BITB, on the same side of the market, for its own account or for the account of a customer, report certain information to the Exchange. This information includes, but would not be limited to, the options positions, whether such positions are hedged and, if so, a description of the hedge(s). Market Makers
On October 18, 2024, the Commission approved the listing and trading of GBTC options on Arca.
First, Arca reviewed GBTC's data relative to the market capitalization of the entire bitcoin market in terms of exercise risk and availability of deliverables. As noted above, as of November 25, 2024, Arca noted that there were 19,787,762 bitcoins in circulation.
Next, Arca reviewed the proposed position limit by comparing it to position limits for derivative products regulated by the CFTC. While the CFTC, through the relevant Designated Contract Markets, only regulates options positions based upon delta equivalents (creating a less stringent standard), Arca examined equivalent bitcoin futures position limits. In particular, Arca looked to the CME bitcoin futures contract,
Of note, unlike options contracts, CME position limits are calculated on a net futures-equivalent basis by contract and include contracts that aggregate into one or more base contracts according to an aggregation ratio(s).
Finally, Arca analyzed a position and exercise limit of 250,000 for GBTC against options on SPDR Gold Shares (“GLD”), which (like GBTC), is a commodity-backed ETF.
Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that it has demonstrated that GBTC has more than sufficient liquidity to garner an increased position and exercise limit of 250,000 same-side contracts. The Exchange believes that the significant liquidity present in GBTC mitigates against the potential for manipulation.
The Exchange also has no reason to believe that the growth in trading volume in IBIT, BTC, BITB, and GBTC options will not continue. Rather, the Exchange expects continued options volume growth in IBIT, BTC, BITB, and GBTC as opportunities for investors to participate in the options markets increase and evolve. The Exchange believes that the current position and exercise limits in IBIT, BTC, BITB, and GBTC options are restrictive and will hamper the listed options markets from being able to compete fairly and effectively with the over-the-counter (“OTC”) markets. OTC transactions occur through bilateral agreements, the terms of which are not publicly disclosed to the marketplace. As such, OTC transactions do not contribute to the price discovery process on a public exchange or other lit markets. The Exchange believes that without the proposed changes to position and exercise limits for IBIT, BTC, BITB, and GBTC options, market participants will find the 25,000-contract position limit an impediment to their business and investment objectives as well as an impediment to efficient pricing. As a result, market participants may find the less transparent OTC markets a more attractive alternative to achieve their investment and hedging objectives, leading to a retreat from the listed options markets, where trades are subject to reporting requirements and daily surveillance.
The Exchange believes that the existing surveillance procedures and reporting requirements at the Exchange are capable of properly identifying disruptive and/or manipulative trading activity. The Exchange also represents that it has adequate surveillances in place to detect potential manipulation, as well as reviews in place to identify continued compliance with the Exchange's listing standards. These procedures monitor market activity to identify unusual activity in both options and the underlying equities.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that removing the limitation of 25,000 contracts for options on IBIT in Options 9, Sections 13(a)(1) and 15(a)(1) would increase the position and exercise limits for options on IBIT from 25,000 to 250,000 contracts based on the current limits set by other exchanges, such as ISE, so its position limit would be reviewed similar to all other options is consistent with the Act. This proposal will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, because it will provide market participants with the ability to more effectively execute their trading and hedging activities. Also, based on current trading volume, the resulting increase in the position (and exercise) limits for IBIT options may allow Market Makers to maintain their liquidity in these options in amounts commensurate with the continued high consumer demand in IBIT options. Subjecting options on IBIT to the position limits in Options 9, Sections 13 and corresponding exercise limits in Options 9, Section 15 may also encourage other liquidity providers to continue to trade on the Exchange rather than shift their volume to OTC markets, which will enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow. Further, this amendment would allow institutional investors to utilize IBIT options for prudent risk management purposes. The Exchange notes that IBIT's position limits would be reviewed on a six month basis, based on the rules of other options markets such as ISE Options 9, Section 13(d), similar to other options.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the current liquidity in IBIT will mitigate concerns regarding potential manipulation of IBIT options and/or disruption of IBIT upon amending Options 9, Sections 13 and 15 to remove the 25,000 position and exercise limit for options on IBIT.
Additionally, the regression model performed by ISE demonstrates that the proposed position limit is half of the modeled limit given the liquidity of IBIT. Comparing IBIT's data relative to the market capitalization of the entire bitcoin market in terms of exercise risk and availability of deliverables, ISE was able to conclude that if a position limit of 250,000 contracts were considered, the exercisable risk would represent 2.89%
Comparing a position limit of 250,000 for IBIT options against other options on ETFs with an underling commodity, namely GLD, SLV and BITO, ISE noted that a position limit exercise in GLD represents 8.17% of the float of GLD, a position limit exercise in SLV represents 4.8% of the float of SLV, and a position limit exercise of BITO represents 23.22% of the float of BITO. In comparison, ISE noted that a 250,000-contract position limit in IBIT options would represent 2.89% of the float of IBIT. Consequently, a 250,000 IBIT options position limit is more conservative than the standard applied to GLD, SLV and BITO, and appropriate. Also, ISE noted that Cboe's proprietary CBTX and MBTX indices weight IBIT the highest (at 20%) in its index composition among the other ETFs that comprise the index.
ISE noted that IBIT began trading in penny increments on January 2, 2025 pursuant to the Penny Interval Program.
Finally, as discussed above, the Exchange's surveillance and reporting safeguards continue to be designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior that might arise from increasing or eliminating position and exercise limits in certain classes. The Exchange believes that the current financial requirements imposed by the Exchange and by the Commission adequately address concerns regarding potentially large, unhedged positions in the options on the underlying securities, further promoting just and equitable principles of trading, the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and the protection of investors.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to remove the 25,000-contract position (and exercise) limit on BTC and BITB options thus allowing such options to qualify for higher aggregated limits will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest as it will provide market participants with the ability to more effectively execute their trading and hedging activities. In addition, this proposed change may allow Market Makers to maintain their liquidity in these options in amounts commensurate with the continued demand for BTC and BITB options. Further, an increased aggregated position (and exercise) limit on BTC and BITB options may encourage other liquidity providers to continue to trade on the Exchange rather than shift their volume to OTC markets, which will enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow. The Exchange notes that permitting a higher aggregated position (and exercise) limit on BTC and BITB options would further allow institutional investors to utilize such options for prudent risk management purposes.
