Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Commodity Credit Corporation
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Energy Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
National Indian Gaming Commission
National Park Service
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
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.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Final State agreement.
This notice is announcing that on September 25, 2025, David A. Wright, Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission), and Governor Edward Miner Lamont, Jr. of the State of Connecticut, signed an Agreement as authorized by Section 274b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act). Under the Agreement, the Commission discontinues its regulatory authority, and the State of Connecticut assumes regulatory authority over 11e.(1), 11e.(3), and 11e.(4) byproduct materials, source materials, and special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass.
The effective date of the Agreement is September 30, 2025.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0010 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:
•
•
•
Duncan White, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; telephone: 301-415-2598; email:
The NRC published the proposed Agreement in the
After considering the request for an Agreement by the Governor of Connecticut, the supporting documentation submitted with the request for an Agreement, and its interactions with the staff of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, the NRC staff completed an assessment of the Connecticut program. The agency made a copy of the staff assessment available in the NRC's PDR and electronically on the NRC's website. Based on the staff's assessment, the Commission determined on August 8, 2025, that the Connecticut program for control of radiation hazards is adequate to protect the public health and safety and compatible with the Commission's program. As of the effective date of the Agreement, a person in Connecticut possessing these materials is exempt from certain Commission regulations. The exemptions have been previously published in the FR and are codified in the Commission's regulations. The Agreement is published here as required by Section 274e. of the Act.
This Agreement is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). The Office of Management and Budget has found that this action does not meet the criteria at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this Agreement is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
The ADAMS Accession numbers for the request for an Agreement by the Governor of Connecticut, including all information and documentation submitted in support of the request, and the NRC staff assessment are identified in the following table.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
National Indian Gaming Commission.
Direct final rule.
The National Indian Gaming Commission is modifying the deadline for a tribe to submit notice that it is considering issuing a new facility license.
This direct final rule is effective November 28, 2025, unless significant adverse comments are received by October 29, 2025. If this direct final rule is withdrawn because of such comments, timely notice of the withdrawal will be published in the
National Indian Gaming Commission, 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop 1621, Washington, DC 20240.
Jo-Ann M. Shyloski at 202-632-7003 or write to
Class II and Class III gaming conducted under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) must occur on Indian lands as defined by the IGRA, 25 U.S.C. 2703(4), 2710(a)(2) and (d)(1). Also, gaming on lands acquired into trust by the United States for the benefit of a tribe after the IGRA's effective date of October 17, 1988, is generally prohibited, unless one of several exceptions in 25 U.S.C. 2719 are met. Importantly, the National Indian Gaming Commission possesses jurisdiction only over gaming facilities and operations on Indian lands and therefore must establish its jurisdiction as a prerequisite to monitoring them and enforcing the IGRA. 25 U.S.C. 2702(3), 2710(a)(2) and (d)(1)(A)(iii), 2713(a)(1). In 2008, the National Indian Gaming Commission (Commission) promulgated Facility License Notification Standards in part to ensure that each place, facility, or location where Class II or Class III gaming will occur is located on Indian lands eligible for gaming as required by the IGRA.
Presidential Executive Order 14219, entitled
IGRA explicitly mandates tribes issue a separate license for each place, facility, or location on Indian lands at which Class II and Class III gaming is conducted. 25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(1) and (d)(1)(A)(ii). In the spirit of Executive Order 14219 and the Presidential Memorandum, the Commission removes the 120-day notice requirement for tribes considering the issuance of a facility license, because the 120-day notice period is not explicitly required in the IGRA. Instead, notice that a tribe intends to issue a new facility license is due any time before opening any new place, facility, or location.
Executive Order 12866, as reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563, provides that the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all rules to determine if they are significant. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
The APA permits agencies to finalize some rules without first publishing a proposed rule in the
The rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The rule does not have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, local government agencies or geographic regions, nor will the proposed rule have a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of the enterprises, to compete with foreign based enterprises.
The Commission, as an independent regulatory agency, is exempt from compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502(1); 2 U.S.C. 658(1).
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the Commission has determined that the rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Commission has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
The Commission has determined that the rule does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321,
The information collection requirements contained in this rule were previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 44 U.S.C. 3501,
The National Indian Gaming Commission is committed to fulfilling its tribal consultation obligations—whether directed by statute or administrative action such as Executive Order (E.O.) 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments)—by adhering to the consultation framework described in its relatively new Consultation Policy, adopted October 31, 2022. The NIGC's consultation policy specifies that it will consult with tribes on Commission Action with Tribal Implications, which is defined as: Any Commission regulation, rulemaking, policy, guidance, legislative proposal, or operational activity that may have a substantial direct effect on an Indian tribe on matters including, but not limited to the ability of an Indian tribe to regulate its Indian gaming; an Indian tribe's formal relationship with the Commission; or the consideration of the Commission's trust responsibilities to Indian tribes.
Because 25 CFR 559.2 currently has a 120-day-before-opening notice requirement for all facility licenses under consideration, the removal of that deadline to any time before-opening is uncontroversial. Also, given the removal of the 120-day-before-opening notice, the expedited 60-day review period is no longer necessary and is removed as well. And adverse comments are unlikely. Consequently, the Commission proceeds with the issuance of this direct final rule.
Gambling, Indian—Indian lands, Indians—tribal government, Notification and submission requirements—facility licenses.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission amends 25 CFR part 559 as follows:
25 U.S.C. 2701, 2702(3), 2703(4), 2705, 2706(b)(10), 2710, 2719.
(a) A tribe shall submit to the Chair a notice that a facility license is under consideration for issuance before opening any new place, facility, or location on Indian lands where class II or III gaming will occur.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Final rule; Treasury decision.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes the approximately 176-square mile “Tryon Foothills” American viticultural area (AVA) in Polk County, North Carolina. The Tryon Foothills AVA is not located within, nor does it contain, any other established viticultural area. TTB designates AVAs to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase.
This final rule is effective October 29, 2025.
Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features as described in part 9 of the regulations and, once approved, a name and a delineated boundary codified in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and allows any interested party to petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for petitions to establish or modify AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:
• Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;
• A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA;
• If the proposed AVA is to be established within, or overlapping, an existing AVA, an explanation that both identifies the attributes of the proposed AVA that are consistent with the existing AVA and explains how the proposed AVA is sufficiently distinct from the existing AVA and therefore appropriate for separate recognition;
• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and
• A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.
TTB received a petition from Cory J. Lillberg, vineyard manager of Parker-Binns Vineyard, proposing the establishment of the “Tryon Foothills” AVA in Polk County, North Carolina. The proposed Tryon Foothills AVA covers approximately 176 square miles and is not located within any other established AVA. There are five commercial vineyards covering a total of approximately 77.70 acres within the proposed AVA, as well as four wineries.
According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Tryon Foothills AVA are its topography and climate. The proposed AVA is located on the western edge of the Inner Piedmont region of the Blue Ridge Mountains, which is described as a region of low mountains and rolling hills. Within the proposed AVA, the average elevation is 988 feet, while the maximum elevation is 1,656 feet and the minimum is 712 feet. The petition states that the topography of the proposed AVA contributes to the creation of a thermal belt. At night, warm air that has accumulated in the higher elevations becomes cooler and sinks. As the cool air sinks, it displaces warmer air at lower elevations. The warm air settles on the mountain slopes above the cascading cooler air and creates a warmer layer of air above the cooler air. This warmer layer is known as a thermal belt.
Using the Winegrape Climate/Maturity Groupings classification system,
The petition states that, in general, the regions to the west, northeast, and northwest of the proposed AVA are cooler and have a greater range of average temperatures than the proposed AVA. The regions to the west and northwest mostly fall into the “Warm” category of the Winegrape Climate/Maturity Groupings classification system, have average growing season lengths of between 180 and 190 days, and have average annual GDD accumulations that place them in Region III of the Winkler scale.
Approximately 68 percent of the region to the northeast of the proposed AVA falls into the “Hot” category of the Winegrape Climate/Maturity Groupings classification system. However, unlike the proposed AVA, approximately 22 percent of the region is also in the cooler “Warm” category. The majority of the region to the northeast has an average growing season length of 190-200 days and average annual GDD accumulations that place it in Region IV of the Winkler scale.
The proposed AVA and the region to the east have approximately the same average annual temperatures, but the region to the east has a lower average minimum temperature. While the region to the east is also mostly in the “Hot” category of the Winegrape Climate/Maturity Groupings classification system, similar to the proposed AVA, it does also have some areas that are in the “Warm” category. The average growing season length in the region to the east
The region south of the proposed AVA is warmer, as temperatures grow progressively warmer the farther south one travels from the proposed AVA. Ninety-seven percent of the region is in the “Hot” category of the Winegrape Climate/Maturity Groupings classification system. While the majority of the region also has a growing season length between 200 and 210 days, the region has some areas with longer growing seasons that range from 210 to 220 days. The majority of the region is in Region V of the Winkler scale, but unlike the proposed AVA, other parts of the region are classified as Regions II and III.
TTB published Notice No. 229 in the
In Notice No. 229, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the name, boundary, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. The comment period for Notice No. 229 closed on March 5, 2024. TTB received two identical comments in response to Notice No. 229. However, both comments consisted only of bank statements from a South African bank account and are not relevant to the proposed AVA. Therefore, neither comment was posted to the public docket.
After careful review of the petition, TTB finds that the evidence provided by the petitioner supports the establishment of the Tryon Foothills AVA. Accordingly, under the authority of the FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and parts 4 and 9 of the TTB regulations, TTB establishes the “Tryon Foothills” AVA in Polk County, North Carolina, effective 30 days from the publication date of this document.
See the narrative description of the boundary of the Tryon Foothills AVA in the regulatory text published at the end of this final rule.
The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the regulatory text. The Tryon Foothills AVA boundary may also be viewed on the AVA Map Explorer on the TTB website, at
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
With the establishment of the Tryon Foothills AVA, its name, “Tryon Foothills,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the regulations clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name “Tryon Foothills” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, will have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin.
The establishment of the Tryon Foothills AVA will not affect any existing AVA. The establishment of the Tryon Foothills AVA will allow vintners to use “Tryon Foothills” as an appellation of origin for wines made primarily from grapes grown within the Tryon Foothills AVA if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.
TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
It has been determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, as amended. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
Wine.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends 27 CFR part 9 as follows:
27 U.S.C. 205.
(a)
(b)
(1) Lake Lure, NC, 1982; photoinspected 1987;
(2) Shingle Hollow, NC, 1982;
(3) Pea Ridge, NC, 1982;
(4) Rutherfordton South, NC, 1966;
(5) Fingerville East, SC-NC, 1993 (provisional edition);
(6) Fingerville West, SC-NC, 1983 (provisional edition);
(7) Landrum, SC-NC, 2020;
(8) Saluda, NC-SC, 2019;
(9) Cliffield Mountain, NC, 1997; and
(10) Mill Spring, NC, 1982; photorevised 1990.
(c)
(1) The beginning point is on the Lake Lure map at the intersection of the 1,200-foot elevation contour and the shared Polk-Rutherford County line just west of State Highway 9 and north of an unnamed road known locally as Owl Hollow Road. From the beginning point, proceed clockwise along the shared Polk-Rutherford County line and across the Shingle Hollow, Pea Ridge, and Rutherford South maps and onto the Fingerville East map, to the intersection of the shared Polk-Rutherford County line and the shared North Carolina-South Carolina State line; then
(2) Proceed west along the shared North Carolina-South Carolina State line across the Fingerville East, Fingerville West, and Landrum maps and onto the Saluda map to the intersection of the North Carolina-South Carolina State line with the 1,200-foot elevation contour north of Dug Hill Road; then
(3) Proceed generally northerly along the meandering 1,200-foot elevation contour, crossing back and forth onto the Landrum and Saluda maps and onto the Mill Spring map, and continuing along the 1,200-foot elevation contour as it crosses onto the Cliffield Mountain map and then back onto the Mill Spring map and finally onto the Lake Lure map, returning to the beginning point at the intersection of the 1,200-foot elevation contour and the shared Polk-Rutherford County line just west of State Highway 9.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Direct final rule; Treasury decision.
In this final rule, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) is removing regulations related to the 2009 tobacco product floor stocks tax. These regulations are no longer necessary because they implement a tax that applied only to specified articles held for sale on April 1, 2009, and was required to be paid on or before August 1, 2009. This deregulatory action removes 42 regulatory sections from TTB regulations.
This rule is effective November 28, 2025 without further action, unless significant adverse comment is received by October 29, 2025. If we receive significant adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal notice in the
You may electronically submit comments to TTB objecting to this final rule, view copies of this document, its supporting materials, and any comments TTB receives on it, within Docket No. TTB-2025-0005 as posted at
Your comment must reference T.D. TTB-203 and must be submitted or postmarked by the closing date shown in the
Michael Hoover, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Regulations and Rulings Division; telephone 202-453-1039, ext. 135, or by email using the contact form available at
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, (IRC, 26 U.S.C. chapter 52) related to Federal excise tax on tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes. TTB administers these provisions pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury (the Secretary) has delegated certain IRC administrative and enforcement authorities to TTB through Treasury Department Order 120-01.
Section 701 of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (the Act), Public Law 111-3, enacted on February 4, 2009, increased the rate of Federal excise tax on tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes removed from the factory, internal revenue bond, or Customs custody on or after April 1, 2009. Section 701(h) of the Act also imposed a floor stocks tax on certain taxpaid or tax determined tobacco products (all tobacco products subject to Federal excise tax except large cigars) and on cigarette papers and tubes held for sale on April 1, 2009. The floor stocks tax rate was equal to the difference between the previous excise tax rate and the new excise tax rate. The Act authorized the Secretary to issue regulations regarding payment of the floor stocks tax, which was due on or before August 1, 2009. Persons subject to the floor stocks tax included manufacturers, importers, and wholesale and retail dealers of the specified products.
TTB published a temporary rule on March 31, 2009, to implement section 701 of the Act through regulations related to the tobacco excise tax increase and the floor stocks tax (see T.D. TTB-75 at 74 FR 14479). The 2009 floor stocks tax regulations were codified in subpart I of 27 CFR part 46, Miscellaneous Regulations Relating to Tobacco Products and Cigarette Papers and Tubes. TTB finalized the temporary regulations on July 10, 2010 (see T.D. TTB-85 at 75 FR 42605).
In support of the Administration's deregulatory objective, this direct final rule removes all 42 regulatory sections in subpart I of 27 CFR part 46 related to the 2009 tobacco product floor stocks tax as those regulations no longer provide useful guidance. Pursuant to section 701(h)(3)(C) of the Act, the floor stocks taxes were due to TTB by August 1, 2009. Accordingly, there is no need to retain these regulations; in the unanticipated event that any issues were to arise from compliance with the floor stocks tax at that time, any action would be taken under the provisions of the law and regulations in effect at the time. Removing these regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) will streamline the TTB regulations in part 46 and increase their clarity.
In addition, TTB is removing the heading “Subpart H [Reserved]” from part 46 as the reservation of that subpart, which contains no regulatory sections, is no longer needed due to the removal of subpart I.
This direct final rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as amended. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), Public Law 96-354, codified in 5 U.S.C. 601
As announced in the floor stocks tax temporary rule (74 FR 14479, 14481), the collection of information related to the 2009 floor stocks tax, which required submission of a tax return and the keeping of certain records, was previously reviewed and approved in March 2009 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507) and assigned control number 1513-0129. As explained above, the regulations in 27 CFR part 46, subpart I, are no longer necessary. As such, their removal will have no effect on the burden or requirements of any current TTB information collection.
Administrative practice and procedure, Cigars and cigarettes, Claims, Excise taxes, Packaging and containers, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seizures and forfeitures, Surety bonds, Tobacco.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB is amending 27 CFR part 46 as follows:
Signed: September 24, 2025.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) amends its regulations governing Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI), Family SGLI (FSGLI), and Veterans’ Group Life Insurance (VGLI) to allow an alternate applicant to apply for an Accelerated Benefit in certain circumstances. VA also defines key terms and removes contact information and the reproduction of the Accelerated Benefit application form from the text of the regulations.
This rule is effective October 29, 2025.
Samantha Yerdon, Management and Program Analyst, Insurance Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, (215) 842-2000, ext. 5494.
On December 5, 2024, VA published a proposed rulemaking in the
VA provided the public with a 60-day comment period that ended on February 3, 2025. VA received three comments from the public, and all three comments supported the proposed rulemaking. Based on the rationale set forth in the proposed rule, VA adopts the proposed rule as final with technical edits to 38 CFR 9.14 that correct the subparagraph designations and maintain reference to the Office of Management and Budget control number (2900-0618) and authority citations.
VA examined the impact of this rulemaking as required by Executive Orders 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993) and 13563 (Jan. 18, 2011), which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. This final rule is a deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192.
The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The factual basis for this certification is based on an existing statutory provision for the SGLI program, at 38 U.S.C. 1966, which limits the primary insurer for this program to large insurance companies in the United States. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs has purchased a group life insurance policy from a large private insurer for purposes of providing coverage to Service members, their spouses and dependent children, and Veterans. This regulation clarifies requirements under which certain SGLI program benefits are offered under the authority of 38 U.S.C. 1968 and 1980 but does not change the pre-existing statutory requirement that the primary insurer be a large private insurer. As such, the overall impact of this final rule will be of no benefit or detriment to small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply.
This final rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.
Although this final rule contains collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), there are no provisions associated with this rulemaking constituting any new collection of information or any revisions to the existing collection of information. The collection of information for 38 CFR 9.14 is currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and has been assigned OMB control number 2900-0618.
The Assistance Listing number and title for the program affected by this document is 64.103, Life Insurance for Veterans.
Pursuant to subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (known as the Congressional Review Act) (5 U.S.C. 801
Life insurance, Military personnel, Veterans.
Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on September 23, 2025, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 9 as set forth below:
38 U.S.C. 501, 1965-1980A, unless otherwise noted.
(b) The term
(m) The term
(n) The term a
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) An alternate applicant can apply for an Accelerated Benefit on behalf of a terminally ill member if the member is medically incapacitated, as defined in paragraph (e) of this section. The alternate applicant can apply by completing the SGLV 8284 application form if all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The member's physician must certify that the member is terminally ill and medically incapacitated;
(ii) The alternate applicant must have power of attorney, guardianship, or conservatorship over the member, or be the member's VA-appointed fiduciary
(iii) The alternate applicant must sign the SGLV 8284 application form; identify that he or she holds the member's power of attorney to act on the member's behalf or is the member's court-appointed guardian or conservator, VA-appointed fiduciary, or military trustee; and attach the form to a true and correct copy of the power of attorney, court order establishing the guardianship or conservatorship, or documentation designating the alternate applicant as the member's VA-appointed fiduciary or military trustee.
(iv) If the member is covered under SGLI, the alternate applicant must submit the application to the member's uniformed service, who then must also complete part of the form and submit it to the Office of Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance. If the member is covered under VGLI, the alternate applicant must submit the completed application form to the Office of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance.
(d)
(2) If the member's spouse is terminally ill and the member is medically incapacitated, an alternate applicant acting on behalf of such member can apply for the Accelerated Benefit. The alternate applicant can apply by completing the SGLV 8284A application form if all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The member's spouse's physician must certify that the member's spouse is terminally ill;
(ii) The member's physician must certify that the member is medically incapacitated;
(iii) The alternate applicant must have power of attorney, guardianship, or conservatorship over the member, or be the member's VA-appointed fiduciary under 38 U.S.C. chapters 55 and 61 or military trustee under 37 U.S.C. 602; and
(iv) The alternate applicant must sign the SGLV 8284A application form; identify that he or she holds the member's power of attorney to act on the member's behalf or is the member's court-appointed guardian or conservator, VA-appointed fiduciary, or military trustee; and attach the form to a true and correct copy of the power of attorney, court order establishing the guardianship or conservatorship, or documentation designating the alternate applicant as the member's VA-appointed fiduciary or military trustee.