As noted herein, Arca analyzed several data points that support the appropriateness of an aggregated position (and exercise) limit of 250,000 contracts for BTC and BITB options based on recent trading volume in each ETF. Specifically, Arca noted that a comparison of each ETF's market capitalization to the bitcoin market in terms of exercise risk and availability of deliverables revealed that the exercisable risk of an aggregated limit of 250,000 contracts represented 30.14% and 31.27% of BTC and BITB shares outstanding. Further, Arca noted that since each ETF has a creation and redemption process managed through the issuer (whereby bitcoin is used to create BTC or BITB shares, as applicable), a 250,000-contract position (and exercise) limit as compared to the market capitalization of the bitcoin market indicated that the exercisable risk for options on each ETF represented less than 0.06% (BTC) or 0.07% (BITB) of all bitcoin outstanding as noted by Arca. Moreover, a comparison of a 250,000-contract position limit for options on each ETF to the (actual) position limits for equivalent bitcoin futures revealed that a 250,000-contract limit for each ETF would be appropriate. Finally, Arca compared an aggregated position limit of 250,000 contracts for each ETF against GLD, another commodity-backed ETF. Arca noted that a position limit exercise in GLD represents 8.17% of the float of GLD. By comparison, Arca noted that a
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to remove the 25,000-contract position (and exercise) limit on GBTC options thus allowing such options to qualify for higher aggregated limits will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest as it will provide market participants with the ability to more effectively execute their trading and hedging activities. In addition, this proposed change may allow Market Makers to maintain their liquidity in these options in amounts commensurate with the continued demand for GBTC options. Further, an increased aggregated position (and exercise) limit on GBTC options may encourage other liquidity providers to continue to trade on the Exchange rather than shift their volume to OTC markets, which will enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow. The Exchange notes that permitting a higher aggregated position (and exercise) limit on GBTC options would further allow institutional investors to utilize such options for prudent risk management purposes.
As noted herein, Arca analyzed several data points that support the appropriateness of an aggregated position (and exercise) limit of 250,000 contracts for GBTC options based on recent trading volume in GBTC. Specifically, Arca noted that a comparison of GBTC's market capitalization to the bitcoin market in terms of exercise risk and availability of deliverables revealed that the exercisable risk of an aggregated limit of 250,000 contracts represented 9.13% of GBTC shares outstanding. Further, since GBTC has a creation and redemption process managed through the issuer (whereby bitcoin is used to create GBTC shares), Arca noted that a 250,000-contract position (and exercise) limit as compared to the market capitalization of the bitcoin market indicated that the exercisable risk for GBTC options represented less than 0.10% of all bitcoin outstanding as noted by Arca. Moreover, a comparison of a 250,000-contract position limit for GBTC options to the (actual) position limits for equivalent bitcoin futures revealed that a 250,000-contract limit would be appropriate. Finally, Arca compared an aggregated position limit of 250,000 contracts for GBTC options against GLD, another commodity backed ETF. Arca noted that a position limit exercise in GLD represents 8.17% of the float of GLD. By comparison, Arca noted that a position limit exercise in GBTC options (assuming a 250,000-contract limit) would represent 9.13% of the GBTC float. Although a 250,000-contract position (and exercise) limit on GBTC options would not be as conservative as the standard applied to GLD, it is comparable and therefore appropriate.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange's proposal does not burden intra-market competition because all Participants would be subject to the position limits in Options 9, Sections 13 and corresponding exercise limits in Options 9, Section 15. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will also provide additional opportunities for market participants to continue to efficiently achieve their investment and trading objectives for equity options on the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on inter-market competition. The Exchange expects that all option exchanges will adopt substantively similar proposals, such that the Exchange's proposal would benefit competition. For these reasons, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGX Options”) proposes to amend Rule 19.3. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
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 IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 19.3 regarding the criteria for underlying securities. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 19.3(i)(4) to allow the Exchange to list and trade options on shares or other securities (“Fund Shares”) that are principally traded on a national securities exchange and are defined as an “NMS stock” under Rule 600 of Regulation NMS and that represent interests in the VanEck Bitcoin ETF.
The VanEck Bitcoin ETF is a Bitcoin-backed commodity exchange-traded fund (“ETF”) structured as trusts. Similar to any Fund Share currently deemed appropriate for options trading under Rule 19.3(i), the investment objective of the VanEck Bitcoin ETF is for its shares to reflect the performance of Bitcoin (less the expenses of the trust's operations), offering investors an opportunity to gain exposure to Bitcoin without the complexities of Bitcoin delivery. As is the case for Fund Shares currently deemed appropriate for options trading, the VanEck Bitcoin ETF represents units of fractional undivided beneficial interest in the trust, the assets of which consist principally of Bitcoin and are designed to track Bitcoin or the performance of the price of Bitcoin and offer access to the Bitcoin market.
The Exchange believes the VanEck Bitcoin ETF satisfies the Exchange's initial listing standards for Fund Shares on which the Exchange may list options. Specifically, the VanEck Bitcoin ETF satisfies the initial listing standards set forth in Rule 19.3(i), as is the case for other Fund Shares on which the Exchange lists options (including trusts that hold commodities). Rule 19.3(i)(1) requires that Fund Shares either (1) meet the criteria and standards set forth in Rule 19.3(a) and (b),
While not required by the Rules for purposes of options listings, the Exchange believes the VanEck Bitcoin ETF satisfies the criteria and guidelines set forth in Rule 19.3(a) and (b). Pursuant to Rule 19.3(a), a security (which includes a Fund Share) on which options may be listed and traded on the Exchange must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) and be an NMS stock (as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”)), and be characterized by a substantial number of outstanding shares that are widely held and actively traded.
As of March 5, 2025, the VanEck Bitcoin ETF had the following number of shares outstanding:
The VanEck Bitcoin ETF had significantly more than 7,000,000 shares outstanding (approximately 7 times that amount), which is the minimum number of shares of a corporate stock that the Exchange generally requires to list options on that stock pursuant to Rule 19.3(b). The Exchange believes this demonstrates that the VanEck Bitcoin ETF is characterized by a substantial number of outstanding shares.
Further, the below table contains information regarding the number of beneficial holders of the VanEck Bitcoin ETF as of the specified dates:
As this table shows, the VanEck Bitcoin ETF has significantly more than 2,000 beneficial holders (approximately 16 times more), which is the minimum number of holders the Exchange generally requires for corporate stock in order to list options on that stock pursuant to Rule 19.3(b). Therefore, the Exchange believes the shares of the VanEck Bitcoin ETF are widely held.
As of March 5, 2025, the total trading volume (by shares) for the trust for the six-month period of September 5, 2024, through March 5, 2025, and the approximate average daily volume
As demonstrated above, as of March 5, 2025, the six-month trading volume for the VanEck Bitcoin ETF as of that date was substantially higher than 2,400,000 shares (approximately 55 times that amount), which is the minimum 12-month volume the Exchange generally requires for a corporate stock in order to list options on that security as set forth in Rule 19.3(b). The Exchange believes this data demonstrates the VanEck Bitcoin ETF is characterized as having shares that are actively traded.
Options on the VanEck Bitcoin ETF will be subject to the Exchange's continued listing standards set forth in Rule 19.4(g) for Fund Shares deemed appropriate for options trading pursuant to Rule 19.3(i). Specifically, 19.4(g) provides that Fund Shares that were initially approved for options trading pursuant to Rule 19.3 will not be deemed to meet the requirements for continued approval, and the Exchange shall not open for trading any additional series of option contracts of the class covering such Fund Shares if the security ceases to be an NMS stock (see Rule 19.4(b)(4)). Additionally, the Exchange will not open for trading any additional series of option contracts of the class covering Fund Shares in any of the following circumstances: (1) in the case of options covering Fund Shares approved for trading under Rule 19.3(i)(4)(A), in accordance with the terms of Rule 19.4(b)(1), (2) and (3); (2) in the case of options covering Fund Shares approved pursuant to Rule 19.3(i)(4)(B), following the initial 12-month period beginning upon the commencement of trading in the Fund Shares on a national securities exchange and are defined as NMS stock under Rule 600 of Regulation NMS, there were fewer than 50 record and/or beneficial holders of such Fund Shares for 30 consecutive days; (3) the value of the index, non-U.S. currency, portfolio of commodities including commodity futures contracts, options on commodity futures contracts, swaps, forward contracts and/or options on physical commodities and/or Financial Instruments or Money Market Instruments, or portfolio of securities on which the Fund Shares are based is no longer calculated or available; or (4) such other event occurs or condition exists that in the opinion of the Exchange makes further dealing in such options on the Exchange inadvisable.
Options on the VanEck Bitcoin ETF will be physically settled contracts with American-style exercise.
Pursuant to Rule 19.6, Interpretation and Policy .01, which governs strike prices of series of options on Fund Shares, the interval of strikes prices for series of options on the VanEck Bitcoin ETF will be $1 or greater when the strike price is $200 or less and $5 or greater where the strike price is over $200.
VanEck Bitcoin ETF options will trade in the same manner as any other Fund Share options on the Exchange. The Exchange Rules that currently apply to the listing and trading of all Fund Share options on the Exchange, including, for example, Rules that govern listing criteria, expirations, exercise prices, minimum increments, margin requirements, customer accounts, and trading halt procedures will apply to the listing and trading of VanEck Bitcoin ETF options on the Exchange in the same manner as they apply to other options on all other Fund Shares that are listed and traded on the Exchange, including the precious-metal backed commodity Fund Shares already deemed appropriate for options trading
Pursuant to Rules 18.7 and 18.9, the position and exercise limits, respectively, for the VanEck Bitcoin ETF option will be 25,000 same side option contracts.
The Exchange then compared the number of outstanding shares of the VanEck Bitcoin ETF to those of other ETFs. The following table provides the approximate average position (and exercise limit) of ETF options with similar outstanding shares (as of March 5, 2025), compared to the proposed position and exercise limit for the VanEck Bitcoin ETF options:
The Exchange considered current position and exercise limits of options on ETFs with outstanding shares comparable to those of the VanEck Bitcoin ETF, with the proposed limit significantly lower (between two and ten times lower) than the average limits of the options on the other ETFs. As discussed above, the VanEck Bitcoin ETF is actively held and widely traded (all statistics as of March 5, 2025) because it: (1) had significantly more than 7,000,000 shares outstanding, which is the minimum number of shares of a corporate stock that the Exchange generally requires to list options on that stock pursuant to Rule 19.3(b)(1); (2) the VanEck Bitcoin ETF (as of the dates listed above) had significantly more than 2,000 beneficial holders, which is the minimum number of holders the Exchange generally requires for corporate stock in order to list options on that stock pursuant to Rule 19.3(b)(2); and (3) the VanEck Bitcoin ETF had a six-month trading volume substantially higher than 2,400,000 shares, which is the minimum 12-month volume the Exchange generally requires for a security in order to list options on that security as set forth in Rule 19.3(b)(4).
With respect to outstanding shares, if a market participant held the maximum number of positions possible pursuant to the proposed position and exercise limits, the equivalent shares represented by the proposed position/exercise limit would represent the following approximate percentage of current outstanding shares:
As this table demonstrates, if a market participant held the maximum permissible options positions in VanEck Bitcoin ETF options and exercised all of them at the same time, that market participant would control a small percentage of the outstanding shares of the VanEck Bitcoin ETF.
zCboe [sic] Options Rule 8.30, Interpretation and Policy .02 (which governs position limits on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 18.7, provides two methods of qualifying for a position limit tier above 25,000 option contracts. The first method is based on six-month trading volume in the underlying security, and the second method is based on slightly lower six-month trading volume
The table, which provides the equivalent shares of the position limits applicable to equity options, including ETFs, further represents the percentages of the minimum number of outstanding shares that an underlying stock or ETF must have to qualify for that position limit (under the second method described above), all of which are higher
The equivalent shares represented by the proposed position and exercise limits for the VanEck Bitcoin ETF as a percentage of outstanding shares of the VanEck Bitcoin ETF is significantly lower than the percentage for the lowest possible position limit for equity options of 25,000 (under 6% compared to 40%) and is lower than that percentage for each current position limit bucket.
Further, the proposed position and exercise limits for the VanEck Bitcoin ETF option are significantly below the limits that would otherwise apply pursuant to current Rules 18.7 and 18.9 (by reference to Cboe Rules 8.30 and 8.42). These position and exercise limits are the lowest position and exercise limits available in the options industry, are extremely conservative and more than appropriate given the market capitalization, average daily volume, and high number of outstanding shares of the VanEck Bitcoin ETF.
All of the above information demonstrates that the proposed position and exercise limits for the VanEck Bitcoin ETF options are more than reasonable and appropriate. The trading volume, ADV, and outstanding shares of the VanEck Bitcoin ETF demonstrate that these funds are actively traded and widely held, and proposed position and exercise limits are well below those of other ETFs with similar market characteristics. The proposed position and exercise limits are the lowest position and exercise limits available for equity options in the industry, are extremely conservative, and are more than appropriate given the VanEck Bitcoin ETF market capitalization, ADV, and high number of outstanding shares.
Today, the Exchange has an adequate surveillance program in place for options. Cboe intends to apply those same program procedures to options on the VanEck Bitcoin ETF that it applies to the Exchange's other options products.
The underlying shares of spot bitcoin exchange-traded products (“ETPs”), including the VanEck Bitcoin ETF, are also subject to safeguards related to addressing market abuse and manipulation. As the Commission stated in its order approving proposals of several exchanges to list and trade shares of spot bitcoin-based ETPs, “[e]ach Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with the CME via their common membership in the Intermarket Surveillance Group. This facilitates the sharing of information that is available to the CME through its surveillance of its markets, including its surveillance of the CME bitcoin futures market.
The Exchange has also analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes the Exchange and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the listing of new series that may result from the introduction of options on the VanEck Bitcoin ETF up to the number of expirations currently permissible under the Rules. Because the proposal is limited to one class, the Exchange believes any additional traffic that may be generated from the introduction of the VanEck Bitcoin ETF options will be manageable.