(v) The member's uniformed service must also complete part of the form and submit it to the Office of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance.
(e)
(f)
(2) A member's request for an Accelerated Benefit must be $5,000 or a multiple of $5,000 (for example, $10,000, $15,000).
(g)
(1) They will approve the application if the requirements of this section are met.
(2) If the Office of Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance determines that the application form does not fully and legibly provide the information requested by the application form, they will contact the member or their alternate applicant and request that the member or their alternate applicant submit the missing information to them. They will not take action on the application until the information is provided.
(h)
(i)
(2) If a member dies before cashing or depositing an Accelerated Benefit payment, the payment must be returned to the Office of Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) adopts as final, with changes, an interim final rule that amended VA's regulations governing the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC) and extended the transition period for legacy participants, legacy applicants, and their Family Caregivers (the legacy cohort) through September 30, 2025. This final rule will further extend the transition period for the legacy cohort through September 30, 2028.
This rule is effective September 30, 2025.
Colleen Richardson, Executive Director, Caregiver Support Program, Veterans Health Administration, (202) 461-7337.
This final rule provides an additional three-year extension for the transition period for the legacy cohort, that is through September 30, 2028, and responds to comments received on two prior interim final rules that were previously published related to the transition period for the legacy cohort.
As originally codified in 2010, section 1720G of title 38, United States Code (U.S.C.), required VA to establish PCAFC for Family Caregivers of eligible veterans who have a serious injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service on or after September 11, 2001. Section 101 of the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, Public Law (Pub. L.) 111-163, 124 Stat. 1130 (2010). VA implemented PCAFC through its regulations in part 71 of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
In 2018, section 1720G was amended by expanding PCAFC to Family Caregivers of eligible veterans who have a serious injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty before September 11, 2001, establishing new benefits for designated Primary Family Caregivers of eligible veterans, and making other changes affecting program eligibility and VA's evaluation of PCAFC applications. Section 161 of the John S. McCain III, Daniel K. Akaka, and Samuel R. Johnson VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018 (VA MISSION Act of 2018), Public Law 115-182, 132 Stat. 1393 (2018).
Subsequently, through regulations, VA amended the PCAFC eligibility criteria, identified a legacy cohort (
On September 22, 2021, VA published an interim final rule (First PCAFC Extension for Legacy Cohort) that extended the one-year transition period for the legacy cohort for one additional year through September 30, 2022. 86 FR 52614. VA continued to reassess the legacy cohort during this time. However, on March 25, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision that set aside certain PCAFC criteria established in the July 31, 2020, rulemaking, resulting in the need for VA to repeat certain reassessments of the legacy cohort to account for the Court's interpretation.
VA provided a 60-day comment period for the First PCAFC Extension for Legacy Cohort, which ended on November 22, 2021. Four comments were received. VA provided a 60-day comment period for the Second PCAFC Extension for Legacy Cohort, which ended on November 21, 2022. Eleven comments were received. In this rulemaking, VA responds to comments received on the First and Second PCAFC Extension for Legacy Cohort and further extends the transition period by an additional three-year period, that is through September 30, 2028.
VA notes that on December 6, 2024, VA published a proposed rule (New Amendments to PCAFC) that, among other changes, proposed to further amend the eligibility criteria for PCAFC and proposed to further extend the transition period for the legacy cohort and the timeline for conducting necessary reassessments for members of the legacy cohort to ensure they could be reassessed under the proposed new eligibility criteria, once finalized. 89 FR 97404. VA received 842 comments on the New Amendments to PCAFC proposed rule, a significant number of which related to the proposed extension of the transition period for the legacy cohort. However, because those comments are specific to the New Amendments to PCAFC proposed rule, they will not be addressed in this final rule.
As discussed, the First and Second PCAFC Extension for Legacy Cohort extended the transition period during which the legacy cohort could be reassessed for continued eligibility for PCAFC. While the Second PCAFC Extension for Legacy Cohort also made non-substantive technical amendments to the regulations, neither the First nor Second PCAFC Extension for Legacy Cohort interim final rules included substantive regulatory changes other than extending the transition period for the legacy cohort. Public comments addressing other issues, such as the eligibility criteria in the July 31, 2020, rulemaking and substantive changes to eligibility criteria based on
Many of the comments received pursuant to the First and Second PCAFC Extension for Legacy Cohort raised broader issues related to PCAFC and are therefore outside the scope of this rulemaking. These comments raised concerns with the July 31, 2020, rulemaking, such as a belief that the final rule added additional restrictions to eligibility and that the changes negatively impacted the legacy cohort. Other comments raised concerns related to perceived inequity between pre- and post-9/11 veterans; stipend levels and rate calculations; the application form for PCAFC (VA Form 10-10CG); the effect of
VA received two comments pursuant to and within the scope of the First PCAFC Extension for Legacy Cohort that supported extending the transition period. One comment advocated for VA to prioritize new PCAFC applicants and stated that members of the legacy cohort
VA received three comments pursuant to and within the scope of the Second PCAFC Extension for Legacy Cohort that supported the three-year extension of the transition period for the legacy cohort through September 30, 2025. These commenters stated that the additional three-year period would mitigate negative impacts and ease the emotional and financial burden on the legacy cohort while providing time for VA to make meaningful adjustments to PCAFC eligibility. VA believes that these commenters' reasons for supporting the three-year extension also support an additional three-year extension of the transition period for the legacy cohort, that is through September 30, 2028.
Additionally, VA received one comment pursuant to and within the scope of the Second PCAFC Extension for Legacy Cohort that stated that this rule is a major rule and requires a proposed rule instead of an interim final rule. VA clarifies for the commenter that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determined that both the First and Second PCAFC Extension for Legacy Cohort were not major rules under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). To the extent that the commenter is referring to the determination by OIRA that the Second PCAFC Extension for Legacy Cohort is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, VA clarifies that there is no prohibition against a finding of good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment for a significant regulatory action. Additionally, while the Second PCAFC Extension for Legacy Cohort was not promulgated as a proposed rule, VA invited public comments on the amendments during a 60-day comment period and committed to fully consider and address comments received. 87 FR 57608. VA refers the commenter to the Second PCAFC Extension for Legacy Cohort for a detailed discussion on VA's determination that there was good cause to publish the Second PCAFC Extension for Legacy Cohort as an interim final rule under the Administrative Procedure Act. Id. at 57607-08. VA does not make any changes to the rule based on this comment.
In this final rule, VA is making changes to the Second PCAFC Extension for Legacy Cohort to extend the transition period for the legacy cohort for an additional three years through September 30, 2028. As mentioned previously, in the New Amendments to PCAFC proposed rule, VA proposed additional changes to PCAFC, including changes to certain eligibility criteria. Among the changes proposed, VA proposed to extend the transition period of the legacy cohort to allow VA time to conduct reassessments of the legacy cohort under any new criteria that take effect as part of that rulemaking. 89 FR 97405. VA received 842 comments on the New Amendments to PCAFC proposed rule and due to the volume and thoroughness of the comments, VA determined it is not feasible to publish a New Amendments to PCAFC final rule and have such changes become effective prior to the end date of the current transition period for the legacy cohort, that is, on September 30, 2025. Therefore, VA believes it is necessary to extend the transition period for the legacy cohort by three years to ensure there is no change in VA's treatment of the legacy cohort while VA reviews and considers all comments received from the New Amendments to PCAFC proposed rule related to the legacy cohort and prior to issuing the New Amendments to PCAFC final rule. Extending the transition period for the legacy cohort by three years ensures VA has sufficient time to issue a New Amendments to PCAFC final rule, which could include regulatory changes impacting the legacy cohort.
These changes are a logical outgrowth from the First and Second PCAFC Extension for Legacy Cohort. The First PCAFC Extension for Legacy Cohort extended the transition period for the legacy cohort by one year to provide additional time for VA to complete their reassessments and ensure they were treated equitably. The Second PCAFC Extension for Legacy Cohort rulemaking provided a three-year extension to the transition period for the legacy cohort to ensure that members of the legacy cohort would be treated fairly as they were reassessed under the eligibility criteria applied by VA following
This regulatory action is a major rule under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)) because it is likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Although this regulatory action is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Secretary of Veterans Affairs finds that good cause exists under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 808(2) to forgo the 60-day delayed effective date under 5 U.S.C. 801 and make this rule effective immediately and prior to end of the full Congressional review period. If this rule is not made effective prior to October 1, 2025, members of the legacy cohort and other stakeholders would be subject to uncertainty and confusion about their continued PCAFC eligibility and assistance upon the expiration of the current transition period for the legacy cohort on September 30, 2025. Because of these burdens, further notice and public procedure would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). Accordingly, the Secretary finds that there is good cause to publish this final rule with an operative and effective date of September 30, 2025. In accordance with
The Secretary finds that notice and comment procedures are not required for this final rule because it simply concludes the regulatory action from the First and Second PCAFC Extension for Legacy Cohort interim final rules. Notice and comment did in fact occur on the First and Second PCAFC Extension for Legacy Cohort interim final rules, and this final rule responds to significant and relevant comments received thereon. Additionally, as noted above, the changes from the Second PCAFC Extension for Legacy Cohort are a logical outgrowth from the First and Second PCAFC Extension for Legacy Cohort, such that further notice and comment is not required. Alternatively, were notice and comment otherwise required for this action, for the reasons discussed above and in those interim final rules, the Secretary finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) that notice and comment procedures are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Finally, for the reasons set forth in the preceding section, the Secretary finds that there is also good cause to forego the 30-day delayed effective date required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) and publish this final rule with an immediate effective date.
VA examined the impact of this rulemaking as required by Executive Orders 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993) and 13563 (Jan. 18, 2011), which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. OIRA has determined that this rulemaking is an economically significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. This final rule is not a regulatory action under Executive Order 14192 because it does not impose any more than de minimis regulatory costs. The regulatory impact analysis associated with this rulemaking can be found as a supporting document at
The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). This final rule extends the time for VA to conduct reassessments of legacy applicants, legacy participants, and their Family Caregivers and the transition period for such individuals. This rule will have no impact on small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and Tribal governments, or on the private sector.
This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Mental health programs, Public assistance programs, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans.
Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on September 12, 2025, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 71 as follows:
38 U.S.C. 501, 1720G, unless otherwise noted.
Postal Service.
Final rule.
This document contains the final rule for proceedings in which the Judicial Officer Department conducts fact-finding relative to administrative wage garnishment initiated by the Department of the Treasury.
Effective September 29, 2025.
Postal Service Judicial Officer Department, 2101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22201-3078.
Staff Counsel Sheena Allen at (240) 636-4158.
39 CFR 492 authorizes the U.S. Department of the Treasury Bureau of the Fiscal Service or its successor entity to collect debts by administrative wage garnishment, and conduct administrative wage garnishment hearings, on behalf of the Postal Service in accordance with the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3720D and the procedures contained in 31 CFR 285.11. In conformity with the current interagency
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Postal Service.
31 U.S.C. 3720D; 39 U.S.C. 204, 401, 2601; 31 CFR 285.11.
This part is issued by the Judicial Officer under authority delegated by the Postmaster General.
(a) This part applies to a debtor's petition for hearing provided by 31 U.S.C. 3720D, 31 CFR 285.11, and in accordance with the regulations contained in the Employee and Labor Relations Manual, sections 470 and 480.
(b) Under this part, a debtor may challenge:
(1) The existence of a delinquent nontax debt owed to the Postal Service; or
(2) The amount of a delinquent nontax debt owed to the Postal Service.
(c) This part also applies to a hearing under 31 U.S.C. 3720D and 31 CFR 285.11 when a Hearing Official in the Judicial Officer Department is designated as the Hearing Official for a creditor Federal agency other than the Postal Service under an agreement between the Postal Service and that agency. In those cases, all references to Postal Service in this part will be construed to refer to the relevant creditor Federal agency.
As used in this part:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
A debtor may petition for a non-hardship hearing to challenge the existence or the amount of a delinquent nontax debt owed to the Postal Service, in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3720D and 31 CFR 285.11(b). After receiving the debtor's petition for hearing, the agency will promptly transmit the written request and any documents received from the debtor to the Postal Service for further processing and decision by the Judicial Officer Department.
(a) A hearing under this part will be conducted by the Hearing Official to determine:
(1) The existence of the debt; and
(2) The amount of the debt.
(b) The Postal Service must prove its case against a debtor by a preponderance of the evidence.
(a) Within a reasonable time after receiving the debtor's petition for hearing from the agency, the Recorder will issue a Notice of Docketing to the debtor and the General Counsel. The Recorder will maintain a record of Administrative Wage Garnishment proceedings and will assign a docket number to each case.
(b) The debtor and the Postal Service's representative should refer to the docket number on any further filings.
(a)
(1) Documents submitted using the electronic filing system are considered filed as of the date and time (Eastern Time) reflected in the system.
(2) Documents mailed to the Recorder are considered filed on the date mailed as evidenced by a United States Postal Service postmark.
(3) Filings by any other means are considered filed upon receipt by the Recorder of a complete copy of the filing during normal business hours. Normal business hours are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (Eastern Time), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
(b)
(c)
(1) Requests for time extensions must be made in writing before the submission is due, state the reason for the extension request, represent that the moving party has contacted the opposing party about the request, or made reasonable efforts to do so, and indicate whether the opposing party consents to the extension.
(2) Requests for time extensions submitted after the date on which the submission was due must explain why the moving party could not request an extension before the deadline.
(d)
Within 15 days from the date of receiving the Notice of Docketing, the Postal Service's representative must file an answer to the petition and attach all available relevant records and documents in support of the Postal Service's debt claim. The answer must provide a clear and thorough description of the basis for the Postal Service's determination of the alleged debt and its calculation of the alleged debt amount.
The Hearing Official's authority includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(a) Ruling on all motions or requests by the parties.
(b) Issuing notices, orders, or memoranda to the parties about the hearing proceedings.
(c) Conducting telephone conferences with the parties to expedite the proceedings. The Hearing Official will issue a Memorandum of Telephone Conference, which will serve as the official record of that conference.
(d) Determining whether a case will be decided after an oral hearing or on the written record. If an oral hearing is held, the Hearing Official will set the place, date, and time of the hearing.
(e) Administering oaths or affirmations to witnesses.
(f) Conducting the hearing in a manner to maintain discipline and decorum while assuring that relevant, reliable, and probative evidence is elicited on the issues in dispute, but irrelevant, immaterial, or repetitious evidence is excluded. As necessary, examining witnesses to ensure that a satisfactory record is developed.
(g) Establishing the record in the case. The Hearing Official will determine the weight attached to any evidence. Except as the Hearing Official may otherwise order, no proof will be received in evidence after completion of an oral hearing or, in cases submitted on the written record, after notification by the Hearing Official that the record is closed. The Hearing Official may require either party, with appropriate notice to the other party, to submit additional evidence on any relevant matter.
(h) Granting reasonable time extensions or other relief for good cause shown.
(i) Issuing the final decision. After the record closes, the Hearing Official will issue a written decision as soon as practicable. The written decision will include:
(1) Findings of fact;
(2) Conclusions of law; and
(3) The amount and validity of the alleged debt.
(j) Posting the decision in the electronic filing system. If a party does not have access to the electronic filing system, the Recorder will mail that party a copy of the decision.
(a) An oral hearing will be conducted at the Hearing Official's discretion. An oral hearing may be conducted in-person, by telephone, by video conference, or other appropriate means as directed by the Hearing Official.
(b) When the Hearing Official determines that an oral hearing will not be conducted, the decision will be based solely on the written submissions.
(c) The Hearing Official will arrange for the recording and transcription of an oral hearing, which will serve as the official record of the hearing.
(d) The hearing may proceed if a party fails, without excuse, to appear.
Except for any issues reserved for the Department of the Treasury, the Hearing Official's decision shall be the final agency action for the purposes of judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C 701
If the Hearing Official determines that a debtor has abandoned the right to a hearing, files their petition late without good cause, or files a withdrawal of the petition, administrative wage garnishment may be initiated. If the Hearing Official determines that the Postal Service fails to file the answer, files the answer late without good cause, or files a withdrawal of the debt determination, administrative wage garnishment may not be initiated. If either party fails to comply with this part or the Hearing Official's orders, the Hearing Official may take reasonable and proper action under the circumstances, including dismissing or granting the petition as appropriate.
Ex parte communications are not allowed between a party and the Hearing Official or the Hearing Official's staff.
(a)
(b) A memorandum of any communication between the Hearing Official and a party will be transmitted to both parties.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing revised water quality standards (WQS) largely as proposed for certain water quality management zones of the mainstem Delaware River under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Specifically, the EPA is promulgating a designated use of protection and propagation of resident and migratory aquatic life and corresponding dissolved oxygen water quality criteria for the mainstem Delaware River in Zone 3, Zone 4, and the upper portion of Zone 5 (in total, river miles 108.4 to 70.0).
This final rule is effective on November 28, 2025.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0222. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Hannah Lesch, Office of Water, Standards and Health Protection Division (4305T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-1224; email address:
The information in this preamble is organized as follows:
Table 1 of this preamble identifies a range of individuals and entities that could be indirectly affected by this final rule. For example, entities that discharge pollutants to certain waters under the jurisdiction of the States of Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania—such as industrial facilities and municipalities that manage stormwater, separate sanitary, or combined sewer systems—could be indirectly affected by this rule because the Federal WQS promulgated by the EPA in this rule are applicable WQS for these waters for CWA purposes. Specifically, these Federal WQS are the applicable standards that must be used in CWA regulatory programs, such as permitting under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) under CWA section 402
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities that could be indirectly affected by this action. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
In developing this final rule, the EPA carefully considered the public comments and input received from interested parties. The EPA provided a 60-day public comment period after publishing the proposed rulemaking in the
The EPA received approximately 4,800 total comments on a range of issues. Most commenters were supportive of the EPA's proposal to revise WQS in the Delaware River. Some commenters expressed concerns regarding potential implementation costs and the potential cost to water utility ratepayers. Other commenters focused on aspects of the methods the EPA used to derive the dissolved oxygen criteria and the stringency of the proposed criteria. In this preamble, the EPA explains how it responded to certain comments received on aspects of the proposal. A complete record of the comments received and the EPA's responses is available in the associated response to comments document in the official public docket.
CWA section 101(a)(2) establishes a national goal of “water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water” (hereafter, collectively referred to as “101(a)(2) uses” or “101(a)(2) goals”), wherever attainable.
Under CWA section 303(c), states
WQS define the desired condition of a water body by designating the use or uses to be made of the water
States are required to hold a public hearing to review applicable WQS at least once every three years and, if appropriate, revise or adopt new standards, including additional attainable designated uses.
The Delaware River has historically been home to numerous species of ecological, recreational, and economic importance. However, water quality impacts and habitat degradation, peaking in the mid-twentieth century, made portions of the river unsuitable for many aquatic species—such as the Atlantic Sturgeon (
Secor, D.H. and Waldman, J. (1999). Historical abundance of Delaware Bay Atlantic sturgeon and potential rate of recovery. American Fisheries Society Symposium. 23. 203-216.
Smith, T.I.J., & Clugston, J.P. (1997) Status and management of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus, in North America. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48, 335-346.
National Marine Fisheries Service. (1998). Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 104 pages.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. (1981). Interstate Fisheries Management Plan for the Striped Bass.
Dissolved oxygen is an important water quality parameter that can significantly influence the distribution and abundance of aquatic organisms and their ecological relationships in aquatic ecosystems. Aquatic organisms need adequate levels of dissolved oxygen to maintain and support normal functions, especially during the sensitive early life history when spawning, larval development, and juvenile growth occur.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2023a). Indicators: Dissolved Oxygen. June 9, 2023.
Discharges of untreated or poorly treated municipal and industrial wastewater into the Delaware River have historically been a major cause of water quality degradation, including oxygen depletion, in the specified zones.