The Exchange believes that offering options on the VanEck Bitcoin ETF will benefit investors by providing them with an additional, relatively lower cost investing tool to gain exposure to the price of Bitcoin and hedging vehicle to meet their investment needs in connection with Bitcoin-related products and positions. The Exchange expects investors will transact in options on the VanEck Bitcoin ETF in the unregulated over-the-counter (“OTC”) options market,
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposal to list and trade options on the VanEck Bitcoin ETF will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors because offering options on the VanEck Bitcoin ETF will provide investors with an opportunity to realize the benefits of utilizing options on the VanEck Bitcoin ETF, including cost efficiencies and increased hedging strategies. The Exchange believes that offering VanEck Bitcoin ETF options will benefit investors by providing them with a relatively lower-cost risk management tool, which will allow them to manage their positions and associated risk in their portfolios more easily in connection with exposure to the price of Bitcoin and with Bitcoin-related products and positions. Additionally, the Exchange's offering of VanEck Bitcoin ETF options will provide investors with the ability to transact in such options in a listed market environment as opposed to in the unregulated OTC options market, which would increase market transparency and enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow to the benefit of all investors. The Exchange also notes that it already lists options on other commodity-based Fund Shares,
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, because it is consistent with current Exchange Rules previously filed with the Commission. Options on the VanEck Bitcoin ETF satisfy the initial listing standards and continued listing standards currently in the Exchange Rules applicable to options on all Fund Shares, including Fund Shares that hold other commodities already deemed appropriate for options trading on the Exchange. Additionally, as demonstrated above, the VanEck Bitcoin ETF is characterized by a substantial number of shares that are widely held and actively traded. VanEck Bitcoin ETF options will trade in the same manner as any other Fund Share options—the same Exchange Rules that currently govern the listing and trading of all Fund Share options, including permissible expirations, strike prices and minimum increments, and applicable margin requirements, will govern the listing and trading of options on the VanEck Bitcoin ETF in the same manner.
The Exchange believes the proposed position and exercise limits are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and promote just and equitable principles of trade, as they are designed to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impacts surrounding the use of options, such as disrupting the market in the security underlying the options. The proposed position and exercise limits are 25,000 contracts, which is the lowest limit applicable to any equity options (including ETF and options on other Bitcoin ETFs).
Further, given that the issuer of the VanEck Bitcoin ETF may create and redeem shares that represent an interest in Bitcoin, the Exchange believes it is relevant to compare the size of a position limit to the market capitalization of the Bitcoin market. As of March 5, 2025, the global supply of Bitcoin was 19,832,309, and the price of one Bitcoin was approximately $90,608.57,
Therefore, if a market participant with the maximum 25,000 same side contracts in VanEck Bitcoin ETF options exercised all positions at one time, such an event would have no practical impact on the Bitcoin market.
The Exchange also believes the proposed limits are appropriate given position limits for Bitcoin futures. For example, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) imposes a position limit of 2,000 futures (for the initial spot month) on its Bitcoin futures contract.
The approximate number of option contracts for the VanEck Bitcoin ETF that equate to the notional value of CME Bitcoin futures is significantly higher than the proposed limit of 25,000 options contract for the VanEck Bitcoin ETF option. The fact that many options ultimately expire out-of-the-money and thus are not exercised for shares of the underlying, while the delta of a Bitcoin Future is 1, further demonstrates how conservative the proposed limits of 25,000 options contracts are for the VanEck Bitcoin ETF options.
The Exchange notes, unlike options contracts, CME position limits are calculated on a net futures-equivalent basis by contract and include contracts that aggregate into one or more base contracts according to an aggregation ratio(s).
The Exchange believes the proposed position and exercise limits in this proposal will have no material impact to the supply of Bitcoin. For example, consider again the proposed position limit of 25,000 option contracts for the VanEck Bitcoin ETF option. As noted above, a position limit of 25,000 same side contracts effectively restricts a market participant from holding positions that could result in the receipt of no more than 2,500,000 shares of the applicable VanEck Bitcoin ETF (if that market participant exercised all its options). As of March 5, 2025, the VanEck Bitcoin ETF had the number of shares outstanding set forth in the table below. The table below also sets forth the approximate number of market participants that could hold the maximum of 25,000 same side positions in the VanEck Bitcoin ETF that would equate to the number of shares outstanding of the VanEck Bitcoin:
This means if 20 market participants had 25,000 same side positions in VanEck Bitcoin ETF options, each of them would have to simultaneously exercise all of those options to create a scenario that may put the underlying security under stress. The Exchange believes it is highly unlikely for either such event to occur; however, even if either such event did occur, the Exchange would not expect the VanEck Bitcoin ETF to be under stress because such an event would merely induce the creation of more shares through the trust's creation and redemption process.
As of March 5, 2025, the global supply of Bitcoin was approximately 19,832,309.
The Exchange believes the available supply of Bitcoin is not relevant to the determination of position and exercise limits for options overlying the VanEck Bitcoin ETF. Position and exercise limits are not a tool that should be used to address a potential limited supply of the underlying of an underlying. Position and exercise limits do not limit the total number of options that may be held, but rather they limit the number of positions a single customer may hold or exercise at one time.
The Exchange notes that a Registration Statement on Form S-1 was filed with the Commission for the VanEck Bitcoin ETF, each of which described the supply of Bitcoin as being limited to 21,000,000 (of which approximately 90% had already been mined), and that the limit would be reached around the year 2140.
Based on the above information demonstrating, among other things, that the VanEck Bitcoin ETF is characterized by a substantial number of outstanding shares that are actively traded and widely held, the Exchange believes the proposed position and exercise limits are extremely conservative compared to those of ETF options with similar market characteristics. The proposed position and exercise limits reasonably and appropriately balance the liquidity provisioning in the market against the prevention of manipulation. The Exchange believes these proposed limits are effectively designed to prevent an individual customer or entity from establishing options positions that could be used to manipulate the market of the underlying as well as the Bitcoin market.
The Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support VanEck Bitcoin ETF options. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that its existing surveillance and reporting safeguards are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior which might arise from listing and trading Unit options, including VanEck Bitcoin ETF options.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as the VanEck Bitcoin ETF will be equally available to all market participants who wish to trade such options and will trade generally in the same manner as other options. The Exchange Rules that currently apply to the listing and trading of all Unit options on the Exchange, including, for example, Rules that govern listing criteria, expirations, exercise prices, minimum increments, margin requirements, customer accounts, and trading halt procedures will apply to the listing and trading of the VanEck Bitcoin ETF options on the Exchange in the same manner as they apply to other options on all other Units that are listed and traded on the Exchange. Also, and as stated above, the Exchange already lists options on other commodity-based Fund Share.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal to list and trade options on the VanEck Bitcoin ETF will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the extent that the advent of the VanEck Bitcoin ETF options trading on the Exchange may make the Exchange a more attractive marketplace to market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are free to elect to become market participants on the Exchange. Additionally, other options exchanges are free to amend their listing rules, as applicable, to permit them to list and trade options on the VanEck Bitcoin ETF. The Exchange notes that listing and trading VanEck Bitcoin ETF options on the Exchange will subject such options to transparent exchange-based rules as well as price discovery and liquidity, as opposed to alternatively trading such options in the OTC market.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change may relieve any
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) proposes to amend fees for Cboe Timestamping Service reports to allow Sponsored Participants to purchase these reports directly.
The text of the proposed rule change is 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 IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend fees for Cboe Timestamping Service reports, effective July 25, 2025. The Exchange previously adopted a data product known as the Cboe Timestamping Service
The Cancels Report provides response time details for orders that rest on the book where the subscribing firm attempted to cancel that resting order or any other resting order but was unable to do so as the resting order was executed before the system processed the cancel message. The Cancels Report assists the subscribing firm in determining by how much time that order missed being canceled instead of executing.
The Missed Liquidity Report provides time details for executions of orders that rest on the book where the subscribing firm attempted to execute against that resting order within an Exchange-determined amount of time (not to exceed 1 millisecond) after receipt of the first attempt to execute against the resting order and within an Exchange-determined amount of time (not to exceed 100 microseconds) before receipt of the first attempt to execute against the resting order.
The Exchange notes that the data included in the reports are based only on the data of the market participant that opts to subscribe to the reports (“Recipient Firm”) and do not include information related to any firm other than the Recipient Firm. Additionally, neither report includes real-time market data. Rather, the reports contain historical data from the prior trading day and are available after the end of the trading day, generally on a T+1 basis.
Currently, the Exchange assess the following monthly fees for Members that purchase the Cancels Report and/or the Missed Liquidity Report. The Exchange assess a monthly flat fee of $1,000 for the Cancels Report for a subscribing Member. The Exchange also proposes a progressive monthly fee structure for the Missed Liquidity Report based on the Member's subscribing logical (FIX or BOE) order entry ports (the “Ports”)
Currently, a Member who has Sponsored Participants may choose to purchase one or both of these reports and can provide this data to its Sponsored Participants. A Sponsoring Member may then provide this information to Sponsored Participants, but the Sponsoring Member must first filter the larger data report to provide only the Sponsored Participant's activity from its report and must do this for each individual Sponsored Participant. This may take more time and lead to Sponsored Participants waiting longer to receive their data. In response, the Exchange has received feedback from both Members and Sponsored Participants requesting that Sponsored Participants may be able to directly subscribe and pay for this data.
The Exchange now proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to allow a Member's Sponsored Participants to subscribe and be charged directly for this report. This will permit a Sponsored Participant to request and have access to their
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) and broker dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to consumers of such data. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to users and consumers of such data and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes that the proposed reports are the sort of market data product that the Commission envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS.
The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS—by deregulating the market in proprietary data—would itself further the Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and competition: “[E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive (and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal analysis of the need for such data.”
By removing “unnecessary regulatory restrictions” on the ability of exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. The Cboe Timestamping Service (
The reports are designed for firms that are interested in gaining insight into latency in connection with their respective (1) orders that failed to execute against an order resting on the Exchange order book and/or (2) cancel messages that failed to cancel resting orders. The Exchange believes that providing this optional data to be purchased directly by Sponsored Participants if they desire to receive this is consistent with facilitating transactions in securities, removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protecting investors and the public interest because it provides Sponsored Participants with an opportunity to receive additional information and insight into their trading activity on the Exchange, that they may not otherwise receive from their Sponsoring Members.
The Exchange previously only allowed Members to subscribe and be billed for this as during the initial launch, it did not yet have the capabilities to pull activities on a per Sponsored Participant basis. Due to requests from Sponsored Participants and Members alike to permit Sponsored Participants to subscribe directly, the Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to allow a Sponsored Participant to subscribe and be billed directly for this.
The Exchange believes the fee proposals for both the Missed Liquidity Report and Cancels Report are reasonable as the Exchange is offering any Sponsored Participant or Member access to subscribe to one or both report(s) in the firm's sole discretion based on their unique business needs. The Exchange notes that these existing fees have previously been established
The proposal would also not permit unfair discrimination as both the Cancels Report and Missed Liquidity Report will be available to all Sponsored Participants, in addition to Members, who may opt to subscribe to one, both, or neither, and will help to protect a free and open market by continuing to provide additional non-core data (offered on an optional basis for a fee) to the marketplace and by providing investors with greater choices.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes expanding the scope of who may directly subscribe to the reports will contribute to robust competition among national securities exchanges. The Missed Liquidity Report and Cancels Report further enhances competition between exchanges by allowing the Exchange to provide these
The Exchange also does not believe the proposed fees would cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intermarket competition as other exchanges are free to introduce their own comparable reports with lower prices to better compete with the Exchange's offerings and this fee does not change based on if a subscribing firm is a Member or Sponsored Participant The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price the reports is constrained by competition among exchanges who choose to adopt similar products. The Exchange must consider this in its pricing discipline in order to compete for subscribers of the Exchange's market data via the reports. For example, proposing fees that are excessively higher than fees for potentially similar data products would simply serve to reduce demand for the Exchange's reports, which as discussed, firms are under no obligation to utilize. In this competitive environment, potential purchasers are free to choose which, if any, similar product to purchase to satisfy their need for market information. As a result, the Exchange believes this proposed rule change permits fair competition among national securities exchanges.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change would cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intramarket competition. Particularly, the proposed fees apply uniformly to any purchaser in that the Exchange does not differentiate between the different subscribing firms that may purchase the reports directly from the Exchange. The proposed fees are set at a modest level that would allow any interested Member or Sponsored Participant to purchase such data based on their business needs.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form T-4 (17 CFR 269.4) is a form used by an issuer to apply for an exemption under Section 304(c) (15 U.S.C. 77ddd (c)) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (77 U.S.C. 77aaa
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 public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
Securities And Exchange Commission.
Notice; correction.
The Securities and Exchange Commission published a document in the
Naomi P. Lewis, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, (202) 551-5400.
In the
On February 22, 2024, notice was published in the
Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Record of decision.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has decided to adopt the preferred alternative identified in its final environmental impact statement (Final EIS; Document ID EISX-455-00-000-1729685595) for the Hillsboro Solar Project. The Final EIS was made available to the public on June 20, 2025. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Final EIS was published in the
Elizabeth Smith, NEPA Project Manager, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11B Knoxville, TN 37902; telephone 865-632-3053; or email
This notice is provided in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and TVA's procedures (18 CFR 1318) for implementing NEPA. TVA is a corporate agency of the United States that provides electricity for business customers and local power distributors serving 10 million people in the Tennessee Valley—an 80,000-square-
In June 2019, TVA completed its 2019 IRP and associated EIS. The 2019 IRP identified the various resources that TVA intends to use to meet the energy needs of the TVA region over a 20-year planning period, while achieving TVA's objectives to deliver reliable, low-cost, and cleaner energy with fewer environmental impacts. The 2019 IRP anticipates growth of solar generating capacity in all scenarios analyzed, with most scenarios anticipating 5,000 to 8,000 MW and one anticipating up to 14,000 MW by 2038. The 2019 IRP remains valid and guides future generation planning consistent with least-cost planning principles.
TVA has prepared an EIS pursuant to NEPA to assess the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action to execute a PPA with Hillsboro Solar for TVA to purchase power generated by the proposed 200-MW AC solar PV facility, which would occupy approximately 1,610 acres of a 3,779-acre Project Site, on the north side of U.S. Highway 72 Alternate/State Route 20 between Courtland and Hillsboro, Alabama.
TVA considered a no action and one action alternative in the Draft EIS and Final EIS.
The No Action Alternative would result in the lowest level of environmental impacts as the impacts associated with construction and operation of the solar facility would not occur. However, the No Action Alternative does not meet the purpose and need for the project. Overall, environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action Alternative would be minor to moderate with the implementation of BMPs and minimization and mitigation efforts. The Proposed Action could have minor adverse impacts to geology, soils, water quality, federally listed species, and utilities; minor to moderate adverse impacts to recreation and visual resources; moderate adverse impacts on land use; moderate to large adverse impacts to prime farmland and transportation; minor beneficial impacts to air quality; and short- to long-term moderate beneficial impacts to socioeconomics. The Project Site would be revegetated by planting a mixture of non-invasive, fast-growing annual species and long-lived perennial species. This would likely result in an increase in plant diversity over that of the cultivated cropland currently present on the site. Vegetation on developed portions of the Project Site would be maintained to control growth through occasional mowing. Beneficial effects to the economy associated with construction of the Project would be short-term and beneficial.