Along the Delaware River, untreated wastewater discharges typically occur during and after rainfall events due to combined sewer overflows (CSOs), which are a source of nutrients (
Although most point source discharges today are treated, treated effluent can still contain high levels of ammonia nitrogen, which depletes oxygen in the water as microbes oxidize ammonia into nitrite, nitrate, and dinitrogen gas.
The Delaware River is home to multiple oxygen-sensitive fish species, two of which—Shortnose Sturgeon and Atlantic Sturgeon—are protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). All populations of Shortnose Sturgeon have been listed as endangered since 1967.
The New York Bight distinct population segment (DPS) of Atlantic Sturgeon—which includes the population found in the Delaware River—was listed as endangered under the ESA in 2012.
Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Working Group. (2022). Action Plan to Reduce Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch in Federal Large Mesh Gillnet Fisheries. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service.
In addition to being listed as endangered under the ESA, available evidence suggests that Shortnose Sturgeon and Atlantic Sturgeon are the most oxygen-sensitive species in the specified zones of the Delaware River. In general, all sturgeon species share common physiological traits,
Niklitschek, E. (2001). Bioenergetics modeling and assessment of suitable habitat for juvenile Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons (Acipenser oxyrinchus and A. brevirostrum) in the Chesapeake Bay. University of Maryland at College Park.
Dissolved oxygen levels in the relevant zones of the Delaware River mirror trends in historic pollutant loading and recent pollution control efforts in the river. Average summer dissolved oxygen levels in the Delaware River near Chester, Pennsylvania (Zone 4) declined from near saturation in the late 1880s to near zero (
Delaware River Basin Commission (2024a); Niklitschek, E., and D. Secor. (2009a). Dissolved oxygen, temperature and salinity effects on the ecophysiology and survival of juvenile Atlantic sturgeon in estuarine waters: I. Laboratory results. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 381:S150-S160.
In 1961, the Delaware River Basin Compact established the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), comprised of the states of Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania and the Federal Government, to jointly manage the Delaware River Basin's water resources.
Pursuant to the Delaware River Basin Compact, the DRBC adopts WQS for interstate waters, including the Delaware River.
In 1967, the DRBC adopted WQS for the zones of the Delaware River included in this final rule.
Prior to this final rule, the DRBC's 1967 WQS remained applicable for CWA purposes for the specified zones of the Delaware River as directly referred to or implicitly incorporated in Delaware's, New Jersey's, and Pennsylvania's WQS.
As described in section II.C. of this preamble, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania each has its own WQS for the specified zones of the Delaware River under its jurisdiction. Prior to the EPA's final rule, the aquatic life designated use for Delaware's portion of the specified zones of the Delaware River included all life stages, including the propagation component of the CWA section 101(a)(2) use. Prior to the EPA's final rule, the aquatic life designated use for New Jersey's portions of the specified zones of the Delaware River incorporated by reference the designated uses in the DRBC's Water Quality Regulations. The aquatic life designated use for Pennsylvania's portions of the specified zones of the Delaware River prior to the EPA's final rule aligned with the DRBC's “maintenance” and “passage” designated use (table 2 of this preamble). Therefore, before this final rule, the aquatic life designated uses for New Jersey's and Pennsylvania's portions of the specified zones of the Delaware River did not include the propagation component of the CWA section 101(a)(2) use.
For dissolved oxygen in the relevant zones, all three states incorporated the DRBC's water quality criteria by reference; therefore, prior to this final rule, the DRBC's dissolved oxygen criteria were the applicable criteria for the relevant zones in each state for CWA purposes (table 3 of this preamble). As explained above with respect to the aquatic life designated use, the DRBC's dissolved oxygen criteria for the specified zones of the Delaware River do not protect aquatic life propagation and therefore do not protect those uses reflected in CWA section 101(a)(2) or the uses to be considered under CWA section 303(c)(2)(A).
Table 4 of this preamble provides a summary outlining whether, prior to the EPA's final rule, the aquatic life designated uses in each of the three states in the specified zones aligned with CWA section 101(a)(2) goals and consideration of such uses under CWA section 303(c)(2)(A), and whether each state's dissolved oxygen criteria were protective of an aquatic life designated use that includes propagation. As explained above, only Delaware included aquatic life propagation in its designated uses for the specified zones of the Delaware River. However, none of the three states' dissolved oxygen criteria for the specified zones were protective of fish and shellfish propagation. Prior to this final rule, none of the states, and by extension none of the specified zones of the Delaware River, had WQS for aquatic life that were consistent with the CWA section 101(a)(2) goals and the consideration of such uses under CWA section 303(c)(2)(A).
On December 1, 2022, the EPA issued an Administrator's Determination, pursuant to CWA section 303(c)(4)(B), finding that a revised designated use to protect aquatic life propagation and corresponding dissolved oxygen criteria to protect that use are necessary in the specified zones of the Delaware River.
The EPA's rule applies to the mainstem Delaware River in Zone 3, Zone 4, and the upper portion of Zone 5 (in total, river miles 108.4 to 70.0), for the states of Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania (table 5 of this preamble). In the final rule, the EPA made a non-substantive change to add the word “mainstem” to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) and (d)(1) and (2) to clarify the scope of the rule, in response to comments requesting such clarification.
The EPA is promulgating an aquatic life designated use of “
CWA section 303(c) assigns states the primary role in adopting WQS; accordingly, the EPA evaluated the aquatic life uses for the relevant zones on a state-by-state basis and proposed a revised use only for New Jersey and Pennsylvania consistent with CWA section 303(c)(2)(A)'s instruction to take into consideration the use of waters for “propagation of fish and wildlife.” As explained in section II.D. of this preamble, Delaware's “Fish, Aquatic Life & Wildlife” designated use includes all life stages of indigenous and migratory organisms; therefore, for the specified zones under its jurisdiction, Delaware's aquatic life designated use is already consistent with the CWA's 101(a)(2) goals and the considerations in CWA section 303(2)(c)(A) and no revisions to the aquatic life designated uses in Delaware's portion of the specified zones are necessary. In contrast, New Jersey's and Pennsylvania's aquatic life designated uses for the relevant zones of the Delaware River under their jurisdiction do not include “propagation” and therefore do not fully achieve the CWA's 101(a)(2) goals or reflect the considerations in CWA section 303(c)(2)(A). As explained in section II.E. of this preamble, the EPA determined that propagation is an attainable use in the specified zones of the Delaware River.
One commenter asked the EPA whether the propagation designated use in the EPA's rule is equivalent to Pennsylvania's Warm Water Fishes (WWF) use to help Pennsylvania evaluate which of its WWF aquatic life criteria could apply to protect the new Federal designated use. Pennsylvania's WWF use is one of the state's EPA-approved aquatic life uses.
Pennsylvania's WWF use and criteria are outside the scope of this rulemaking. This is because Pennsylvania's WWF designated use and the EPA-approved aquatic life criteria associated with Pennsylvania's WWF use do not currently apply for CWA purposes to the specified zones of the Delaware River for which EPA is promulgating the designated use and associated dissolved oxygen criteria in this rule. If Pennsylvania would like to apply its WWF use and criteria to Pennsylvania's portions of the specified zones of the Delaware River, it could revise its state WQS and submit that revision to the EPA for CWA section 303(c) review. The EPA is available to provide Pennsylvania with technical support on any such future WQS revisions.
The EPA reiterates that the CWA vests the primary responsibility for developing WQS in the states, and that states have substantial discretion in designating uses consistent with the CWA's emphasis on cooperative federalism. CWA section 303(c)(2)(A), for example, provides that states must establish WQS for waters within their jurisdiction “taking into consideration their use and value for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other purposes,” thereby providing states discretion in selecting the uses to designate. In this rule, under the circumstances here, as authorized by CWA section 303(c)(4)(B), the EPA is finalizing a designated use that is attainable and consistent with the CWA.
The EPA is establishing dissolved oxygen criteria largely as proposed for Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, for the specified zones of the Delaware River based on a sound scientific rationale. The dissolved oxygen criteria protect the EPA's promulgated designated use for New Jersey and Pennsylvania, as well as Delaware's current aquatic life designated use for the specified zones.
To derive protective dissolved oxygen criteria for the specified zones of the Delaware River, the EPA used methods adapted from peer-reviewed literature and data from laboratory studies relevant to oxygen-sensitive sturgeon species in the Delaware River. Although the methods and data are from peer-reviewed scientific literature, the EPA nonetheless completed an external peer review on the data and application of these methods to develop the criteria; the peer review and the EPA's response to the peer review comments are available in the docket for this rulemaking. This section presents a summary of the data and methods that the EPA used to derive protective dissolved oxygen criteria for this final rule. First, the EPA describes the Agency's existing dissolved oxygen national recommendations and guidance documents. Then, the EPA explains how the Agency selected three seasons to derive criteria protective of oxygen-sensitive species in the relevant zones of the Delaware River. Next, the EPA details an Atlantic Sturgeon cohort model it used to derive criteria protective of juvenile Atlantic Sturgeon during the season associated with their growth and development. After that, the EPA explains how the Agency developed criteria to protect oxygen-sensitive species during the other two seasons. Lastly, the EPA concludes with an explanation for promulgating criteria expressed as percent oxygen saturation, rather than as concentration.
This section is intended to be a high-level summary of the EPA's criteria derivation methods and results for this final rule. While the EPA utilized the below described methodologies for finalizing these criteria, states may use different approaches so long as the resulting criteria are protective of the relevant designated uses
Under CWA section 304(a), the EPA publishes, from time to time, national recommended aquatic life criteria for a variety of pollutants and parameters. The EPA's national recommended criteria for dissolved oxygen in freshwater and saltwater environments are from the 1986
As explained previously in section II.B. of this preamble, Atlantic Sturgeon and Shortnose Sturgeon are federally listed as endangered under the ESA and are uniquely sensitive to hypoxia. Given the availability of laboratory data specific to the oxygen requirements of Atlantic Sturgeon and Shortnose Sturgeon, the EPA chose to derive site-specific criteria to protect the oxygen-sensitive endangered species in the specified zones of the Delaware River and did not rely on the national recommendations in the Gold Book or Virginian Province Document to derive criteria in this instance. While some commenters cited the Gold Book or Virginian Province Document as support for their assertions that the EPA's proposed criteria were too stringent or not stringent enough, no commenter suggested that the EPA promulgate criteria values directly from either of those documents.
Given available information, including information developed by the DRBC, the EPA delineated three distinct seasons for dissolved oxygen criteria development that are intended to protect Atlantic Sturgeon throughout their life history, while also protecting a range of other aquatic species during their sensitive early life histories in the specified zones. For this rule, the EPA defines the
The EPA received several comments requesting that the Agency finalize dissolved oxygen criteria based on monthly periods rather than the seasons that the EPA proposed. Many of these commenters asserted that the EPA's seasonal approach could result in too many days during which the criteria could be exceeded and expressed concerns about the impact of those exceedances on aquatic life. These commenters asserted that monthly assessment periods would reduce the number of consecutive days where dissolved oxygen could be below protective levels. Additionally, one commenter asserted that the seasonal approach would lead to challenges for organizations that monitor water quality and/or assess attainment of applicable WQS, stating that the EPA's criteria cannot be adequately assessed with grab samples collected once or twice a month and continuous monitoring data can be time-consuming and prohibitively expensive to collect.
As discussed below in this section of the preamble, the EPA's approach for deriving dissolved oxygen criteria in this instance is based on defining suitable habitat conditions as those that provide each year's juvenile cohort the potential to increase its biomass during the season. Developing criteria that would apply at a monthly interval would require the EPA to specify a scientifically defensible operational definition, in accordance with the CWA and the EPA's implementing regulations, of supporting the propagation designated use for each month, rather than for the season. Commenters did not provide an explanation or technical rationale for how the EPA could define suitable habitat in each month. The EPA also could not identify such an operational definition because propagation is ecologically a seasonal process and the amount of dissolved oxygen required in each month may depend on what the fish are exposed to in other months. Therefore, the EPA concluded that retaining the seasonal criteria approach applied sound scientific information to ensure the propagation designated use is protected.
The EPA acknowledges that each four-month season allows for the dissolved oxygen criteria to be exceeded for up to 12 days during the season.
Consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131.11(a), the EPA developed the dissolved oxygen criteria based on sound science to protect an aquatic life designated use that includes propagation. Regarding comments suggesting that the Agency's seasonal approach presents an obstacle to water quality assessments, the EPA has identified potential strategies that could be used to assess attainment of the Federal criteria. The EPA concluded that the seasonal structure of the dissolved oxygen criteria will not impede assessment of the EPA's criteria in the specified zones, regardless of the types of data collected. For example, dissolved oxygen measurements could be needed for as few as 13 days to demonstrate that there are more than 12 days of exceedance and therefore to demonstrate non-attainment of the 10th percentile criterion in a season. The publicly available water quality data that have been collected in the specified zones by the DRBC and the U.S. Geological Survey indicate which days and locations are least likely to attain the criteria magnitudes. Thus, organizations that monitor water quality could readily implement a targeted monitoring strategy focused on the most critical times and locations, using dissolved oxygen sensors (
The EPA obtained recent and high-quality data from a variety of sources, described below and detailed in the associated technical support document, to evaluate the oxygen requirements of juvenile Atlantic Sturgeon. These data include measurements quantifying water quality conditions at two locations in the specified zones of the Delaware River. Since 2012 when the Atlantic Sturgeon was listed as an endangered species, there have been few studies documenting the oxygen requirements of this species. However, the EPA obtained sufficient data to establish quantitative relationships between age-0 juvenile sturgeon (Atlantic Sturgeon and Shortnose Sturgeon) growth, mortality, and habitat suitability. These include data from Campbell and Goodman (2004), Niklitschek and Secor (2009a), and EPA (2003), along with methods from Niklitschek and Secor (2005) and Niklitschek and Secor (2009b), water quality monitoring data, and juvenile Atlantic Sturgeon abundance data from the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC).
Niklitschek, E., and D. Secor. (2009a). Dissolved oxygen, temperature and salinity effects on the ecophysiology and survival of juvenile Atlantic sturgeon in estuarine waters: I. Laboratory results. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 381:S150-S160.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and its Tidal Tributaries. Document ID: EPA 903-R-03-002. April 2003.
Niklitschek, E.J., and D.H. Secor. (2005). Modeling spatial and temporal variation of suitable nursery habitats for Atlantic sturgeon in the Chesapeake Bay. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 64:135-148.
Niklitschek, E.J., and D.H. Secor. (2009b). Dissolved oxygen, temperature and salinity effects on the ecophysiology and survival of juvenile Atlantic sturgeon in estuarine waters: II. Model development and testing. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 381:S161-S172.
USGS 01467200 Delaware River at Penn's Landing, Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved March 9, 2023.
USGS 01477050 Delaware River at Chester PA. Retrieved January 31, 2023.
Park, I. (2023). State of Delaware Annual Compliance Report for Atlantic Sturgeon. Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. September 2023.
The EPA followed the peer-reviewed cohort modeling approach of Niklitschek and Secor (2005) to evaluate the effects of temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen on the potential growth and mortality of a hypothetical cohort or group of juvenile Atlantic Sturgeon spawned during a single year.
As part of the cohort model, the EPA developed a new mortality model and implemented a peer-reviewed bioenergetics-based growth model described by Niklitschek and Secor (2009b) to predict the daily instantaneous minimum mortality rate and potential growth rate, respectively, for members of the cohort. To develop a mortality model, the EPA fit a regression to experimental data to predict mortality resulting from low dissolved oxygen at any given temperature and percent oxygen saturation.
USGS 01477050 Delaware River at Chester PA. Retrieved January 31, 2023.
Habitat Suitability Indices have been used in the context of fish-habitat relationships, conservation management, and habitat evaluation to quantify the capacity of a given habitat to support essential life functions (
Collier, J.J., Chiotti, J.A., Boase, J., Mayer, C.M., Vandergoot, C.S., and Bossenbroek, J.M. (2022). Assessing habitat for lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) reintroduction to the Maumee River, Ohio using habitat suitability index models. Journal of Great Lakes Research. 48(1): 219-228.
Brown, S.K., Buja, K.R., Jury, S.H., Monaco, M.E., and Banner, A. (2000). Habitat Suitability Index Models for Eight Fish and Invertebrate Species in Casco and Sheepscot Bays, Maine. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 20(2): 408-435,
The EPA followed the approach of Niklitschek and Secor (2005) to define suitable habitat for juvenile Atlantic Sturgeon growth and survival as habitat with water quality resulting in HSI greater than zero. When HSI is less than or equal to zero, seasonal average mortality rates are greater than or equal to seasonal average growth rates and the overall biomass of the cohort is likely to decrease, reducing the potential for propagation, or recruitment of juveniles to the population. Conversely, a cohort of juveniles utilizing habitat with HSI greater than zero has the potential to increase its biomass during the
The predicted HSI value relies on an expected distribution of daily average percent oxygen saturation values during the season; therefore, the EPA selected two percent oxygen saturation percentiles as thresholds at or above which median HSI is expected to be greater than zero to maintain the expected distribution of percent oxygen saturation values. These two percentiles—the 10th percentile and the 50th percentile—describe the protective seasonal distribution of daily average dissolved oxygen values. When both the 10th percentile and 50th percentile are attained, they function together to ensure that a detrimental shift in the oxygen distribution (
The EPA received several comments requesting that the Agency finalize dissolved oxygen criteria that include an instantaneous minimum criterion (
The EPA recognizes that, unlike an instantaneous minimum criterion, the 10th percentile criterion allows for 12 days of exceedance with no lower bound. However, monitoring data from the Delaware River show that the minimum percent oxygen saturation in each year is closely related to the 10th percentile. Based on a linear regression of 2002-2022 data from the monitoring stations at Chester and Penn's Landing, the EPA expects that when the 10th percentile of daily average oxygen saturation in the
In addition to the above stated considerations about why an instantaneous minimum criterion is not the best approach to protect the propagation use, the EPA considered if the Agency should include an instantaneous minimum criterion of 6 mg/L, as suggested by a commenter. However, the commenter did not provide a sound scientific rationale for this value, and the EPA's own evaluation does not support the need for a 6 mg/L instantaneous minimum criterion to protect the propagation use. Rather, the EPA's evaluation suggested that a defensible value for an instantaneous minimum would be below 6 mg/L, were the EPA to calculate an instantaneous minimum criterion to protect the propagation use. Therefore, the EPA concluded that finalizing a 10th percentile daily average criterion, and not including an instantaneous minimum criterion, reflects the latest scientific knowledge and is an appropriate way to ensure that aquatic life propagation is protected based on current data.
Several commenters asserted that the EPA's criteria are too stringent. Some commenters stated that the criteria in the EPA's rule are higher than criteria for some other waters with designated uses that include propagation, including surrounding areas of the Delaware River. Some commenters asserted that the EPA's criteria are too stringent because Atlantic Sturgeon propagation is already occurring in the Delaware River and that existing dissolved oxygen levels do not appear to be adversely affecting sturgeon. Some of these commenters recommended that the EPA promulgate dissolved oxygen criteria of 4.5 mg/L at a 10% exceedance frequency and 5.0 mg/L at a 50% exceedance frequency for the
The EPA disagrees that the criteria in this final rule are more stringent than the dissolved oxygen criteria for surrounding areas of the Delaware River or other waters cited by commenters with designated uses that include propagation, such as the Chesapeake Bay. Upstream Zone 2 and downstream Zone 6 of the Delaware River have daily average dissolved oxygen criteria in the summer months (June 16 to September 15) of 5 mg/L and 6 mg/L, respectively. Because these criteria in Zones 2 and 6 have comparable magnitudes and no exceedance frequency, they are more
Commenters recommending the EPA adopt dissolved oxygen criteria of 4.5 mg/L at a 10% exceedance frequency and 5.0 mg/L at a 50% exceedance frequency for the
The Atlantic Sturgeon cohort model described above relies on experimental studies that were conducted using juvenile sturgeon and therefore provides information that is most relevant to juvenile growth and survival.