Construction of the Project would result in minor impacts to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)-jurisdictional ephemeral streams and wetlands, non-USACE-jurisdictional ditches and open waters, and Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM)-regulated wetlands for road crossings, solar panel arrays and solar panel blocks. These impacts would be permitted by Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404/401 permits through USACE and ADEM, as applicable to the jurisdiction of these waters. In accordance with TVA requirements, minimum 50-foot-wide streamside management zones (SMZs) or avoidance buffers surrounding wetlands and intermittent and perennial streams would be established on the Project Site and would be maintained through avoidance measures.
The Project land use would change from agricultural, forested, and rural-residential land to industrial uses. To promote environmental stewardship and pollinator habitat along with clean, renewable energy, Hillsboro Solar, LLC would establish and maintain 50 acres of the Project Site as species-rich native plant meadow. These areas would be developed as several narrow strips surrounding or adjacent to the solar arrays that formerly supported croplands or in areas where trees were recently harvested. No forested land would be cleared to create the meadow zones.
Approximately 95 acres of forest that potentially provide high- to low-quality summer roosting habitat for endangered and threatened bats would be cleared during winter months (October 01 to March 14) to minimize direct impacts to both protected bat species and migratory birds. The TL upgrade work would be carried out in a manner to avoid impacts to endangered species. TVA has consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and USFWS concurred with TVA's determination that the Project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the federally listed gray bat, Indiana bat, or northern long-eared bat, and is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the tricolored bat or monarch butterfly, both proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. The Project would have no effect on the other federally listed species that were identified as having the potential to occur on or near the Project Site.
The Project would have an adverse effect on the Wheeler Station Rural Historic District (WSRHD); however, impacts would be minimized through appropriate mitigation included in the previously and newly executed Memorandum of Agreements (MOA) between TVA and Alabama Historic Commission (AHC). No adverse visual impacts are anticipated to the railroad segment associated with the Deas and Whiteley detachments of the Cherokee Trail of Tears or to the American Store, and no adverse visual and physical impacts are anticipated to Brides Hill or to the National Register of Historic Places-listed Wheeler Hydroelectric Project.
TVA consulted with the AHC and federally recognized Indian tribes under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act regarding these findings, avoidance measures and MOA.
On September 1, 2023, TVA published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the
A Notice of Availability was released for the Draft EIS on January 17, 2025, in the
TVA certifies, in accordance with 18 CFR 1318, that the agency has considered the alternatives, information, analyses, material in the record determined to be relevant, and submitted by State, Tribal, and local governments and public commenters for consideration in developing the Final EIS. TVA has decided to implement the preferred alternative of the EIS, which would result in the construction, operation, maintenance, and eventual decommissioning of the proposed solar PV facility, as well as the construction, operation, and maintenance of a substation and associated facilities to interconnect the solar PV facility to TVA's existing electrical transmission network. This alternative would achieve the purpose and need of the Project.
Hillsboro Solar and TVA would employ standard practices and routine measures and other project-specific measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts from implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. Hillsboro Solar and TVA would also implement minimization and mitigation measures based on BMPs, permit requirements, and adherence to erosion and sediment control plans. Non-routine mitigation measures associated with land use and soils, biological, visual, and cultural resources:
• Land Use and Soils
○ Establish and maintain 50 acres of species-rich native plant meadow areas that would promote pollinators on the Project site; reduce erosion; and limit the spread of invasive species;
• Biological Resources
○ Minimize direct impacts to tree-roosting bats proposed for federal listing by implementing a 600-foot solar facility setback from known bat roost trees;
○ In areas requiring tree removal, clearing activities would be limited to the winter clearing window, October 1 through March 14, to minimize impacts to wildlife and protected species.
• Visual Resources
○ Implement a 300-foot solar facility setback from US 72A/SR20;
• Cultural
Provide a venue at the RA Hubbard Community Center's African American Heritage Gallery to display the previously developed WSRHD traveling exhibit ensuring the exhibit is interactive and accessible to a wide audience, including school groups and community members; develop and donate display cases to the RA Hubbard Center incorporating existing collections and relevant artifacts associated with the Hillsboro Solar Facility archaeological survey.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of intent to rule on request to release airport property for non-aeronautical use; Kenai Municipal Airport (ENA), Kenai, Alaska.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the release of airport property at the Kenai Municipal Airport, Kenai, Alaska.
Comments must be received on or before September 8, 2025.
Documents are available for review by appointment at the FAA Anchorage Airports Regional Office, Molly Fierro, Compliance Manager, 222 W 7th Avenue, Anchorage, AK. Telephone: (907) 271-5439/Fax: (907) 271-2851 and the Kenai Municipal Airport, 305 N Willow, Suite 200, Kenai, Alaska 99611. Telephone: (907) 283-7951.
Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or mailed to: Molly Fierro, Compliance Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Anchorage Regional Office, 222 W 7th Avenue, Anchorage AK 99513, Telephone Number: (907) 271-5439/FAX Number: (907) 271-2851.
Molly Fierro, Compliance Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Alaskan Region Airports District Office, 222 W 7th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99513. Telephone Number: (907) 271-5439/FAX Number: (907) 271-2851.
The FAA invites public comment on the request to either sell in fee, or release the aeronautical use only grant provision, for about 81 acres of Kenai Airport property north of Kenai Spur Highway and east of Marathon Road under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). The FAA has determined that the release of the property will not likely adversely impact future aviation needs at the airport. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no sooner than 30 days after the publication of this notice.
The disposition of proceeds from the non-aeronautical use of the airport property will be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, published in the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information Collection Request (ICR) summarized below. Before submitting this ICR to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities identified in the ICR.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 7, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR should be submitted on
Ms. Arlette Mussington, Information Collection Clearance Officer, at email:
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60 days' notice to the public to allow comment on information collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, comments received will advance three objectives: (1) reduce reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in a “user-friendly” format to improve the use of such information; and (3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested.
The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB clearance as the PRA requires:
In this 60-day notice, FRA made multiple adjustments that increased the previously approved burden hours from 13,649 to 22,385 hours and increased the number of responses from 163,996 to 186,102. These adjustments are summarized below:
• Under § 234.305, which contains requirements for railroads' response to credible reports of warning system malfunction at highway-rail grade crossings, FRA adjusted the burden estimates to reflect the number of responses and estimated average time because the number of closed crossings is no longer included.
• Section 234.305(a)(1), which contains requirements for railroads to contact law enforcement under paragraph (a)(2), was not included in previous submissions of this ICR. Accordingly, FRA adjusted the burden estimates to include the number of hours and estimated average time required to report a warning, which increased the burden by 35 hours.
• Under § 234.305(b) through (d), FRA made multiple burden adjustments to reflect the estimated annual responses more accurately from 607 railroads with open grade crossings. Specifically, a previous year analysis of the highway-rail grade crossing data indicated that approximately 90 percent of the 607 railroads responsible for ENS do not have maintenance responsibility. In addition, based on a previous extrapolation of a study/pilot program, FRA estimated an average of approximately 64,000 calls annually to the ENS concerning highway-rail grade crossings, and an average of 2,000 calls annually to the ENS concerning pathway crossings. Accordingly, FRA adjusted the paperwork requirements for remedial actions in response to reports of unsafe conditions at highway-rail and pathway grade crossings.
• Under § 234.306, which establishes procedures for multiple dispatching or maintaining railroads with respect to the same highway-rail or pathway grade crossing and appointment of the responsible railroad, FRA made burden estimate adjustments to accurately reflect that appointment discussions have no timeline or end date. Consequently, these appointment discussions would only need to take place when a new appointment is made, or an appointment is changed.
• Under § 234.311, which contains requirements for ENS sign placement and maintenance, FRA determined that the previous submission underestimated the annual responses for this paperwork requirement. Accordingly, FRA adjusted the burden estimates to accurately reflect the number of hours and estimated average time required for railroads to replace and repair ENS signs. FRA determined that there are approximately 200,000 highway-rail grade crossings, with two signs at each crossing, for an estimated total of 400,000 ENS signs. FRA estimates that approximately 10 percent of these signs (40,000) are being replaced annually, causing the burden estimate for this regulatory requirement to increase by 9,000 hours.
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information that does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information Collection Request (ICR) summarized below. Before submitting this ICR to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities identified in the ICR.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 7, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR should be submitted on
Ms. Arlette Mussington, Information Collection Clearance Officer, at email:
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60 days' notice to the public to allow comment on information collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, comments received will advance three objectives: (1) reduce reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in a “user-friendly” format to improve the use of such information; and (3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested.
The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB clearance as the PRA requires:
In this 60-day notice, FRA shows updated burden estimates for each information collection requirement under part 212. FRA previously combined the burden estimates for several sections and reported the combined burden under 49 U.S.C. 20105, the statute that authorizes part 212. Updated estimates are now provided on a section-by-section basis.
In addition, § 212.109 has been removed from this ICR because it was recently repealed by FRA.
Estimated burden hours under this ICR have been reduced from 11,958 to 9,851 hours, and the number of responses from 24,066 to 23,225. This decrease, after a thorough review, is the result of the changes described in the following sections summarized below:
• FRA reduced the estimated number of annual violation reports submitted by State inspectors in various disciplines from 1,154 to 690 violation reports. Accordingly, the estimated burden hours for these reports were decreased by 1,856.
• Under § 209.405(b), FRA adjusted the estimated number of violation report challenges from 240 to 50 annually. This adjustment more accurately reflects the estimated number of burden hours, decreasing the burden by 143.
• Under § 209.407, FRA decreased the estimated number of delayed reports from 240 to 50 annually, reducing the reported burden by 143 hours.
These revised estimates contributed to an overall reduction of 2,107 burden hours.
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information that does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information Collection Request (ICR) summarized below. Before submitting this ICR to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities identified in the ICR.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 7, 2025
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR should be submitted on
Ms. Arlette Mussington, Information Collection Clearance Officer, at email:
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60 days' notice to the public to allow comment on information collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, comments received will advance three objectives: (1) reduce reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in a “user-friendly” format to improve the use of such information; and (3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested.
The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB clearance as the PRA requires:
In this 60-day notice, FRA has made program changes and adjustments that decreased the previously approved burden hours from 7,253 to 7,232 hours and decreased the number of responses from 3,620 to 3,536. This decrease in burden, after a thorough review, is the result of the changes described in the sections summarized below:
• FRA published a final rule on July 1, 2025, titled Administrative Updates to the Use of Locomotive Horns at Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Regulations.
• Under § 222.51(c), which describes the process for reviewing the status of any quiet zone, FRA determined that the burden previously reported for public comments should be excluded because the submission of public comments in response to a
• Under § 222.55(b) and (d), which describes how interested parties may apply for approval from the Associate Administrator to demonstrate proposed new supplementary or alternative safety measures (SSMs/ASMs), FRA adjusted the burden estimates to reflect the number of hours and estimated average time required to compose the written request, increasing the burden by 40 hours. The increased burden hours reflect additional time needed, after the demonstration of proposed SSMs or ASMs, to gather all the necessary documentation and prepare the written application with the required information that must be included pursuant to § 222.55(d)(1) through (5).
• Lastly, under § 222.57(c), which establishes procedures for how parties can seek reconsideration of an Associate Administrator decision to terminate a quiet zone, and § 222.57(d), which establishes procedures for railroads to request reconsideration of an Associate Administrator decision to approve an application for approval of a proposed quiet zone, FRA determined that the estimated burden hours were not included in the previously reported burden. FRA has corrected the oversight by adding 9 burden hours.
Overall, program changes and adjustments decreased the total burden hours for this submission by 21 hours.
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information that does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
Notice of request for information (RFI).
The Office of the Secretary of Transportation invites the public to provide input into the development of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT or Department) Strategic Plan for fiscal years (FY) 2026-2030.
Comments must be received within 30 days from posting of this notice. DOT will consider comments filed after this date to the extent practicable.
Written comments may be submitted electronically or via U.S. mail. Respondents are encouraged to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt. Please include your name, title, organization, postal address, telephone number, and email address.
•
•
•
•
Juli Huynh, Director, Office of Policy Coordination and Development, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy,
1. What strategies or priorities should the DOT adopt to improve the Nation's transportation systems?
2. How should DOT measure progress towards the priorities suggested in Question 1?
3. What emerging challenges or opportunities in transportation warrant additional DOT activities, investments, research, or analysis?
4. How can DOT best create value for its activities with stakeholders?
The Department anticipates that the final DOT Strategic Plan for FY 2026-2030 will be posted on the DOT website around February 2026.
Signed in Washington, DC.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
This action was issued on August 6, 2025. See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; or Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490 or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On August 6, 2025, OFAC determined that the persons identified below meet one or more of the criteria for the imposition of sanctions set forth in section 1(a)-(c) of Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, “Imposing Sanctions on Foreign Persons Involved in the Global Illicit Drug Trade,” 86 FR 71549 (December 17, 2021) (E.O. 14059). OFAC has selected to impose blocking sanctions pursuant to section 2(a)(i) of E.O. 14059 on the persons identified below.
OFAC further determined that the persons identified below meet one or more of the criteria for designation pursuant to Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism,” 66 FR 49079, as amended by Executive Order 13886 of September 9, 2019, “Modernizing Sanctions To Combat Terrorism,” 84 FR 48041 (E.O. 13224, as amended).
As a result, the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. RODRIGUEZ GARCIA, Abdon Federico (a.k.a. “Comandante Cucho”; a.k.a. “Cucho”), Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico; DOB 16 Jan 1984; POB Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. ROGA840116HTSDRB06 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DEL NORESTE).