Instead, the EPA reviewed available literature and concluded that Atlantic Sturgeon larvae were likely to be at least as sensitive to low dissolved oxygen as juvenile Atlantic Sturgeon
Finally, the EPA proposed and is finalizing criteria derived in terms of percent oxygen saturation in this instance, rather than in units of concentration (such as milligrams per liter or mg/L) for two related reasons.
The EPA is finalizing the dissolved oxygen criteria as proposed, with only one non-substantive textual change to the language describing the criteria exceedance frequencies for clarity.
The EPA's dissolved oxygen criteria cover three distinct seasons and are intended to protect oxygen-sensitive species in the Delaware River, as explained above. The
Each season has water quality criteria that consist of three components: magnitude, duration, and exceedance frequency. The magnitude component indicates the required level of dissolved oxygen in the water, which in this rule is expressed as percent oxygen saturation. The duration component specifies the time period over which water quality is averaged before it can be compared with the criteria magnitude; in this rule, the duration is a daily average. The EPA selected a daily average duration because it is readily measurable using dissolved oxygen sensors and is protective in the relevant zones of the Delaware River because variations at time scales of less than one day are relatively small. Additionally, while the available science for Atlantic Sturgeon does not address the effect of low oxygen exposures lasting less than one day, calculations outlined in the Virginian Province Document suggest that to cause high mortality within a few hours, daily minimum oxygen concentrations would have to be lower than the minimum oxygen levels that the EPA expects would be likely in the specified zones if the EPA's criteria are attained.
In this final rule, the
The dissolved oxygen criteria in this final rule are the same as the criteria that the EPA proposed, with one non-substantive textual change for clarity.
At proposal, the EPA included three alternative options for dissolved oxygen criteria that the Agency considered but ultimately did not propose due to concerns about whether each alternative would be protective of aquatic life propagation. The EPA requested comment and additional information on whether and how one or more of these alternatives could protect the proposed aquatic life designated uses in the specified zones of the Delaware River and if so, what anticipated benefits would be associated with the alternative compared to the EPA's proposed criteria. This section provides summaries of the comments received regarding the three criteria alternatives and summaries of the EPA's responses.
For the reasons described above in section III.C. of this preamble, the EPA proposed dissolved oxygen criteria expressed as percent oxygen saturation. For the first alternative, the EPA provided an example of potential criteria expressed as concentration (mg/L) and requested comment on whether criteria expressed as concentration would be protective of oxygen-sensitive species during each season. The EPA also requested public input and supporting information about other ways the Agency could develop dissolved oxygen criteria expressed as concentration—particularly for the
Most commenters indicated a preference for criteria expressed as concentration due to concerns regarding implementation, specifically NPDES permitting, and ease of public communication. In addition, some commenters asserted that criteria expressed as concentration are more protective of aquatic life, especially in warmer water temperatures. Conversely, commenters supporting criteria expressed as percent oxygen saturation agreed with the EPA's rationale as presented in the associated technical support document and summarized in section III.C.2. of this preamble. In addition to public comments, the EPA also solicited comment on this alternative from external peer reviewers. External peer reviewers supported the criteria expressed as percent oxygen saturation, rather than concentration, as percent oxygen saturation is the measurement of oxygen level that most directly relates to growth and survival of aquatic organisms.
The EPA understands that the switch from concentration-based dissolved oxygen criteria to percent saturation because of this rule could require changes to each state's NPDES permitting procedures and could necessitate additional public education and outreach. However, the EPA is committed to working with Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the DRBC to address implementation and outreach concerns and provide technical support. To inform the Agency's consideration of this alternative for the final rule, the EPA met with the DRBC, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania to discuss the percent oxygen saturation aspect of the proposal and potential solutions to implementation challenges and ways in which the EPA could assist in a transition to percent oxygen saturation for NPDES permits.
The EPA disagrees with commenters' assertions that criteria expressed as concentration are more protective of aquatic life than criteria expressed as percent oxygen saturation. The EPA derived equally protective values expressed as concentration and percent oxygen saturation for the
For the
One commenter suggested that concentration-based criteria calculated for critical conditions (examples provided were low flow conditions or high temperatures) could be applied year-round. However, given the negative relationship between dissolved oxygen concentrations and temperature, as explained previously in section III.C.1. of this preamble, year-round concentration-based criteria calculated using summer high temperatures may not be protective at lower temperatures. The EPA recognizes that criteria expressed as concentration would become more stringent if water temperatures increase; however, the EPA's criteria are derived to protect aquatic life designated uses that include propagation in the specified zones of the Delaware River based on current water quality data. As explained in section II of this preamble, states are required to review their WQS at least once every three years and if appropriate, revise or adopt new standards. The EPA's technical approach for this rulemaking illustrates one potential way in which new water quality data could be evaluated to determine if a change to criteria is needed to maintain protectiveness. Thus, the EPA anticipates that Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania will reexamine the applicable aquatic life uses and dissolved oxygen criteria promulgated in this rule when completing their triennial reviews and determine if revised criteria are necessary to comply with the CWA. During their triennial review, states may also consider making other revisions to their applicable WQS.
For all these reasons, the EPA has concluded that criteria expressed as percent oxygen saturation are protective and consistent with the latest science and therefore, the Agency did not move forward with this alternative for the final rule.
The EPA proposed dissolved oxygen criteria for the
Some commenters preferred the single criterion construct, with one commenter asserting that the EPA's methodology provides a stronger technical basis for a single criterion. Other commenters did not support Alternative 2, with one commenter expressing a preference for a single instantaneous minimum criterion, and another supporting lower criteria magnitudes expressed as concentration.
The EPA's responses to comments regarding an instantaneous minimum criterion and criteria expressed as concentration are articulated above in this section of this preamble. The EPA disagrees that there is a stronger technical basis for a single criterion construct. As explained above, the dual criteria construct is intended to ensure that oxygen levels throughout the critical
The EPA proposed criteria that must be met every year. For the third alternative, the EPA requested comment and supporting information on the addition of a 1-in-3-year interannual exceedance frequency as part of the dissolved oxygen criteria, and specifically how and why this approach would protect the applicable aquatic life uses.
Most commenters did not support the inclusion of an interannual exceedance frequency. These commenters noted that due to the small population size of Atlantic Sturgeon in the Delaware River, combined with the interannual variability in the number of spawning adults, even one year with a criteria exceedance could reduce the ability of sturgeon to propagate and be detrimental to the year class. Some commenters expressed support for inclusion of an interannual exceedance frequency. These commenters preferred this alternative to address uncertainty in the EPA's criteria derivation methods for this rulemaking and dissolved oxygen variability caused by factors such as drought or low flow. In addition to public comments, the EPA also solicited comment on this alternative from external peer reviewers. External peer reviewers did not support the inclusion of a 1-in-3-year interannual exceedance frequency. One reviewer noted that the effect of a failed year class resulting from poor water quality could impact the population for many years. This reflects the fact that Atlantic Sturgeon often have a long lifespan, with consistently low rates of mortality as adults. In contrast, mortality is highest among young-of-the-year juveniles and has the most potential to
As described above, the EPA specifically requested comment on whether and how this alternative would protect aquatic life propagation. Commenters who supported this alternative did not provide such supporting information. Therefore, the EPA did not have sufficient information to conclude that this alternative would protect designated uses that include aquatic life propagation. The EPA agrees with commenters and peer reviewers that allowing one year of exceedance could have detrimental impacts on sturgeon propagation, which in turn could impact the population for decades. Therefore, the EPA did not move forward with this alternative for the final rule.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that each Federal agency ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
NMFS included an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) in its Biological Opinion to address the incidental take of Shortnose Sturgeon and Atlantic Sturgeon in the Delaware River due to exposure to dissolved oxygen levels in waters that attain the EPA's final criteria. The ESA and its implementing regulations provide that incidental take by a Federal agency is not prohibited if performed in compliance with the terms and conditions of an ITS.
1. EPA is to work within its authorities to ensure that its final dissolved oxygen criteria are implemented in a timely manner to minimize the aggregate adverse effects to ESA-listed Shortnose Sturgeon and New York Bight DPS of Atlantic Sturgeon and critical habitat designated for the New York Bight DPS of Atlantic Sturgeon specifically within the Delaware River.
2. EPA is to work within its authorities to oversee the implementation of the dissolved oxygen criteria, coordinating with the Services and encouraging other entities to coordinate with the Services, as appropriate.
NMFS specified in the Terms and Conditions of the ITS that to meet the first RPM, the EPA is to notify regulatory agencies and the regulated community that, in NMFS's view as of October 2024, existing dissolved oxygen conditions in the Delaware River violate the ESA by resulting in the take of endangered Shortnose Sturgeon and the New York Bight DPS of Atlantic Sturgeon through increased mortality and reductions in growth of juvenile fish. Per the ITS, the EPA is to reference the following sections of the ESA and its implementing regulations. Section 9 of the ESA
Additionally, to meet the first RPM, the EPA is to remind regulatory agencies, the regulated community, and the interested public of the EPA's authorities under the CWA that are potentially relevant to this final rule. These authorities include reviewing
The EPA is promulgating a Federal designated use that applies in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, in addition to those states' designated uses that are already applicable. This means that for the specified zones of the Delaware River, the EPA is supplementing, rather than replacing, New Jersey's and Pennsylvania's currently applicable aquatic life designated uses. Therefore, New Jersey's and Pennsylvania's currently applicable aquatic life designated uses remain applicable for CWA purposes. Those states' current water quality criteria associated with those uses also remain applicable for CWA purposes, with the exception of any aquatic life criteria for dissolved oxygen, which are discussed below. The EPA concluded that this approach is the best way to make clear which of the states' WQS are and are not revised by this final rule.
In addition, the EPA is promulgating dissolved oxygen criteria that replace Delaware's, New Jersey's, and Pennsylvania's existing dissolved oxygen criteria for the specified zones of the Delaware River. In the final rule, the EPA made a minor, non-substantive change to paragraph (d)(2) to simplify the language used to describe the other state water quality criteria that apply to these zones of the Delaware River in addition to the federally promulgated criteria for dissolved oxygen. Specifically, the EPA replaced the language “with applicable water quality criteria for other parameters” with “with other applicable water quality criteria.” One commenter shared that Delaware's regulations specify that the applicable criteria for the specified zones of the Delaware River are those adopted by the DRBC in its Water Quality Regulations, unless no criteria exist in the DRBC's regulations in which case the state's criteria apply. This commenter asserted that the proposed rule did not define how the proposed designated use and criteria will be adopted into the DRBC's Water Quality Regulations. The designated use and dissolved oxygen criteria in this final rule do not need to be adopted into the DRBC's Water Quality Regulations in order to apply to these zones of the Delaware River. Pursuant to 40 CFR 131.21, where a WQS in effect under state law is applicable for CWA purposes, if the EPA promulgates a more stringent standard for that state, then the EPA-promulgated standard becomes the applicable standard for CWA purposes. Further, under CWA section 303(c)(4)(B), the EPA Administrator has the authority to promulgate standards in any case where the Administrator determines that a new or revised standard is necessary to meet the requirements of the CWA, as discussed more in section II.A of this preamble. Pursuant to CWA section 303(c), the Agency made an Administrator's Determination and is promulgating Federal WQS for Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania in accordance with that Administrator's Determination. As such, the WQS in this final rule will be effective for CWA purposes even though they have not been adopted by the DRBC.
The EPA recognizes, however, that with this final rule, there will now be a mix of state and Federal WQS that are applicable to the specified zones for CWA purposes. The EPA compiles and publishes on its website
The EPA notes that there are aquatic life criteria for pollutants and parameters other than dissolved oxygen that are still in effect for CWA purposes in all three states—not only in the zones covered by this final rule, but also for other zones of the Delaware River that already include aquatic life propagation as a designated use. Those criteria are not impacted by this final rule. As the EPA is only promulgating revised dissolved oxygen criteria for the specified zones of the Delaware River, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania should evaluate whether other aquatic life criteria should similarly be added or revised for the specified zones or other zones of the Delaware River. One way these states can review their WQS is through the triennial review process. As explained in section II of this preamble, states must review their WQS at least once every three years and, if appropriate, revise standards or adopt new standards (CWA section 303(c)(1) and 40 CFR 131.20(a)). The EPA anticipates that Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania will review their existing aquatic life criteria during their next triennial review to determine if new or revised aquatic life criteria are appropriate to protect the applicable aquatic life designated uses, including the designated use that the EPA is promulgating in this final rule, in addition to considering whether to make other changes to their WQS.
One commenter asserted that Pennsylvania has a minimum dissolved oxygen criterion of 5 mg/L that currently applies to the specified zones of the Delaware River under Pennsylvania's jurisdiction and that the EPA failed to recognize the application of this criterion. This commenter asserted that the EPA's proposed dissolved oxygen criteria would result in a weakening of the applicable WQS because the EPA's criteria could allow daily excursions down to or below 4 mg/L, and that this would violate the antidegradation requirement at 40 CFR 131.12(a)(1) to maintain and protect existing uses. Further, this commenter asserted that the EPA has a duty under the Endangered Species Act to ensure no jeopardy to the endangered sturgeon in the specified zones and that the EPA's effort to update the WQS must be consistent with full recovery of the sturgeon rather than only slight improvements in their condition, which may be insufficient.
As noted in sections II.D. and III.B. of this preamble, Pennsylvania's WWF designated use and the EPA-approved aquatic life criteria associated with Pennsylvania's WWF use, including the state's WWF dissolved oxygen criteria of 5.5 mg/L as a 7-day average and 5.0 mg/L as a minimum, do not currently apply for CWA purposes to the specified zones of the Delaware River. For the WWF use and associated criteria to apply in the relevant zones for CWA purposes, Pennsylvania would need to revise its WQS accordingly and the EPA would need to approve that revision under CWA section 303(c). Rather, prior to this final rule, the applicable aquatic life designated use for Pennsylvania's portions of the specified zones of the
Under the CWA, states and authorized tribes have the primary responsibility in developing and adopting WQS for their navigable waters (CWA section 303(a) through (c)). Although the EPA is promulgating a revised aquatic life designated use and protective dissolved oxygen criteria for the specified zones of the Delaware River, each state retains the option to adopt and submit to the EPA for review its own revised designated use and dissolved oxygen criteria that are consistent with the requirements of the CWA. If Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania subsequently adopt and submit revised WQS to the EPA, and the EPA approves those WQS, then the EPA would undertake a rulemaking to withdraw the federally promulgated use and/or dissolved oxygen criteria (40 CFR 131.21(c)). Similarly, if one state adopts and submits revised WQS to the EPA, and the EPA approves those WQS, then the EPA would undertake a rulemaking to withdraw the federally promulgated WQS for that state. As noted earlier in this preamble, the EPA maintains that states have the primary role to develop WQS.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 131.21(c), if Delaware, New Jersey, and/or Pennsylvania adopt dissolved oxygen criteria that are as stringent or more stringent than the federally promulgated criteria, then once the EPA approves those criteria, they would become the applicable criteria for CWA purposes.
In the preamble to the proposed rulemaking, 88 FR 88315, December 21, 2023, the EPA noted several approaches provided at 40 CFR part 131 that Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania could explore when implementing or deciding how to implement federally promulgated criteria. Specifically, the EPA focused the discussion in the proposed rule preamble on two approaches—WQS variances and NPDES permit compliance schedules. Additionally, the EPA included a discussion of CWA section 303(d)/305(b) water quality assessments in the specific circumstances relevant to this rulemaking. Each of these topics is discussed in turn directly below.
With respect to WQS variances and NPDES permit compliance schedules, some commenters asserted that implementation of the WQS in the EPA's rule should be phased and adaptively managed with incremental pollutant reductions followed by monitoring of water chemistry and fish communities to gauge the effectiveness of the pollutant controls. A few of these commenters asserted that WQS variances and NPDES permit compliance schedules are the tools the states should use to allow for such incremental progress, as needed. Conversely, one commenter asserted that because propagation is an attainable use in the specified zones of the Delaware River, WQS variances, which are used when attaining the designated use and associated criterion is not feasible during the term of the WQS variance, would defeat the purpose of the EPA's rule and would inappropriately require subsequent time-consuming rulemakings by states. Instead, this commenter asserted that NPDES permit compliance schedules are the appropriate implementation mechanism to use when dischargers need time to implement additional treatment technologies.
Regarding the appropriateness of WQS variances to implement the WQS in this final rule, the commenter is correct that the EPA determined that the propagation use is attainable in the specified zones. As discussed in the associated response to comments document, the EPA also recognizes the comments received on the proposed rule from certain dischargers regarding potential economic and social impacts. However, the EPA did not receive information from the states, the DRBC, or other stakeholders to demonstrate that attaining the propagation use is infeasible due to one of the factors listed at 40 CFR 131.10(g). Where a state believes that a discharger may not be able to meet any more stringent permit limits based on the propagation use and dissolved oxygen criteria for a specific period of time but can make incremental water quality improvements towards attaining the propagation use, then the state should work with the EPA to determine whether a WQS variance consistent with 40 CFR 131.14 would be appropriate for that discharger. The EPA has approved WQS variances adopted by states for various designated uses and criteria.
Regarding the use of compliance schedules, the EPA agrees that where dischargers need additional time to implement an enforceable sequence of actions—such as facility upgrades or operation changes—that will lead to compliance with a water quality-based limit based on the applicable designated use and criteria, the permitting authority should consider an NPDES permit compliance schedule, addressed in the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 122.47 and 131.15. If a permittee cannot immediately meet a water quality-based limit, the permitting authority may include a compliance schedule
Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania each have an obligation under CWA sections 303(d) and 305(b) to assess whether CWA-effective WQS in their jurisdictions are being attained. The EPA anticipates that there may be a period of time immediately after issuance of this final rule when the WQS will not be attained because the actions and procedures required to achieve compliance will take time to implement. In this scenario, any of the relevant zones not attaining the WQS should be classified as impaired on the relevant CWA section(s) 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report(s) (IR) submitted to the EPA for review.
Per the CWA and the EPA's implementing regulations, waters that are assessed under CWA section 303(d) as impaired by a pollutant typically require the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), which is a regulatory planning tool designed to restore water quality via allocations of pollutant reductions to relevant point and non-point sources. The EPA's regulations also recognize that other pollution control requirements may obviate the need for a TMDL. Specifically, impaired waters do not require a TMDL if (1) technology-based effluent limitations required by the CWA, (2) more stringent effluent limitations required by a state, local, or Federal authority, or (3) other pollution control requirements (
The DRBC developed a model to evaluate sources of pollution that affect dissolved oxygen levels in the specified zones of the Delaware River and concluded that point sources are the primary contributor to oxygen depletion within those zones.
The EPA conducted an economic analysis pursuant to Executive Order 12866 to evaluate the potential benefits and costs associated with this final rule. The EPA prepared this analysis of one potential implementation scenario for informational purposes to provide the public and potentially affected entities with estimates of the potential costs and benefits that could accrue when the relevant states implement this final rule. The EPA did not rely upon this economic analysis in setting these WQS. For more information about how costs are addressed in the WQS context, please refer to the associated response to comments document. Despite evaluation of one potential implementation scenario in the economic analysis, the EPA's rule does not prescribe any specific pollutant controls, and the EPA expects that states will work with affected dischargers to identify the most appropriate compliance options.
In the high-level summary of the EPA's economic analysis below, the EPA first describes a baseline scenario that is intended to characterize the world in the absence of the EPA's rule. Next, the EPA describes the development of a policy scenario based on potential pollution control actions that, if implemented, can be expected to meet the EPA's dissolved oxygen criteria. Finally, the EPA evaluates the anticipated potential costs associated with the policy scenario and the potential benefits of the specified zones attaining the EPA's dissolved oxygen criteria. More details and information are available in the associated document,
The baseline is intended to characterize the world in the absence of the EPA's rule. The EPA typically assumes full compliance with existing regulations and requirements—including Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Long-Term Control Plans
In this economic analysis, the EPA assumes that without the final rule, the prior, less stringent WQS (that do not adequately support aquatic life propagation) would have remained in effect. Accordingly, the EPA assumes that water quality conditions in the specified zones of the Delaware River, particularly during the
DELCORA. (2023). Combined Sewer System: DELCORA CSO LTCP.
Philadelphia Water Department. (2023). CSO Long Term Control Plan.
State of New Jersey Division of Water Quality. (2023). Long Term Control Plan Submittals.
During the public comment period, the EPA received comments regarding the consideration of CSO LTCPs in the EPA's economic analysis. Some commenters asserted that the EPA should address CSO control costs in the economic analysis, while other commenters asserted that these LTCPs would not be completed either at all or prior to promulgation of the final rule. The EPA disagrees with commenters' assertions that the Agency should include CSO control costs as part of the cost analysis for the EPA's rule. CSO controls are expected to be implemented at certain wastewater treatment plants, described above, along the specified zones of the Delaware River regardless of the EPA's rule; therefore, costs associated with these controls cannot be attributed to the EPA's rule. The EPA acknowledges that the assumption of full compliance with draft LTCPs, in addition to final LTCPs, could add uncertainty to baseline conditions since draft LTCPs are subject to change. The EPA includes a discussion of this uncertainty in table 2-1 of the associated economic analysis. However, the EPA notes that these draft LTCPs represent the best available information on planned CSO controls and are therefore appropriately used in the economic analysis.
The DRBC modeled the effect of pollution reduction on dissolved oxygen levels in the Delaware River and provided the EPA with water quality simulation results under both baseline and “restored” conditions for the years 2012, 2018, and 2019.
Of the three available years (2012, 2018, and 2019), the EPA selected 2019 as representative of the most typical conditions in the relevant zones of the Delaware River. In comparison, 2012 had atypically poor conditions (low percent oxygen saturation, high water temperature), while 2018 had atypically good conditions (high percent oxygen saturation, low water temperature). Therefore, model runs used in this economic analysis are based on 2019 conditions.
One commenter asserted that the EPA's use of a single year of water quality data reduced the reliability of the EPA's technical and economic assessments because a single year cannot be relied upon to predict how future infrastructure might address pollution, given interannual variations in precipitation and temperature. The EPA acknowledges that relying on a single year of data limits the ability of the economic analysis to reflect any future changes in water temperature and/or precipitation. However, as discussed in the associated technical support document and in the response to comments document, there are no existing modeling studies that directly predict future water temperatures in the specified zones of the Delaware River, which limits the EPA from factoring these future conditions into additional analyses. Given these limitations, the economic analysis relies on the most representative year of data available and therefore, this approach to the analysis was reasonable.
There is a wide range of potential paths that Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania may choose to take when implementing the EPA's final WQS. For this economic analysis, the EPA relied on available data to develop a policy scenario based on modeled pollution controls developed by the DRBC that the EPA expects would meet the Agency's dissolved oxygen criteria. Actual benefits, costs, and impacts will depend on the choices that states make in implementing the final WQS, which may differ from the policy scenario presented in this economic analysis.
The EPA's dissolved oxygen criteria apply to three seasons; therefore, when developing a single policy scenario, the EPA evaluated potential pollution control actions that would be expected to meet the EPA's criteria in each of the three seasons. The EPA began by evaluating water quality monitoring data for the past decade from two continuous monitoring stations in the relevant zones of the Delaware River—Penn's Landing in Zone 3 and Chester in Zone 4. As noted in section III.C.3. of this preamble, based on the monitoring data, the EPA expects that the Agency's dissolved oxygen criteria for the
The EPA estimated compliance costs for the final WQS based on estimates for WWTPs to reduce effluent ammonia nitrogen concentrations and raise effluent dissolved oxygen concentrations. Although there are several causes that contribute to low dissolved oxygen conditions in the specified zones of the Delaware River, the DRBC identified ammonia nitrogen loadings from WWTPs as the leading cause of oxygen-depletion in the river.
Some commenters asserted that the EPA should consider habitat restoration and pollution reductions other than ammonia treatment controls at wastewater treatment plants. While the EPA did consider other sources of nutrients into the Delaware River, the Agency concluded that point source controls are the most likely pathway that Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania would choose to take when implementing the rule. However, the EPA's rule does not preclude each state from evaluating controls on other pollutant sources, including non-point sources, or evaluating the potential benefits of habitat restoration, and the EPA encourages each state to consider all available and relevant pollution control approaches when implementing the Federal standards.
The EPA relied on cost information from several DRBC studies to estimate the costs of achieving the final WQS.
Kleinfelder Inc. (2023). Delaware River Basin Commission Nitrogen Reduction Cost Estimation Study—Supplemental Cost Addendum 2 Technical Memorandum—Final.
The EPA used WWTP-specific (capital, operations and maintenance (O&M)) compliance costs from Kleinfelder Inc. (2021, 2023) to estimate compliance costs, based on the discharger classification. Total compliance costs include the costs associated with both of the following:
1. Class A′ Facilities (7 WWTPs): Reductions in effluent ammonia nitrogen concentrations to 1.5 mg/L from May 1 through October 31 and increases in effluent oxygen concentrations to a monthly average of 6 mg/L year-round.
Further, a nationwide evaluation of discharge concentrations among “major” NPDES-permitted wastewater treatment plants (
The EPA acknowledges that the operation time period for the treatment technologies that are necessary to meet the final WQS may differ from the assumptions in Kleinfelder Inc. (2021, 2023). Actual operation time periods will impact the technology lifespan and O&M costs. Since time period assumptions in Kleinfelder Inc. (2021, 2023) exceed the July 1-October 31
2. Class A Facilities (2 WWTPs): Reductions in effluent ammonia nitrogen concentrations to 5 mg/L from May 1 through October 31.
Some commenters expressed concerns with the EPA's reliance on information published or commissioned by the DRBC. These commenters asserted that the cost estimates from the Kleinfelder reports were unrealistically low, a limited number of economic variables were considered, and costs associated with other regulatory mandates were not considered, among other concerns. The EPA disagrees that basing the Agency's economic analysis on inputs from previous DRBC analyses is inappropriate. The DRBC analyses reflect the most reliable, up-to-date information on pollution, pollution controls, and dissolved oxygen conditions in the Delaware River. The ammonia nitrogen treatment technologies that the DRBC costed for are proven treatment technologies (
The EPA assumed capital costs occur upfront in 2026 followed by a five-year construction period. Consistent with Kleinfelder Inc. (2021, 2023), the EPA assumed O&M costs occur over a 25-year period from 2031 through 2055. The EPA then annualized costs over a 30-year analysis period between 2026 and 2055 and discounted all cost values to 2025, using 3 and 7 percent discount rates and payment at the beginning of each year in the analysis period.
Some commenters asserted that the EPA underestimated the costs of the rule. In particular, one commenter asserted that the EPA underestimated costs at the Philadelphia Water Department's (PWD's) wastewater treatment plants by between $1.3 billion and $2.5 billion. The EPA disagrees. The EPA's cost analysis is based on one potential implementation scenario using cost estimates based on proven wastewater treatment plant treatment technologies (
Using a 3 percent discount rate, the estimated total annualized compliance cost for nine WWTPs ranges from $121.6 million to $171.6 million, with a central estimate of $143.0 million (2024$). These costs vary considerably between the nine WWTPs (based on flow and technology), with central estimates ranging from $2.0 million at the Lower Bucks County Joint Municipal Authority WWTP to $39.2 million at the PWD Southwest Water Pollution Control Plant (2024$). Among the dischargers, PWD bears the highest proportion of total costs, with its three facilities' combined costs accounting for over 50 percent of total costs. Overall, across all dischargers, approximately 66 percent of the costs are attributable to capital and 34 percent are attributable to O&M. Using a 7 percent discount rate, the estimated total annualized compliance cost for nine WWTPs ranges from $157.8 million to $222.7 million, with a central estimate of $185.6 million (2024$).
Some commenters asserted that the EPA did not correctly account for the impact of increased debt service costs that would occur from the EPA's rule. The EPA disagrees with the assertion that the Agency did not properly account for debt service costs. As explained in the associated economic analysis, the EPA's economic analysis focuses on social costs, the total cost to society. In this context, it does not take more of society's real resources to finance through debt than when paid or financed in another way. The EPA notes that the Agency has followed OMB's Circular A-4 guidance for the presentation of annualized costs.
Some commenters stated that wastewater treatment plants face future substantial capital expenditures that are necessary to fulfill other infrastructure, public health, operational, and regulatory obligations, which the proposed rule did not fully consider. Commenters also suggested that state, Federal, or grant funding should be made available to cover the costs of the EPA's rule. The EPA acknowledges that entities affected by this rulemaking have limited budgets and might have capital expenditures allocated to other projects related to protecting public health and the environment, infrastructure, or other
Water quality improvements can have a wide range of effects on water resources and the environmental goods and services that they provide, including services valued by people (
The EPA used a benefit transfer approach based on a meta-analysis of surface water valuation studies to evaluate the non-market benefits (including both use and nonuse values) of improved surface water quality resulting from achievement of the EPA's final WQS in the 2019 restored scenario. The benefit transfer approach involves three main steps:
1. Estimate water quality improvements associated with attainment of the EPA's final WQS relative to the baseline;
2. Translate these improvements into a water quality index (WQI) that can be linked to ecosystem services and uses that are valued by society. The WQI used for this analysis includes six parameters: dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, fecal coliform, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total suspended solids; and
3. Estimate the dollar value of the water quality improvements based on estimates of the public's willingness-to-pay (WTP) derived from a meta-analysis of surface water valuation studies. For the final rule, the EPA used a locally weighted application of the meta-analysis.
To assess baseline water quality, the EPA obtained water quality modeling data of baseline conditions from the DRBC, including dissolved oxygen, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus levels for various effluent treatment scenarios. For the remaining parameters included in the WQI (
The effluent treatment measures implemented for the 2019 restored scenario will directly affect the amount of ammonia nitrogen discharged to the specified zones of the Delaware River and therefore also reduce biochemical oxygen demand. Given the inverse proportional relationship between biological oxygen demand and dissolved oxygen levels, the EPA approximated biochemical oxygen demand concentrations following effluent treatment by assuming that baseline biochemical oxygen demand concentrations are reduced by the same percentage change that dissolved oxygen improves within each zone (
To quantify benefits of water quality improvements, as is consistent with past practice, the EPA analyzed the values held by households residing within 100 miles of the specified zones of the Delaware River for water quality improvements associated with the EPA's final WQS.
One commenter asserted that the 100-mile distance buffer used by the EPA is inappropriate for a localized policy, while another commenter stated that using the 100-mile radius does not consider the limited access and recreational experience of the river near Philadelphia, and it includes many households that likely only hold nonuse value for the resource. The EPA disagrees that use of a 100-mile radius for estimating benefits of a localized policy is inappropriate. The EPA followed best practices from the resource valuation literature to define the “extent of market” of affected households, or locations of households likely to hold values for water quality improvements in the specified zones of the Delaware River. For example, many water quality valuation studies considered the entire state or region in which the affected waterbodies reside as the appropriate extent of the market.
Lupi, F., Herriges, J.A., Kim, H., & Stevenson, R.J. (2023). Getting off the ladder: Disentangling water quality indices to enhance the valuation of divergent ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(18), e2120261120.
Moore, C., Guignet, D., Dockins, C., Maguire, K.B., & Simon, N.B. (2018). Valuing Ecological Improvements in the Chesapeake Bay and the Importance of Ancillary Benefits. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 9(1), 1-26.
The EPA estimated the economic value of water quality changes using results of a meta-analysis of total WTP estimates (including both use and nonuse values) for water quality improvements, provided by original studies conducted between 1981 and 2017. Using information extracted from these studies, the EPA estimated an econometric model that calculates total WTP for changes in a variety of environmental services affected by water quality and valued by people, including changes in recreational fishing opportunities, other water-based recreation, and existence services such as aquatic life, wildlife, and habitat designated uses. The model also allows the EPA to adjust WTP values based on the core geospatial factors predicted by theory to influence WTP, including scale (the size of affected resources or areas), market extent (the size of the area over which WTP is estimated), and the availability of substitute waters. The model also takes into account important characteristics, such as population and income, which vary spatially. For the proposed rule, the EPA used the standard model application used in prior EPA rulemakings.
Table 11 of this preamble presents estimated household and total annualized WTP values for water quality improvements following attainment of the EPA's final WQS, based on the locally weighted approach, 3 and 7 percent discount rates, and payment at the beginning of each year in the analysis period.
One commenter expressed concerns that the EPA's meta-regression model overestimated benefits at proposal because, among other reasons, the EPA assumes the criteria will be attained and does not account for treatment processes that are under development, such as PWD's sidestream ammonia treatment facility. The EPA disagrees that application of the meta-regression model resulted in overestimation of the rule's benefits. The EPA evaluated high quality modeling data from the DRBC for a recent year with typical water quality (2019) and determined that the Agency's potential implementation scenario is expected to result in criteria attainment, given the DRBC's model results and associated uncertainties in the model (for example, the model does not account for changes in sediment oxygen demand, which the EPA expects to decrease following pollution reductions, thus leading to higher oxygen levels in the river). Regarding the planned treatment processes, at the time the EPA conducted the economic analysis for the proposed rule, PWD had not yet announced its intention of adding a sidestream ammonia treatment facility to the Southwest Water Pollution Control Plant. Following announcement of this additional treatment facility, the EPA accordingly revised the baseline scenario in the economic analysis for the final rule; please refer to the final rule economic analysis for more details.
In addition to the quantitative benefits of water quality improvements resulting from the final WQS, the EPA described additional benefits qualitatively in section 4.1 of the associated economic analysis, including recreational and commercial fishing benefits. For example, the qualitative assessment summarizes the findings of Kauffman (2019), which estimated that dissolved oxygen improvements similar to the improvements anticipated under the final rule WQS would improve annual recreational and commercial fishing benefits in the Delaware River watershed by $187 million and $24.5 million, respectively (2024$).
The EPA estimates that the implementation of additional effluent treatment controls at certain WWTPs could lead to annualized costs over 30 years of $143.0 million using a 3 percent discount rate and $185.6 million using a 7 percent discount rate (2024$). The EPA has overstated annualized costs by allocating all capital costs to the first year when costs would likely be spread across five years. The EPA quantified non-market benefits through average annual household WTP for water quality improvements. Annualized monetized non-market benefits from water quality improvements over 30 years total $154.9 million using a 3 percent discount rate and $134.3 million using a 7 percent discount rate (2024$). The EPA's monetary estimation of benefits does not account for benefits related to protections for endangered species (Atlantic Sturgeon and Shortnose Sturgeon), increased housing values, or increased commercial fishing, among other benefits. Therefore, the EPA's estimation of non-market benefits is an underestimate of total benefits. In addition, the difference between the benefit and cost estimates to society under 3 percent and 7 percent is due to capital costs being attributed to the early years of the analysis even though capital costs will likely be financed throughout the period of analysis, while the benefits of environmental improvements occur more evenly throughout the period of analysis. This leads to evaluations under higher discount rates showing a larger discrepancy between benefits and costs. Table 12 of this preamble summarizes annualized cost and benefit estimates for the rule.
Additional information about these statutes and executive orders can be found at
This action is a significant regulatory action as defined under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis,
This action is considered an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action. Details on the estimated costs of this final rule can be found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2040-0049.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Small entities, such as small businesses or small governmental jurisdictions, are not directly regulated by this rule.
EPA-promulgated WQS are implemented through various water quality control programs including the NPDES program, which limits discharges to navigable waters, except in compliance with a NPDES permit. CWA section 301(b)(1)(C) and the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1) provide that all NPDES permits must include any limits on discharges that are necessary to meet applicable WQS. Thus, under the CWA, the EPA's promulgation of WQS establishes standards that states implement through the NPDES permit process. While states have discretion in developing discharge limits, those limits “must control all pollutants or pollutant parameters (either conventional, nonconventional, or toxic pollutants) which the Director determines are or may be discharged at a level that will cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any [s]tate water quality standard, including [s]tate narrative criteria for water quality.”
As a result of this action, the states of Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania will need to ensure that permits they issue include any limitations on discharges necessary to comply with the WQS established in this final rule. In doing so, each state will have several choices associated with permit writing. While each state's implementation of the rule may ultimately result in new or revised permit conditions for some dischargers, including small entities, the EPA's action, by itself, does not impose any of these requirements on small entities; in other words, these requirements are not self-implementing.
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order 13132. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This rule does not alter Delaware's, New Jersey's, or Pennsylvania's considerable discretion in implementing these WQS, nor does it preclude any of those states from adopting revised WQS and submitting them to the EPA for review and approval after promulgation of this final rule.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule will not affect federally recognized Indian tribes in Delaware, New Jersey, or Pennsylvania because the WQS would not apply to waters in Indian lands nor affect tribal interests. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. Since this action does not concern human health, the EPA's Policy on Children's Health also does not apply.
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action establishes Federal WQS for specified zones of the Delaware River under the jurisdiction of the states of Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
This rule does not involve technical standards.
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Environmental protection, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 131 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1251
(a)
(2) The aquatic life criteria in paragraph (c) of this section apply to river miles 108.4 to 70.0 of the mainstem Delaware River for the States of Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) The dissolved oxygen aquatic life water quality criteria in paragraph (c) of this section are the applicable dissolved oxygen criteria in Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania for river miles 108.4 to 70.0 of the mainstem Delaware River and apply concurrently with other applicable water quality criteria.
(3) The designated use and criteria established are subject to Delaware's, New Jersey's, and Pennsylvania's general rules of applicability in the same way and to the same extent as are other federally promulgated and State-adopted water quality standards in those States.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Interim final rule; request for comments.
FMCSA amends the Federal regulations for State Driver's Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) issuing commercial driving credentials to foreign-domiciled individuals. Through this interim final rule (IFR), FMCSA restores the integrity of the commercial driver's license (CDL) issuance processes by significantly limiting the authority for SDLAs to issue and renew non-domiciled commercial learner's permits (CLPs) and CDLs to individuals domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction. This change strengthens the security of the CDL issuance process and enhances the safety of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operations.
This IFR is effective September 29, 2025. Comments must be received on or before November 28, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2025-0622 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
Philip Thomas, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Safety, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 366-9554;
FMCSA organizes this IFR as follows:
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this IFR (FMCSA-2025-0622), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the IFR contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the IFR, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the IFR. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at
To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Written comments and recommendations for the information collection discussed in this IFR should be sent within 60 days of publication to
This IFR revises the regulations that allow SDLAs to issue and renew non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs to individuals domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction. The changes strengthen the security of the CDL issuance process and enhance the safety of CMV operations by revising to whom an SDLA may issue a non-domiciled CLP or CDL, what the requirements are for issuance, and when a non-domiciled CLP or CDL must be canceled or revoked. Non-domiciled CDL holders have been involved in several recent fatal crashes. In addition, FMCSA recently uncovered evidence of systemic, nationwide regulatory non-compliance by SDLAs in the issuance of non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs at SDLAs. This IFR revises the regulations to restrict issuance of non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs to individuals maintaining lawful immigration status in the United States in certain employment-based nonimmigrant categories, to certain individuals domiciled in a U.S. territory, and to individuals domiciled in a State that is prohibited from the issuance of CLPs or CDLs as a result of the decertification of the State's CDL program. The revisions will help ensure that individuals who do not have lawful immigration status in the United States, and those who do have lawful immigration status but whose status is not directly connected to a legitimate, employment-based reason to hold a CDL, will no longer be eligible to obtain non-domiciled CLPs or CDLs.