Designated pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CARTEL DEL NORESTE, a person sanctioned pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CARTEL DEL NORESTE, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
2. ROMERO SANCHEZ, Antonio (a.k.a. “Comandante R”; a.k.a. “Comandante Romeo”; a.k.a. “Romeo”), Piedras Negras, Coahuila, Mexico; Victoria, Tamaulipas, Mexico; DOB 27 Jul 1984; POB Veracruz, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. ROSA840727HVZMNN06 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DEL NORESTE).
Designated pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CARTEL DEL NORESTE, a person sanctioned pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CARTEL DEL NORESTE, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
3. ESQUEDA NIETO, Francisco Daniel (a.k.a. ESQUEDA, Franky; a.k.a. “ESKEDA, Franki”; a.k.a. “Franky De La Joya”), Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico; DOB 23 Oct 1994; POB Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. EUNF941023HTSSTR02 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DEL NORESTE).
Designated pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CARTEL DEL NORESTE, a person sanctioned pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CARTEL DEL NORESTE, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
4. HERNANDEZ MEDRANO, Ricardo (a.k.a. “Comando Exclusivo”; a.k.a. “El Makabelico”; a.k.a. “HERNANDEZ, Ricardo”), Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico; DOB 13 Apr 1991; POB Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; C.U.R.P. HEMR910413HTSRDC06 (Mexico) (individual) [SDGT] [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: CARTEL DEL NORESTE).
Designated pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CARTEL DEL NORESTE, a person sanctioned pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, CARTEL DEL NORESTE, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
Internal Revenue Service, Department of Treasury.
Notice of public meeting.
The Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council will hold a public meeting.
Thursday, September 4, 2025.
The meeting will be held virtually via Microsoft Teams.
Anna Millikan, Office of National Public Liaison, at 202-317-6564 or send an email to
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Internal Revenue Services announced the Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council (IRSAC) will hold a public meeting on Thursday, September 4, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. Eastern to discuss topics that may be recommended for inclusion in a future report of the Council.
The meeting will be held virtually via Microsoft Teams. Members of the public planning to attend should register by August 29 by contacting Anna Millikan at 202-317-6564 or sending an email to
Agenda items to be discussed may include but are not limited to: enhancements to IRS operations; suggestions for administrative and policy changes to improve taxpayer experience and service, compliance and tax administration; information reporting issues; and matters concerning tax-exempt and government entities. The meeting agenda will be posted online prior to the meeting at the IRSAC web page,
Should you wish the IRSAC to consider a written statement germane to the Council's work, file the statement by sending an email to
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice of solicitations for nominations.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Veterans Benefits Administration, is seeking nominations of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment to the Advisory Committee on United States Outlying Areas and Freely Associated States (hereinafter referred to alternatively as “OAFAS” or “the Committee”).
Nominations for membership of the Committee must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on September 10, 2025.
All nomination packages should be emailed to
Mr. Bernard Johnson, Outreach, Transition, and Economic Development (OTED), VA, via email at
In carrying out the duties set forth, the Committee was established to provide advice to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (the Secretary) on matters related to covered Veterans. Covered Veteran is defined as a Veteran residing in American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands of the United States, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau.
The Committee's responsibilities are to:
1. Advise the Secretary on matters relating to covered Veterans, including how the Secretary may improve the Department's programs and services to better serve such Veterans.
2. Identify for the Secretary evolving issues of relevance to covered Veterans.
3. Propose clarifications, recommendations, and solutions to address issues raised by covered Veterans.
4. Provide a forum for covered Veterans, Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs) serving covered Veterans, and the Department to discuss issues and proposals for changes to the Department's regulations, policies, and procedures.
5. Identify priorities for and advise the Secretary on appropriate strategies for consultation with VSOs serving covered Veterans.
6. Encourage the Secretary to work with the heads of other Federal departments and agencies and Congress to ensure that covered Veterans are provided the full benefits of their status as covered Veterans.
7. Highlight contributions of covered Veterans who served in the Armed Forces.
8. Conduct other duties as determined appropriately by the Secretary.
The Department strives to fairly balance committee membership through consideration of points of view represented and functions to be performed by the advisory committee, consistent with section 1004(b), title 5 U.S.C. Nominations must state that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Committee and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude membership. An ethics review is conducted for each selected nominee.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice of solicitation for nominations.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Office of Construction and Facilities Management, is seeking nominations of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment to the Advisory Committee on Structural Safety of Department Facilities (“the Committee”).
Nominations for membership of the Committee must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on September 10, 2025.
All nominations should be submitted to Mr. Juan Archilla, Designated Federal Officer via email at
Mr. Juan Archilla, Office of Construction & Facilities Management (CFM), Department of Veterans Affairs, via email at
In carrying out the duties set forth, the Committee responsibilities include:
(1) Providing advice to the Secretary of VA on all matters of structural safety in the construction and altering of medical facilities and recommending standards for use by VA in the construction and alteration of facilities.
(2) Reviewing of appropriate State and local laws, ordinances, building codes, climatic and seismic conditions, relevant existing information, and current research.
(3) Recommending changes to the current VA standards for structural safety, on a state or regional basis.
(4) Recommending the engagement of the services of other experts or consultants to assist in preparing reports on present knowledge in specific technical areas.
(5) Reviewing of questions regarding the application of codes and standards and making recommendations regarding new and existing facilities when requested to do so by VA.
(1)
(2)
The Department strives to fairly balance committee membership through consideration of points of view represented and functions to be performed by the advisory committee, consistent with section 1004(b), title 5 U.S.C. Nominations must state that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Committee and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude membership. An ethics review is conducted for each selected nominee.
(b) The President shall serve as Chair of the Task Force, and the Vice President shall serve as Vice Chair.
(c) The Chair shall designate an Executive Director, who shall administer and execute the day-to-day operations of the Task Force, and who shall report to the Chair through the Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Implementation. The Chair, the Vice Chair, or a member of the Task Force designated by the Chair, shall convene regular meetings of the Task Force, determine its agenda, and direct its work, consistent with this order. The Executive Director and the Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Implementation shall assist in the performance of these duties. The Chair may designate any member of the Task Force to preside over meetings of the Task Force.
(d) In addition to the Chair and Vice Chair, the Task Force shall consist of the following members:
(e) The Task Force shall coordinate with executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assist in the planning, organization, and execution of the events surrounding the Games. Agencies shall provide information and assistance useful and necessary to the Task Force.
(f) For administrative purposes, the Task Force shall be housed in the Department of Homeland Security, which shall provide funding and administrative support for the Task Force.
(g) Agency heads serving as members of the Task Force shall each provide a report to the Task Force regarding their agency's respective planning and activities concerning the Games. These reports shall be submitted to the Executive Director of the Task Force no later than October 1, 2025.
(h) The Task Force shall terminate on December 31, 2028, unless extended by the President.
(a) coordinate Federal planning and response related to the security, transportation, and entry/exit processes for the Games;
(b) support interagency cooperation and information-sharing with State and local partners;
(c) identify legal, logistical, or regulatory barriers that could impede effective Federal support for the Games and recommend timely solutions;
(d) assist in the planning and implementation of visa processing and credentialing programs for foreign athletes, coaches, officials, and media personnel; and
(e) ensure operational readiness across law enforcement, counterterrorism, transportation, and emergency response functions.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Homeland Security.