This rule: (1) limits individuals eligible for non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs to those maintaining lawful immigration status in certain employment-based nonimmigrant categories, certain individuals domiciled in a U.S. territory, and individuals domiciled in a State that is prohibited from issuing CLPs or CDLs because the State's CDL program is decertified; (2) requires non-citizen applicants (except for lawful permanent residents) to provide an unexpired foreign passport and an unexpired Form I-94/I-94A (Arrival/Departure Record) indicating a specified type of employment-based nonimmigrant status at every issuance, transfer, renewal, and upgrade action defined in the regulation; (3) requires SDLAs to query Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE),
This IFR is based on the broad authority of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA, 49 U.S.C. 31301,
This IFR is also consistent with the concurrent authorities of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (49 U.S.C. 31131,
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31502(b), “[t]he Secretary of Transportation may prescribe requirements for—(1) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation.” This IFR, which addresses the ability of individuals who are domiciled in foreign jurisdictions to operate CMVs in the United States, is related to the safe operation of motor carrier equipment because the CDL program is designed to ensure that only individuals who have been determined by relevant State licensing agencies—in accordance with Federal standards—to be qualified to operate large commercial vehicles are allowed to drive such vehicles on the Nation's roadways. Both identity verification and skills testing are integral to the determination of a driver's qualifications and are implicated in this rule.
The implementing regulations relating to CDL standards and State compliance with the CDL program are codified under 49 CFR part 383, Commercial Driver's License Standards; Requirements and Penalties, and 49 CFR part 384, State Compliance with Commercial Driver's License Program. Under 49 U.S.C. 31311(a)(12)(B)(ii), States are authorized to issue CDLs to individuals who are “not domiciled in a State that issues [CDLs],” but if they choose to issue non-domiciled CDLs, they must do so in accordance with regulations prescribed by FMCSA (49 U.S.C. 31311(a)(12)(B)). The regulations setting forth the standards States must apply when issuing non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs are found at 49 CFR 383.23, 383.71(f), 383.73(f), 384.201, and 384.212(a). To obtain a non-domiciled CLP or CDL under existing § 383.71(f), the applicant must be domiciled either in a
State procedures for issuing non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs under § 383.71(f)(2)(i) must require that an applicant domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction show that he or she is registered by providing an unexpired employment authorization document (EAD) issued by USCIS or an unexpired foreign passport accompanied by an approved I-94 form documenting the applicant's most recent admittance into the United States.
The events of September 11, 2001, highlighted the need for secure identification, as all but one of the 9/11 hijackers acquired some form of U.S. identification document. Acquisition of these forms of identification assisted them in boarding commercial flights, renting cars, and other activities. The report from the 9/11 Commission recommended that the Federal government set standards for the
In 2006, section 703(a) of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006
On May 9, 2011, FMCSA published a final rule implementing section 703 and addressing OIG recommendations.
Each year, FMCSA conducts Annual Program Reviews (APRs) of SDLAs in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31311 and 49 CFR 384.307 to gauge the States' compliance with the CDL program. This year's APRs (2025 APRs) included a heightened focus on the issuance of non-domiciled CDLs, consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14286.
Since the beginning of the 2025 calendar year, FMCSA has identified at least five fatal crashes involving non-domiciled CDL holders. At least two of these drivers were improperly issued a CDL, while others held CDLs that complied with the regulations in place at the time of issuance but would not be eligible for a non-domiciled CDL under the revised regulations. These crashes show the tangible impact of States failing to follow the proper procedures when issuing non-domiciled CDLs, as well as the need for stronger regulations to ensure that non-domiciled drivers present in the United States without lawful immigration status are not able to obtain CLPs and CDLs.
Most recently, on August 12, 2025, the driver of a tractor-trailer, who did not have lawful immigration status
This driver had an unexpired EAD and was therefore eligible for a non-domiciled CDL under the existing regulations but was improperly issued a standard (full-term) CDL in Washington in 2023. He was subsequently issued a proper non-domiciled CDL in California, but would not have been eligible for a non-domiciled CDL under the revised regulations requiring a driver to provide an I-94 or I-94A indicating a specified employment-based nonimmigrant status.
In another crash, which occurred on July 11, 2025, a truck tractor traveling on the Delaware Memorial Bridge from New Jersey into Delaware crossed three lanes of traffic and crashed into a concrete wall. The Delaware River and Bay Authority stated that the impact collapsed the concrete wall, and the truck tractor careened into the Delaware River.
Another crash took place on May 6, 2025, in Thomasville, AL, in which a tractor-trailer hit four vehicles from behind as they were stopped at a red light.
On March 14, 2025, a CMV driver caused a multi-vehicle collision in Austin, TX. Witnesses stated that the driver of the 18-wheeler failed to brake and crashed into a long line of stopped and slow-moving traffic ahead of him.
A crash in West Virginia on January 19, 2025, involved a driver of a tractor-trailer who held a non-domiciled CDL and had two prior citations for speeding. The driver entered the United States unlawfully, is in removal proceedings, and had a valid USCIS-issued EAD. According to news reports, the driver caused a collision on a bridge over Cheat Lake on Interstate 68 resulting in a vehicle falling from the bridge into the lake, killing the person inside.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551
FMCSA finds good cause to issue this IFR without prior notice and comment and to make it effective immediately. This finding is based on the determination that notice and public procedure are both contrary to the public interest and impracticable because it would delay the adoption and immediate implementation of strict standards concerning the issuance and renewal of non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs necessary to address a recently
FMCSA has recently become aware of a critical safety failure that is occurring in two distinct and dangerous ways: the eligibility requirements for obtaining a non-domiciled CLP and CDL are not narrowly tailored to provide a sufficient margin of safety to protect the traveling public, and the existing regulatory framework is unworkable in practice due to systemic deficiencies in State implementation. FMCSA cannot, in good faith, permit a demonstrably failed non-domiciled credential issuance regulatory framework and implementation to continue while conducting a notice and comment rulemaking process.
The first front of this crisis—the overly broad eligibility requirements of the current regulations—has been tragically demonstrated by multiple fatal crashes in 2025 involving drivers who held non-domiciled CDLs (or who were mistakenly issued a standard CDL instead of a non-domiciled CDL), most of which were properly issued in accordance with existing regulations. As discussed in Section V.D. of this preamble, non-domiciled CDL holders have been involved in several recent, fatal crashes that claimed the lives of 12 people (including two children) and caused injuries to 15 people (at least 11 of which were hospitalized). One driver had been in the U.S. illegally since 2018 and would not have been eligible for a non-domiciled CDL under the revised regulation. Two of the drivers had prior citations on their driving records, with one of those drivers also having inconsistencies in his hours-of-service record leading up to the day of the crash. These crashes demonstrate that the existing non-domiciliary credentialing framework is dangerously permissive, creating an untenable risk to the public even when the CDLs were properly issued under the existing standards.
The second front of the crisis is a systemic breakdown in State implementation of the rule, which can have disastrous consequences, as evidenced by the March 14, 2025, fatal crash in Texas caused by a driver with a license improperly issued by Texas and another crash in Florida on August 12, 2025, where the driver had previously been issued an improper license by Washington. As discussed in Section V.C. of this preamble, the scale of this implementation failure was recently uncovered by FMCSA's 2025 APRs, which revealed that States are fundamentally failing to administer the issuance of non-domiciled credentials to foreign-domiciled applicants properly. FMCSA's APR has demonstrated that approximately one in four non-domiciled CDLs California issued were not compliant with the requirements in 49 CFR parts 383 and 384. Moreover, FMCSA has already confirmed improperly issued non-domiciled CDLs across six States, including California, Colorado, Washington, Texas, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota. FMCSA expects the number of States discovered to have improperly issued non-domiciled CDLs to grow as FMCSA's APRs continue.
When the integrity of the non-domiciled CDL process is in question, the credential itself is compromised and can no longer be trusted to verify an individual's eligibility and qualifications. Although FMCSA's primary focus in this rulemaking is on highway safety, the Agency notes that issuance of CLPs and CDLs to foreign individuals does have national security implications that should not be overlooked. Failure to properly vet such individuals raises the risk that individuals with malicious intent could gain authorized control of CMVs, which can be used to transport hazardous materials and target critical infrastructure or to otherwise carry out a terrorist attack.
In addition, the current regulations for issuing non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs require States to obtain an applicant's complete 10-year driving history from all States where the individual was previously licensed. See § 383.73(b)(3)(iv). However, States are unable to carry out this requirement for individuals whose driving history exists predominantly or solely within a foreign jurisdiction. Without a verified driving record, there is a serious risk that unsafe or high-risk drivers—who may have prior violations, suspensions, or a history of crashes in foreign jurisdictions—could be granted non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs and operate large trucks and buses on U.S. roadways. This undermines the integrity and safety of the CLP and CDL issuance process. Though there is a need to handle the issuance processes differently (due to the lack of authority to compel foreign jurisdictions to provide driving records), FMCSA believes that limiting eligibility for non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs (particularly when limited to employees holding an I-94 or I-94A indicating a specified employment-based nonimmigrant status that ensure additional screening of drivers) will increase safety by appreciably reducing the number of non-domiciled CLP and CDL drivers with unknown driver safety records on the Nation's roadways.
The confluence of these recent events and recently uncovered factors creates an imminent concern that the current regulatory framework does not provide a sufficient margin of safety to protect the traveling public. The recent fatal crashes demonstrate that the current regulations related to non-domiciled credentials fail even when properly followed, while the systemic issuance errors and fatal crashes caused by drivers who were improperly issued a license confirm the current regulatory framework has allowed for frequent points of failure—allowing ineligible persons to obtain non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs. This combination constitutes an imminent hazard that warrants immediate action to protect the traveling public.
Furthermore, providing advance notice through a proposed rule is impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would actively subvert the rule's purpose by creating a foreseeable and concentrated surge in applications that would exacerbate the current safety crisis. A non-domiciled CDL is a high-value economic credential, and historical precedent shows that announcing a closing window for such an opportunity invariably triggers a rush of applicants. For example, when the compliance date for FMCSA's entry-level driver training requirements was approaching, SDLAs saw a large spike in CLP and CDL issuances immediately before applicants would have been subject to the new training requirements. The compliance date for the requirements was February 7, 2022. Data from the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS)
The incentive and willingness to seek a CDL during a pendency period between a proposed rule and its potential finalization is amplified by the unique nature of the non-domiciled foreign applicant pool. Unlike U.S. citizens, non-citizen nationals residing in a U.S. territory, or lawful permanent residents who must apply for a CDL or CLP in their State of domicile, non-domiciled CDL or CLP applicants are not bound by such requirements. They are uniquely mobile and can strategically apply in any State that issues non-domiciled CDLs or CLPs.
The public notice itself would effectively serve as a guide for this forum shopping. The justification for the rulemaking would identify States with systemic weaknesses and high error rates, inadvertently advertising the path of least resistance. This is likely to funnel a national, and even international, pool of applicants toward the very State agencies least equipped to handle them, overwhelming their capacity for due diligence. Knowing that their window of opportunity was closing, those seeking to obtain a CDL improperly would rush to secure a license before the final rule takes effect. This would dramatically exacerbate the very danger the rulemaking is designed to eliminate, flooding the Nation's roadways with a new cohort of ineligible drivers.
The harm from such a concentrated surge is not speculative—it is foreseeable. Based on FMCSA's own 2025 APRs, California was found to have an error rate in excess of 25 percent and issued approximately 3,820 non-domiciled CDLs and CLPs in June 2025 alone. FMCSA expects a notice-and-comment period would result in this State being inundated with applicants, and extrapolating from the 2025 APR finding in June, could lead to the issuance of potentially over 1,000 improperly issued credentials every month. Even if fewer drivers than expected seek to secure licenses before the regulatory changes take effect, the current processes in noncompliant States indicate that as many as one in four drivers who would normally apply during that timeframe could be issued non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs improperly. Dangerous drivers who would be eligible to obtain a non-domiciled CLP or CDL under the current framework but are at risk of causing fatal crashes such as those involved in the fatal crashes cited above in West Virginia, Alabama, Delaware, and Florida would equally be incentivized to obtain a non-domiciled CLP or CDL before the enhanced standards became effective, resulting in a higher number of dangerous drivers on America's roadways and threatening public safety.
Therefore, advance notice would create a perverse incentive, turning the period between the publication of the notice and the publication of the final rule into a window of heightened danger and making the standard rulemaking process unworkable and self-defeating. For the same reasons described above, FMCSA finds good cause to make the rule effective on publication, rather than making it effective at least 30 days after publication. States that choose to issue non-domiciled CDLs and CLPs will be required to pause issuance of those CDLs and CLPs until they can ensure compliance with the updated regulations.
Though this IFR is effective immediately, FMCSA invites comments from interested members of the public. These comments must be submitted on or before November 28, 2025. FMCSA will consider these comments and determine whether to make any revisions to the rule as a result of these comments.
The current regulations focus on an individual's possession of a valid USCIS-issued EAD or an unexpired foreign passport accompanied by evidence that the individual was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States. As some of the recent incidents highlighted in Section V demonstrate, this allows individuals without lawful immigration status, including those who entered the United States illegally, to receive non-domiciled CLPs or CDLs as long as they obtain an EAD. This IFR revises the regulations to focus on lawful immigration status in the United States in certain employment-based nonimmigrant categories. An EAD will no longer be sufficient to obtain a non-domiciled CLP or CDL. An EAD only serves as proof that an individual is authorized to work in the United States for a specific time period, not that the individual entered the United States legally by presenting themselves at a port of entry.
Only those in lawful status in the United States in one of the following employment-based nonimmigrant categories will be permitted to obtain a non-domiciled CLP or CDL: H-2A (Temporary Agricultural Workers), H-2B (Temporary Non-Agricultural Workers), or E-2 (Treaty Investors). No other immigration categories will be eligible for a non-domiciled CLP or CDL under the IFR. These nonimmigrant categories require either a labor certification through the Department of Labor (DOL), current employment, or other specified proof of work established through the Federal visa process.
Individuals in approved employment-based nonimmigrant categories will be required to provide an unexpired Form I-94/94A and unexpired foreign passport at every issuance, transfer, renewal, and upgrade action defined in the regulation. Applicants who are U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, or non-citizen nationals domiciled in a U.S. territory will be required to provide any of the documents specified in Table 1 of § 383.71 as proof that they are eligible to receive a non-domiciled CLP or CDL. The expiration date for any non-domiciled CLP or CDL will be the expiration of the alien's period of admission documented on the Form I-94/94A or 1 year, whichever is sooner. This ensures that the SDLA will verify U.S. citizens and non-citizen nationals domiciled in a U.S. territory will be issued a non-domiciled CLP or CDL with an expiration date one year from the date of issuance to ensure consistency in the licensing process, which will reduce confusion for SDLAs issuing these non-domiciled credentials.
Once an applicant has presented the proper documentation, SDLAs will be required to utilize SAVE,
SDLAs will be prohibited from renewing non-domiciled CLPs or CDLs by mail and must require the applicant to be present in-person at each renewal. The rule also contains a mandatory downgrade provision. If a State receives notification from FMCSA, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, or other Federal agency with jurisdiction that a non-domiciled CLP or CDL holder licensed in that State no longer holds lawful nonimmigrant status in a category established in this rule, or if the non-domiciled CLP or CDL holder violates any terms of their immigration status, the SDLA will be required to initiate a process to remove the commercial privilege from the license within 30 days. Each time an SDLA renews, transfers upgrades, amends, corrects, reprints, or otherwise duplicates a previously issued CLP or CDL, the SDLA (in addition to confirming that the applicant's foreign passport is unexpired) must verify through SAVE that the applicant's I-94/94A “admit until date” has not expired and that the applicant's immigration category as noted on the I-94/94A or as confirmed by SAVE, remains listed as H-2A (Temporary Agricultural Workers), H-2B (Temporary Non-Agricultural Workers), or E-2 (Treaty Investors).
Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries where they operate, unless an international agreement states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences between nations in which they operate.
This rule will not impact drivers domiciled in Canada or Mexico. FMCSA has previously determined that CDLs issued by Canadian Provinces and Territories in conformity with the Canadian National Safety Code and “Licencias Federales de Conductor” issued by the United Mexican States are in accordance with the standards of part 383. Under these reciprocity determinations, drivers that live in Canada and Mexico would operate in the United States with the license issued by their country of domicile. Therefore, under the single license provision of § 383.21, a driver holding a CDL issued under the Canadian National Safety Code or a “Licencia Federal de Conductor” issued by Mexico is prohibited from obtaining a non-domiciled CDL, or any other type of driver's license, from a State or other jurisdiction in the United States.
This section-by-section analysis describes the changes to the regulatory text in numerical order.
FMCSA adds a definition of
FMCSA revises paragraph (f) of § 383.71.
FMCSA amends § 383.73 by revising paragraphs (a)(6), (b)(6), (c)(7), (d)(7), and (e)(5); revising the introductory text of paragraph (f)(2); adding a new paragraph (f)(2)(iv), revising paragraph (f)(3), adding new paragraphs (f)(5) and (6), and revising paragraph (m).
FMCSA adds new paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to § 384.212.
FMCSA adds new paragraphs (q) to § 384.301.
This IFR amends a regulation that has associated guidance statements. Such guidance statements do not have the force and effect of law, are strictly advisory, and are not meant to bind the public in any way. Conformity with guidance statements is voluntary. Guidance is intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or FMCSA policies. A guidance statement does not alter the substance of a regulation.
FMCSA rescinds the following guidance:
This guidance document, which refers to individuals present under the DACA immigration policy as a citizen of Mexico, is rescinded. It is no longer applicable under the new requirements to provide evidence of legal status.
This guidance document, which refers to foreign drivers with employment authorization documents, is rescinded. Foreign drivers must meet the new requirements in this rule to obtain non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs and the rest of the guidance is unnecessary as it is simply a restatement of what is already explained in footnote 1 to § 383.23.
In addition, some SDLAs were operating under informal guidance previously issued by FMCSA that permitted States to refer to their non-domiciled credentials under different nomenclature. FMCSA notes that during the 2025 APRs, SDLA use of these disparate terms generated confusion for some SDLAs because it made it difficult to determine whether the State did in fact issue non-domiciled credentials in the first place. This IFR supersedes any past guidance on this issue and clarifies that §§ 383.73(f)(2)(ii) and 383.153(c) require that the word “non-domiciled” appear across a CLP or CDL and must “be conspicuously and unmistakably displayed” on the face of the CLP or CDL when a State issues a non-domiciled CLP or CDL. States may not use other nomenclature (such as “limited term” or “temporary”) as a substitute for “non-domiciled,” use restriction codes that require the examination of fine print on the back of the license as a substitute for “non-domiciled” on the face of the credential, or use any other alternatives to conspicuously and unmistakably displaying “non-domiciled” on the face of the CDL or CLP.
OMB has determined that this rulemaking is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, because of the substantial Congressional and public interest concerning issuance of non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs. The rulemaking is also significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
This IFR amends the Federal regulations for SDLAs issuing commercial driving credentials to foreign-domiciled individuals. Through this rulemaking, FMCSA restores the integrity of the CDL issuance processes by significantly limiting the authority for SDLAs to issue and renew non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs to individuals domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction.
The analysis below discusses the affected entities, the need for the regulation, and the costs, benefits, and transfers that may result from this IFR.
FMCSA computes its estimates of labor costs using data gathered from several sources. Labor costs are comprised of wages, fringe benefits, and overhead. Fringe benefits include paid leave, bonuses and overtime pay, health and other types of insurance, retirement plans, and legally required benefits (Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and workers compensation insurance). Overhead includes any expenses to a firm associated with labor that are not part of employees' compensation; this typically includes many types of fixed costs of managing a body of employees, such as management and human resource staff salaries or payroll services. The economic costs of labor to a firm should include the costs of all forms of compensation and labor related expenses.
FMCSA used the driver wage rate to represent the value of the drivers' time that, in the absence of the rule, would have been spent being gainfully employed and performing duties as a CMV driver. The source for driver wages is the median hourly wage data (May 2024) from DOL, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Occupational Employment Statistics (OES).
FMCSA used the wage rate for employees in office and administrative support to represent the value of the SDLA employees' time that, in the absence of the rule, would have been spent performing other duties and responsibilities. The source for SDLA employees' wages is the median hourly wage data (May 2024) from the BLS' OES. To calculate the fringe benefits rate, this analysis uses an average hourly wage of $25.56 and average hourly benefits of $18.95 for State and local government workers in “office and administrative support” to estimate that fringe benefits are equal to 74.14 percent ($18.95 ÷ $25.56) of wages. FMCSA uses the Census Bureau's Service Annual Survey (SAS) Table 5 data to calculate overhead expenses and their ratio to gross annual payroll expenses for the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 484 (Truck Transportation) and NAICS 485 (Transit and Ground Passenger) industries.
FMCSA reviewed fees for CDL renewal across all 51 (50 States and the District of Columbia) jurisdictions and found that renewal fees range from $5 to $164.50. The average renewal fee is $55.28, and FMCSA uses an estimate of $55 to represent the renewal fee paid by non-domiciled CDL applicants.
FMCSA uses crash cost values to assess and estimate the safety benefits of various regulatory initiatives. FMCSA publishes its methodology for calculating crash costs for fatal, injury, and non-injury crashes on its website.
This IFR will impact the SDLAs in 46 States that currently issue non-domiciled CDLs (AL, MS, NH, TN, and WV do not issue non-domiciled CDLs).
This final rule will impact current and prospective non-domiciled CDL holders. Drivers will be required to provide additional documentation, and in some cases will no longer be eligible for a non-domiciled CDL. FMCSA gathered information on current CLP and CDL holders during the APRs discussed earlier in the preamble, and estimates that there are approximately
This IFR will impact motor carriers that currently, or intend to, employ non-domiciled CDL holders that are no longer eligible to receive a credential. Motor carriers that currently employ non-domiciled CDL holders will have some time to adjust to the change as the drivers will be aware if their license will not be renewed under the standards set forth in this IFR. By providing this time for adjustment, FMCSA anticipates that impacts to motor carriers will be mitigated.
As discussed at length in the preamble, the confluence of recent events creates an imminent concern that the current regulatory framework does not provide a sufficient margin of safety to protect the traveling public. The fatal crashes identified above demonstrate that the regulations fail even when properly followed, while the systemic issuance errors confirm the current regulatory framework has allowed for frequent points of failure—enabling ineligible persons to obtain non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs. This combination constitutes an imminent hazard that warrants immediate action to protect the traveling public.
This IFR will require States and their SDLAs to verify additional documentation, utilize SAVE, and retain copies of the verified documents in their records. FMCSA anticipates that States will issue fewer non-domiciled CDLs, but that each credential will require additional time to verify and retain documents. Currently, States are not required to pay transactions fees to query SAVE and FMCSA does not estimate a fee impact for that transaction. Lastly, States that choose to issue non-domiciled CDLs and CLPs will be required to pause issuance of those CDLs and CLPs until they can ensure compliance with the updated regulations. FMCSA anticipates that States will incur costs in the process of realigning their non-domiciled CDL program issuance with the standards set forth in this IFR.
FMCSA estimates that verifying and retaining additional documentation and running a SAVE query will require approximately 15 minutes of time per query for SDLA personnel. FMCSA estimates that the total cost, across all impacted SDLAs, will total approximately $93,075 per year (6,000 applicants × $62.05 wage rate × 15 minutes).
SDLAs that choose to issue non-domiciled CDLs will be required to pause issuance of the credential until their program is aligned to the standards set forth in this IFR. Each SDLA has developed a process that is unique to their State, and as such, will incur different costs to adjust their program. Some program adjustments could include reprograming the IT system to interpret SAVE results in alignment with the new standards, changing the credential that is issued to ensure that “non-domiciled” is conspicuously and unmistakably displayed on the face of the CLP or CDL, and ensuring that SDLA employees are properly issuing non-domiciled CDLs and retaining appropriate records. FMCSA is unable to estimate a specific cost for each SDLA due to the variance in current non-domiciled CDL issuance (
This IFR will also result in costs to non-domiciled CDL drivers as they will now be required to renew their license in person every year, which increases the amount of time needed to renew the license. Previously, some drivers were likely able to renew online or via mail and had expiry dates beyond a one-year timeframe. FMCSA assumes that non-domiciled CDL holders previously had a two-year expiry date and spent approximately one hour (or 30 minutes a year) renewing their license. FMCSA estimates they will now spend four hours, or 3.5 additional hours renewing their license each year. FMCSA estimates the annual in person visit will take an additional 3.5 hours of a driver's time, resulting in total annual costs of
FMCSA anticipates that drivers who will no longer be eligible for a non-domiciled CDL will be able to find similar employment in other sectors (
Regarding potential economic impacts within the freight market, FMCSA looked at data during and after the COVID-19 pandemic to understand how the market could react to a reduction in CDL holders and found that the freight market tends to be flexible and responsive to external factors. During the COVID-19 pandemic the industry saw a historic increase in spot market rates, followed by a record influx of motor carriers and drivers entering the market to meet the increased demand.
In addition, drivers who previously paid the renewal fee every two years will now pay that fee annually. As discussed above, the average renewal fee is $55, and will now be paid annually instead of biannually, which results in an increase of $27.50 per year. FMCSA anticipates that drivers will incur additional fees of approximately $165,000 per year (6,000 drivers × $27.50). Fees are considered transfer payments, or monetary payments from one group to another that do not affect the total resources available to society, and therefore do not represent actual costs or benefits of the rule.
As shown in the table below, FMCSA estimates that the total 10-year cost of the rulemaking (excluding transfers) is approximately $10.9 million discounted at three percent and $9.4 million discounted at seven percent. Total annualized impacts range from $1.6 million discounted at three percent to $1.3 million discounted at seven percent.
FMCSA anticipates that restoring the integrity of non-domiciled CDL license issuance will enhance the safety of CMV operations and is likely to result in improved safety outcomes, such as the reduced frequency and/or severity of crashes or reduced frequency of violations. There is not sufficient evidence, derived from well-designed, rigorous, quantitative analyses, to reliably demonstrate a measurable empirical relationship between the nation of domicile for a CDL driver and safety outcomes in the United States such as changes in frequency and/or severity of crashes or changes in frequency of violations. FMCSA conducted a literature review and found a few articles focused on the safety performance impacts of undocumented immigrants or illegal aliens, but has not obtained information on how many such drivers have sought to obtain a non-domiciled CDL in the United States.
Given insufficient evidence, a direct quantitative estimate of the potential safety benefits resulting from this IFR cannot be developed.
When it is not possible to quantify and monetize the estimated benefits (or all costs) of a rule, OMB Circular A-4 suggests that agencies perform a threshold or break-even analysis.
E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, issued on January 31, 2025 (90 FR 9065, Jan. 31, 2025), requires that, for every one new regulation issued by an Agency, at least 10 prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process. Final implementation guidance addressing the requirements of E.O. 14192 was issued by OMB on March 26, 2025. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” or “regulation” as defined in section 5 of E.O. 14192, because it is issued with respect to an immigration-related function of the United States per section 5(a) of E.O. 14192.
This rule is not a
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g), FMCSA is required to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or proceed with a negotiated rulemaking if a safety rulemaking “under this part”
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
Nonetheless, FMCSA conducted a screening analysis on the impact of the IFR on small entities. This rule has the potential to impact States and drivers. Under the standards of the RFA, as amended, States are not small entities because they do not meet the definition of a
CDL holders are not considered small entities because they do not meet the definition of a small entity in Section 601 of the RFA. Specifically, drivers are considered neither a small business under Section 601(3) of the RFA, nor are they considered a small organization under Section 601(4) of the RFA. Therefore, this rule would not impact a substantial number of small entities.
This rule would require that States verify and retain additional documentation on non-domiciled CLP and CDL applicants and complete a check with SAVE. FMCSA estimates costs to all impacted States of approximately $93,000 per year. Further drivers would be required to renew their license annually, in-person at the SDLA at an estimated impact of approximately $988,000 per year, or less than $120 per driver per year. For these reasons, FMCSA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this final rule so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the IFR will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the person listed under
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman (Office of the National Ombudsman, see
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. 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 $206 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995,
This IFR contains information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c),
This collection is intended to ensure that States retain all documents involved in the licensing process for non-domiciled CLP and CDL holders for a period of no less than two years from the date of issuing (which includes amending, correcting, reprinting, or otherwise duplicating a previously issued CLP or CDL), transferring, renewing, or upgrading a non-domiciled CLP or CDL. If States do not retain this documentation, FMCSA is severely hindered in its efforts to ensure compliance with the regulatory requirements because States are unable to accurately determine the number of non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs they have issued, or to prove to FMCSA officials that such CLPs and CDLs were properly issued.
In accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), FMCSA will submit the proposed information collection amendments to OIRA at OMB for approval.
FMCSA requests comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for FMCSA to perform its functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information.
FMCSA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and criteria of E.O. 13132, Federalism, and has determined that it does not have federalism implications. E.O. 13132 applies to “policies that have federalism implications,” defined as regulations and other actions that 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” (Sec. 1(a)). The key concept here is “substantial direct effects on the States.” Section 3(b) of the E.O. provides that “[n]ational action limiting the policymaking discretion of the States shall be taken only where there is constitutional and statutory authority for the action and the national activity is appropriate in light of the presence of a problem of national significance.”
The rule amends a single aspect of the CDL program authorized by the CMVSA (49 U.S.C. chapter 313). States have been required to issue all CDLs in accordance with Federal standards for decades and have been required to issue all CLPs in accordance with Federal standards since 2011. Moreover, the CDL program does not have preemptive effect; it is voluntary, and States may withdraw at any time, though doing so will result in the loss of certain Federal-aid highway funds pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31314. Because this IFR makes only a modest change to requirements already imposed on participating States, FMCSA has determined that it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal and State governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Nonetheless, FMCSA recognizes that this rule has an impact on the States and their commercial driver licensing operations. Most notably, it requires all States that issue non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs to amend their existing procedures. The Agency continually works with the States to identify CDL program deficiencies that need to be addressed, and it was mostly through these reviews that systemic deficiencies with the non-domiciled CLP and CDL issuance process were identified. Therefore, States that issue non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs are generally already on notice that this aspect of the CDL program is under scrutiny and that procedural changes may be necessary.
Section 6(b) of E.O. 13132 provides in part that “[t]o the extent practicable and permitted by law, no agency shall promulgate any regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments, and that is not required by statute, unless . . . the agency, prior to the formal promulgation of the regulation, (A) consulted with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.” As described in Section IX.A of the Regulatory Analysis, above, the total cost to States of complying with these new regulations is not expected to be substantial, so the
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005,
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.
The E-Government Act of 2002,
FMCSA will complete a Privacy Threshold Assessment (PTA) to evaluate the risks and effects the proposed rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable information. The PTA will be submitted to FMCSA's Privacy Officer for review and preliminary adjudication and to DOT's Privacy Officer for review and final adjudication.
This rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 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.
FMCSA analyzed this IFR pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Highway safety, Motor carriers.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Highway safety, Motor carriers.
Accordingly, FMCSA amends 49 CFR parts 383 and 384 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 521, 31136, 31301
(1) For applicants domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction (except Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands):
(i) An unexpired foreign passport; and
(ii) An unexpired Form I-94/94A issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security indicating one of the following classifications: H-2A—Temporary Agricultural Workers, H-2B—Temporary Non-Agricultural Workers, or E-2—Treaty Investors.
(2) For applicants domiciled in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: any of the documents specified in Table 1 of section 383.71.
(f)
(i) If the applicant is domiciled in a
(ii) If the applicant is domiciled in a State that is prohibited from issuing CLPs and CDLs in accordance with § 384.405 of this subchapter. That person is eligible to obtain a non-domiciled CLP or CDL from any State that elects to issue a non-domiciled CLP or CDL and that complies with the testing and licensing standards contained in subparts F, G, and H of this part.
(2) An applicant for a non-domiciled CLP and CDL must do both of the following:
(i) Complete the requirements to obtain a CLP contained in paragraph (a) of this section or a CDL contained in paragraph (b) of this section, except as provided in paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
(ii) After receipt of the non-domiciled CLP or CDL, and for as long as it is valid, notify the State which issued the non-domiciled CLP or CDL of any adverse action taken by any jurisdiction or governmental agency, foreign or domestic, against his/her driving privileges. Such adverse actions include, but are not limited to, license disqualification or disqualification from operating a commercial motor vehicle for the convictions described in § 383.51. Notifications must be made within the time periods specified in § 383.33.
(3) Eligibility for applicants domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction:
(i) To be eligible for a Non-domiciled CLP or CDL, an applicant domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction must:
(A) Have lawful immigration status in the United States, and
(B) Provide
(ii) No proof of domicile is required.
(iii) An applicant for a non-domiciled CLP or CDL is not required to surrender his/her foreign license.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(6) Require compliance with the standards for providing proof of citizenship or lawful permanent residency specified in § 383.71(a)(5) and proof of State of domicile specified in § 383.71(a)(6) for applicants domiciled in a State; and for applicants domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction, evidence of lawful immigration status as required by § 383.71(f)(3)(i)(B). Exception: A State is required to check the proof of citizenship or immigration status specified in this paragraph only for initial issuance, renewal or upgrade of a CLP or non-domiciled CLP (for applicants domiciled in a State) and for initial issuance, renewal, upgrade or transfer of a CDL or non-domiciled CDL (for applicants domiciled in a State) for the first time after July 8, 2011, provided a notation is made on the driver's record confirming that the proof of citizenship or immigration status check required by this paragraph has been made and noting the date it was done. This exception does not apply to applicants domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction.
(b) * * *
(6) Require compliance with the standards for providing proof of citizenship or lawful permanent residency specified in § 383.71(b)(9) and proof of State of domicile specified in § 383.71(b)(10) for applicants domiciled in a State; and for applicants domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction, evidence of lawful immigration status as required by § 383.71(f)(3)(i)(B). Exception: A State is required to check the proof of citizenship or immigration status specified in this paragraph only for initial issuance, renewal or upgrade of a CLP or non-domiciled CLP (for applicants domiciled in a State) and for initial issuance, renewal, upgrade or transfer of a CDL or non-domiciled CDL (for applicants domiciled in a State) for the first time after July 8, 2011, provided a notation is made on the driver's record confirming that the proof of citizenship or immigration status check required by this paragraph has been made and noting the date it was done. This exception does not apply to applicants domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction.
(c) * * *
(7) Require compliance with the standards for providing proof of citizenship or lawful permanent residency specified in § 383.71(b)(9) and proof of State of domicile specified in § 383.71(b)(10) for applicants domiciled in a State; and for applicants domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction, evidence of lawful immigration status as required by § 383.71(f)(3)(i)(B). Exception: A State is required to check the proof of citizenship or immigration status specified in this paragraph only for initial issuance, renewal or upgrade of a CLP or non-domiciled CLP (for applicants domiciled in a State) and for initial issuance, renewal, upgrade or transfer of a CDL or non-domiciled CDL (for applicants domiciled in a State) for the first time after July 8, 2011, provided a notation is made on the driver's record confirming that the proof of citizenship or immigration status check required by this paragraph has been made and noting the date it was done. This exception does not apply to applicants domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction.
(d) * * *
(7) Require compliance with the standards for providing proof of citizenship or lawful permanent residency specified in § 383.71(b)(9) and proof of State of domicile specified in § 383.71(b)(10) for applicants domiciled in a State; and for applicants domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction, evidence of lawful immigration status as required by § 383.71(f)(3)(i)(B). Exception: A State is required to check the proof of citizenship or immigration status specified in this paragraph only for initial issuance, renewal or upgrade of a CLP or non-domiciled CLP (for applicants domiciled in a State) and for initial issuance, renewal, upgrade or transfer of a CDL or non-domiciled CDL (for applicants domiciled in a State) for the first time after July 8, 2011, provided a notation is made on the driver's record confirming that the proof of citizenship or immigration status check required by this paragraph has been made and noting the date it was done. This exception does not apply to applicants domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction.
(e) * * *
(5) Require compliance with the standards for providing proof of citizenship or lawful permanent residency specified in § 383.71(b)(9) and proof of State of domicile specified in § 383.71(b)(10) for applicants domiciled in a State; and for applicants domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction, evidence of lawful immigration status as required by § 383.71(f)(3)(i)(B). Exception: A State is required to check the proof of citizenship or immigration status specified in this paragraph only for initial issuance, renewal or upgrade of a CLP or non-domiciled CLP (for applicants domiciled in a State) and for initial issuance, renewal, upgrade or transfer of a CDL or non-domiciled CDL (for applicants domiciled in a State) for the first time after July 8, 2011, provided a notation is made on the driver's record confirming that the proof of citizenship or immigration status check required by this paragraph has been made and noting the date it was done. This exception does not apply to applicants domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction.
(f) * * *
(2) State procedures for the issuance of a non-domiciled CLP and CDL, for any modifications thereto, and for notifications to the Commercial Driver's License Information System must at a minimum be identical to those pertaining to any other CLP or CDL, except as set forth in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (iv) and (f)(3) of this section.
(iv) For applicants domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction, the State must ensure that the period of validity of the non-domiciled CLP or CDL does not exceed the Admit Until Date or expiration date on the applicant's I-94/A or 1 year, whichever is sooner.
(3) Documentation of lawful immigration status. (i) Applicants domiciled in a State. The State must require compliance with the standards for providing evidence of lawful immigration status specified in § 383.71(b)(9) of this part.
(ii) Applicants domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction.
(A) Beginning September 29, 2025, the State must not issue (which includes amending, correcting, reprinting, or otherwise duplicating a previously issued CLP or CDL), transfer, renew, or upgrade a non-domiciled CLP or CDL unless, at the time of the transaction, the applicant provides
(B) States must comply with the document verification requirements for applicants domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction set forth in § 383.73(m)(2) before issuing (which includes amending, correcting, reprinting, or otherwise duplicating a previously issued CLP or CDL), transferring, renewing, or upgrading a non-domiciled CLP or CDL.
(C) States are prohibited from granting non-domiciled CLP or CDL privileges on a temporary or interim basis pending review and validation of an applicant's evidence of lawful immigration status.
(5) Downgrade. If after issuing (which includes amending, correcting, reprinting, or otherwise duplicating a previously issued CLP or CDL), transferring, renewing, or upgrading a non-domiciled CLP or CDL, the State receives information from FMCSA, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, or other Federal agency with jurisdiction that the applicant no longer has lawful immigration status in the United States in a category specified in paragraph (1)(iii) of the definition of
(6) Non-domiciled CDL renewal. States must require non-domiciled CLP or CDL renewal be conducted in-person only and must not permit renewal by mail or electronic means.
(m)
(1) Exception for applicants domiciled in a State. For offices with only one staff member, at least some of the documents must be processed or verified by a supervisor before issuance or, when a supervisor is not available, copies must be made of some of the documents involved in the licensing process and a supervisor must verify them within one business day of issuance of the CLP, non-domiciled CLP, CDL, or non-domiciled CDL.
(2) Document Verification for applicants domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction. States must verify evidence of lawful immigration status for applicants domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction before initial issuance and before any subsequent issuance (which includes amending, correcting, reprinting, or otherwise duplicating a previously issued CLP or CDL), transfer, renewal, or upgrade of a non-domiciled CLP or CDL.
(i) For offices with only one staff member, all documents must be processed or verified by a supervisor before issuing (which includes amending, correcting, reprinting, or otherwise duplicating a previously issued CLP or CDL), transferring, renewing, or upgrading a non-domiciled CLP or CDL.
(ii) In reviewing the evidence of lawful immigration status an applicant domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction (except an applicant domiciled in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands), the State must query the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system (administered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services). If the SAVE final response, including additional verification if needed, does not confirm the applicant's claim to be in lawful immigration status in a category specified in paragraph (1)(ii) of the definition of
(iii) The State must retain copies of all documents involved in the licensing process, including documents provided by the applicant to prove lawful immigration status and documents showing the results of any SAVE query to verify an applicant's lawful immigration status, and a supervisor must verify them within one business day of issuing (which includes amending, correcting, reprinting, or otherwise duplicating a previously issued CLP or CDL), transferring, renewing, or upgrading a non-domiciled CLP or CDL. The State must retain the documents for no less than 2 years from the date of issuing (which includes amending, correcting, reprinting, or otherwise duplicating a previously issued CLP or CDL), transferring, renewing, or upgrading a non-domiciled CLP or CDL.
49 U.S.C. 31136, 31301,
(a) * * *
(1) For applicants domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction, the State must:
(i) Comply with the document verification requirements set forth in § 383.73(m)(2) before issuing (which includes amending, correcting, reprinting, or otherwise duplicating a previously issued CLP or CDL), transferring, renewing, or upgrading a non-domiciled CLP or CDL;
(ii) Retain copies of all documents involved in the licensing process, including documents provided by the applicant to prove lawful immigration status, for a period of no less than 2 years from the date of issuing (which includes amending, correcting, reprinting, or otherwise duplicating a previously issued CLP or CDL), transferring, renewing, or upgrading a non-domiciled CLP or CDL; and
(iii) Provide copies of all documents involved in the licensing process to FMCSA within 48 hours after request.
(2) [Reserved]
(q) A State must come into substantial compliance with the requirements of subpart B of this part and part 383 of this chapter related to non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs, effective September 29, 2025, prior to issuing (which includes amending, correcting, reprinting, or otherwise duplicating a previously issued CLP or CDL), transferring, renewing, or upgrading a non-domiciled CLP or CDL.
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; re-opening.
NMFS announces the re-opening of commercial harvest of Spanish mackerel in the northern zone of the Atlantic exclusive economic zone (EEZ). NMFS recently approved a second transfer of commercial quota from the southern zone to the northern zone for the 2025-2026 fishing year. Therefore, NMFS re-opens the commercial harvest of Spanish mackerel in the northern zone for an additional 8 days. The purpose of this temporary rule is to allow commercial fishermen to harvest the increased commercial quota of Spanish mackerel in the northern zone while managing the risk of exceeding the commercial quota.
This temporary rule is effective from September 29, 2025, through October 6, 2025.
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish in the Atlantic includes king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia on the east coast of Florida, and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf and Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by NMFS and the Gulf and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, was approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). All weights described in this document for Spanish mackerel in the Atlantic EEZ apply as either round or gutted weight. The metric conversion for the imperial measurements used in this document is 1 pound (lb) equals approximately 0.45 kilograms.
Atlantic Spanish mackerel are divided into northern and southern zones for management purposes. The northern zone for Spanish mackerel extends in the Atlantic EEZ from New York through North Carolina. The northern boundary of the northern zone extends from an intersection point off New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island at 41°18′16.249″ N latitude and 71°54′28.477″ W longitude, and proceeds southeast to 37°22′32.75″ N latitude and the intersection point with the outward boundary of the EEZ. The southern boundary of the northern zone extends from the North Carolina and South Carolina state border along a line in a direction of 135°34′55″ from true north beginning at 33°51′07.9″ N latitude and 78°32′32.6″ W longitude to the intersection point with the outward boundary of the EEZ [50 CFR 622.369(b)(2)]. See figure 2 of appendix G to part 622—Spanish Mackerel for an illustration of the management zones.
The commercial annual catch limit (ACL; equal to the commercial quota) for the Atlantic migratory group of Spanish mackerel (Atlantic Spanish mackerel) is 3.33 million lb [50 CFR 622.384(c)(2)]. The commercial quota for Atlantic Spanish mackerel in the northern zone is 662,670 lb and is 2,667,330 lb in the southern zone for the 2025-2026 fishing year, which is March 1, 2025, through February 28, 2026 [50 CFR 622.384(c)(2)(i) and (ii)].
Regulations at 50 CFR 622.384(c)(2)(iii) allow for quota transfers between the northern and southern zones with the approval from the Regional Administrator (RA) of the NMFS Southeast Region. North Carolina or Florida, in consultation with the other states in the respective zones, may request approval from the RA to transfer part or all of a respective zone's annual commercial quota to the other zone. For the purposes of quota closures as described in 50 CFR 622.8, the receiving zone's quota will be the original quota plus any transferred amount for that fishing year only. Landings associated with any transferred quota will be included in the total landings for Atlantic Spanish mackerel, which will be evaluated relative to its total ACL.
NMFS approved and transferred 250,000 lb of Atlantic Spanish mackerel commercial quota from the southern zone to the northern zone in response to a request from the State of Florida in July 2025. Following the transfer, and because NMFS projected that landings of Atlantic Spanish mackerel from the northern zone reached the revised commercial quota, NMFS implemented a commercial closure in the northern
In a letter to NMFS dated September 18, 2025, the State of Florida requested the transfer of an additional 75,000 lb of Atlantic Spanish mackerel commercial quota from the southern zone to the northern zone to allow the commercial quota for both zones in this fishing year to be fully harvested. NMFS approved the transfer of commercial quota, and along with the July 2025 transfer of 250,000 lb from the southern zone to the northern zone, the revised northern zone commercial quota for Atlantic Spanish mackerel is 987,670 lb and the revised southern zone commercial quota is 2,342,330 lb for the 2025-2026 fishing year. Pursuant to 50 CFR 622.8(c), NMFS is reopening commercial harvest in the northern zone.
Regulations at 50 CFR 622.388(d)(1)(i) require NMFS to close the commercial sector for Atlantic Spanish mackerel in the northern zone when landings reach or are projected to reach the commercial quota for that zone. NMFS projects that landings of Atlantic Spanish mackerel from the northern zone will reach the revised commercial quota of 987,670 lb with another 8 days of commercial landings. After those 8 days, the commercial sector for Atlantic Spanish mackerel in the northern zone is closed from October 7, 2025 through February 28, 2026, the end of the current fishing year.
During the commercial closure, a person on a vessel that has been issued a valid Federal commercial permit to harvest Atlantic Spanish mackerel may continue to retain this species in the northern zone under the recreational bag and possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.382(a)(1)(iii) and (2)(i), if recreational harvest of Atlantic Spanish mackerel in the northern zone has not been closed [50 CFR 622.384(e)(1)].
Also during the commercial closure, Atlantic Spanish mackerel from the northern zone, including those fish harvested under the recreational bag and possession limits, may not be purchased or sold. This prohibition does not apply to Atlantic Spanish mackerel from the northern zone that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to the closure and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor [50 CFR 622.384(e)(2)].
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.8(c), issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment is unnecessary. Such procedure is unnecessary, because the regulations associated with the commercial quota for Atlantic Spanish mackerel in the northern zone and a re-opening to provide an opportunity for the harvest of the revised commercial quota have already been subject to notice and public comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the commercial sector re-opening.
For the same reason just stated, there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the State of New Jersey is transferring a portion of their 2025 commercial bluefish quota to the State of North Carolina. This quota adjustment is necessary to comply with the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) quota transfer provisions. This announcement informs the public of the revised 2025 commercial bluefish quotas for New Jersey and North Carolina.
Effective September 26, 2025 through December 31, 2025.
Matthew Rigdon, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9336.
Regulations governing the Atlantic bluefish fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.160 through 648.167. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through Florida. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.162, and the final 2025 allocations were published on December 10, 2024 (89 FR 99138).
The final rule implementing amendment 1 to the FMP, as published in the
New Jersey is transferring 200,000 pounds (lb) (90,718 kilograms (kg)) to North Carolina through mutual agreement of the states. This transfer was requested to ensure North Carolina would not exceed its 2025 state quota. The revised bluefish quotas for 2025 are: New Jersey, 232,630 lb (105,519 kg) and North Carolina, 1,272,012 lb (576,975 kg).
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 648.162(e)(1)(i) through (iii), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is transferring a portion of its 2025 commercial summer flounder quota to the State of Rhode Island. This adjustment to the 2025 fishing year quota is necessary to comply with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) quota transfer provisions. This announcement informs the public of the revised 2025 commercial quotas for Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Effective September 26, 2025, through December 31, 2025.
Matthew Rigdon, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9336
Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.111. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.102, and the final 2025 allocations were published on December 10, 2024 (89 FR 99138).
The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the FMP, as published in the
Massachusetts is transferring 609 pounds (lb; 276 kilograms (kg)) of summer flounder to Rhode Island through a mutual agreement between the states. This transfer was requested to repay landings made by an out-of-state permitted vessel under a safe harbor agreement. The revised summer flounder quotas for 2025 are: Massachusetts, 594,240 lb (269,543 kg); and Rhode Island, 1,379,116 lb (625,556 kg).
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 648.102(c)(2)(i) through (iv), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; in-season adjustment.
NMFS adjusts the 2025 Winter II commercial scup quota and per-trip Federal landing limit. This action is necessary to comply with regulations implementing Framework Adjustment 3 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan that established the rollover of unused commercial scup quota from the Winter I to the Winter II period. This notification informs the public of the quota and trip limit changes.
Effective October 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025.
Matthew Rigdon, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9336; or
NMFS published a final rule for Framework Adjustment 3 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan in the
For 2025, the initial Winter II quota is 3,114,608 pounds (lb; 1,412,762 kilograms (kg)). The best available landings information through July 10, 2025, indicates that 1,047,723 lb (475,239 kg) remain of the 8,814,300 lb (3,998,099 kg) Winter I quota. Consistent with Framework 3, the full amount of unused 2025 Winter I quota is being transferred to Winter II, resulting in a revised 2025 Winter II quota of 4,162,331 lb (1,888,02 kg). Because the amount transferred is between 1 and 1.5 million lb (453,592 and 680,338 kg), the Federal per-trip possession limit will increase from 12,000 lb (5,443 kg) to 15,000 lb (6,804 kg), as outlined in the final rule that established the possession limit and quota rollover procedures for this year, published on December 10, 2024 (89 FR 99138). The new possession limit will be effective October 1 through December 31, 2025. The Winter II possession limit will revert to 12,000 lb (5,443 kg) at the start of the next fishing year, which begins January 1, 2026.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 648.122(d), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting retention of Pacific Ocean perch in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary because the 2025 total allowable catch of Pacific Ocean perch in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA has been or will be reached.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), September 26, 2025, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2025.
Adam Zaleski, 907-206-5802.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the GOA (FMP) prepared and recommended by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2025 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific Ocean perch in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 1,753 metric tons as established by the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (90 FR 12468, March 18, 2025).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Regional Administrator has determined that the 2025 TAC of Pacific Ocean perch has been or will be reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that Pacific ocean perch for vessels in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA be treated as prohibited species in accordance with § 679.21(a)(2) for the remainder of the year, except for Pacific ocean perch in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA caught by catcher vessels using hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear as described in § 679.20(j), or catcher vessels using trawl gear participating in the electronic monitoring program as described in § 679.21(a)(2).
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay prohibiting the retention of Pacific Ocean perch. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data on Pacific Ocean perch catch only became available as of September 22, 2025.
There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action. This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting retention of “other rockfish” in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary because the 2025 “other rockfish” total allowable catch (TAC) in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI will soon be or has been reached.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), September 26, 2025, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2025.
Andrew Olson, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
The 2025 “other rockfish” TAC in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI is 415 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (90 FR 12640, March 18, 2025). In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the 2025 “other rockfish” TAC in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI will soon be or has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is prohibiting retention of “other rockfish” in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI and requiring that “other rockfish” in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI be treated in the same manner as a prohibited species, as described under § 679.21(a), for the remainder of the year, except “other rockfish” species in the Aleutian Islands subarea caught by catcher vessels using hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear as described in § 679.20(j). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2025 “other rockfish” TAC in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay prohibiting retention of “other rockfish” in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data on the total catch of “other rockfish” in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI only became available as of September 25, 2025.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
16 U.S.C. 1801
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice of tribal consultation meeting.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announces that it is holding a tribal consultation meeting in Mashantucket, Connecticut requesting comments and input on all issues or concerns relating to any of SBA's programs. Specifically, SBA seeks comments on how SBA best can provide access for tribally owned small businesses to initiatives under its Office of Manufacturing and Trade, with a particular focus on SBA's ongoing onshoring, manufacturing and export initiatives in an effort to encourage small businesses going global. SBA is requesting general comments and input on how these programs are working and is inviting suggestions on potential avenues for improving their efficiency or reducing any unnecessary regulatory burden associated with the programs.
The Tribal Consultation meeting date is Monday, October 27, 2025, 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EDT), Mashantucket, Connecticut. The Tribal Consultation meeting pre-registration deadline date is October 22, 2025.
1. The Tribal Consultation meeting will be held at the Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center, 110 Pequot Trail, Mashantucket, CT 06338.
2. Send pre-registration requests to attend and/or testify to Diane Cullo, Assistant Administrator of SBA's Office of Native American Affairs, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Washington, DC 20416;
3. Remote participation registration is permitted with pre-registration. To attend the meeting remotely, the public can register here:
4. You may submit written comments to SBA by sending them to Diane Cullo, Assistant Administrator, Office of Native American Affairs, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Washington, DC 20416; or
If you wish to submit confidential business information (CBI), please submit the information to Diane Cullo, Assistant Administrator, Office of Native American Affairs, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Washington, DC 20416 and highlight the information that you consider to be CBI and explain why you believe this information should be held confidential. SBA will review the information and make a final determination of whether the information will be published or not.
Diane Cullo, Assistant Administrator, Office of Native American Affairs, at
SBA is requesting comments and input on all programs and services of the Office of Manufacturing and Trade for tribal entities. The Office of Manufacturing and Trade's mission is to enhance the ability of small businesses to compete in the global marketplace.
As SBA's office for the support of small business international trade development, the Office of Manufacturing and Trade works in cooperation with other federal agencies and public- and private-sector groups to encourage small business exports and to assist small businesses seeking to export. Through U.S. Export Assistance Centers, SBA district offices and a variety of service-provider partners, we direct and coordinate SBA's ongoing onshoring and export initiatives to encourage small businesses going global. Comments are encouraged regarding exporting, trade tools for international sales, export loans, and the State Trade Expansion Program (STEP) grant. SBA also requests comments on its Made in America Manufacturing Initiative including the recently announced 7(a) Manufacturer's Access to Revolving Credit (MARC) loan program.
SBA is requesting general comments and input on how the Administration's programs and services are working and is inviting comments and suggestions on potential avenues for continuing to make all loan programs and services more effective and efficient while continuing to reduce regulatory burden on customers and participants.
President Trump recognizes that increasing domestic manufacturing is critical to U.S. national security.
• In 2023, U.S. manufacturing output as a share of global manufacturing output was 17.4%, down from 28.4% in 2001.
• The decline in manufacturing output has reduced U.S. manufacturing capacity.
○ The need to maintain a resilient domestic manufacturing capacity is particularly acute in advanced sectors like autos, shipbuilding, pharmaceuticals, transport equipment, technology products, machine tools, and basic and fabricated metals, where loss of capacity could permanently weaken U.S. competitiveness.
• U.S. stockpiles of military goods are too low to be compatible with U.S. national defense interests.
○ If the U.S. wishes to maintain an effective security umbrella to defend its citizens and homeland, as well as allies and partners, it needs to have a large upstream manufacturing and goods-producing ecosystem.
○ This includes developing new manufacturing technologies in critical sectors like bio-manufacturing, batteries, and microelectronics to support defense needs.
• Increased reliance on foreign producers for goods has left the U.S. supply chain vulnerable to geopolitical disruption and supply shocks.
○ This vulnerability was exposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and later with Houthi attacks on Middle East shipping.
• From 1997 to 2024, the U.S. lost around 5 million manufacturing jobs and experienced one of the largest drops in manufacturing employment in history.
SBA seeks input on how best to include small business in implementing
SBA is also seeking input from the Native American community on the general management and operation of its economic development and access to capital programs as part of the Administration's desire to make these programs more effective and improve the delivery of them to the small business community. Accordingly, SBA is interested in receiving comments from representatives of tribes, ANCs and NHOs offering their perspective on how these programs are working generally and providing suggestions for how the programs could be made more efficient to better suit the needs of small businesses owned by these entities.
The format of this tribal consultation meeting will consist of a panel of SBA representatives who will preside over the session. The oral and written testimony as well as any comments SBA receives will become part of the administrative record for SBA's consideration. Written testimony may be submitted in lieu of oral testimony. SBA will analyze the testimony, both oral and written, along with any written comments received. SBA officials may ask questions of a presenter to clarify or further explain the testimony. The purpose of the tribal consultation is to assist SBA with gathering information to guide SBA's review process and to potentially develop new proposals. SBA will accept written material that the presenter wishes to provide that further supplements his or her testimony. Electronic or digitized copies are encouraged.
The tribal consultation meeting will be held for one day. The meeting will begin at 1:00 p.m. and end at 4:00 p.m. (EDT). SBA will adjourn early if all those scheduled have delivered their testimony.
SBA respectfully requests that any elected or appointed representative of the tribal communities or principal of a tribally owned, ANC-owned or NHO-owned firm that is interested in attending please pre-register in advance and indicate whether you would like to testify at the hearing. Registration requests should be received by SBA by October 22, 2025. Please contact Diane Cullo, Assistant Administrator, Office of Native American Affairs in writing at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT); Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); Denial of extension of comment period.
This action denies requests for extension of the comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Normalizing Unmanned Aircraft Systems Beyond Visual Line of Sight Operations” that was published in the
September 29, 2025.
The docket for the NPRM is available at
Michelle Ferritto, ARM-100, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20592; Phone: 844 359-6982; Email:
On August 7, 2025, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) published a NPRM titled “Normalizing Unmanned Aircraft Systems Beyond Visual Line of Sight Operations” in the
Since publication of the NPRM, FAA has received two requests for extension of the comment period. Michael Ravnitsky
On June 6, 2025, the President issued Executive Order 14307, “Unleashing American Drone Dominance”, which instructed FAA to publish a final rule within 240 days, as appropriate. Meeting that deadline will require extraordinary measures that do not make it practicable to extend the comment period or subdivide the NPRM into separate rulemakings. While FAA and TSA recognize the importance of the proposed rule, the agencies find the 60-day comment period provides ample opportunity for commenters to submit complete and thoughtful comments.
Accordingly, FAA and TSA decline to grant the extension requests and the comment period will close at the end of October 6, 2025. Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 114,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by the discovery on the production line that the electrical system harnesses in lavatory A had reduced bend radii, were not properly secured, and did not meet the requirement for clearance from an oxygen supply line. This proposed AD would require an inspection of the sleeve and electrical harness for chafing damage and incorrect installation, and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 13, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Transport Canada material identified in this proposed AD, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Yves Petiote, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (202) 975-4867; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Yves Petiote, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (202) 975-4867; email:
Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Transport Canada AD CF-2025-45, dated August 29, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-45) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states that it was discovered on the production line that electrical system harnesses in lavatory A had reduced bend radii, were not properly secured and did not meet the requirement for clearance from an oxygen supply line. Inadequately secured and installed wire harnesses could create a chafing condition leading to a source of ignition, and when combined with an oxygen leak as well as loss of ventilation, may lead to an uncontrolled fire. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
Transport Canada AD CF-2025-45 specifies procedures for an inspection of the sleeve and electrical harness for chafing damage and incorrect installation, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include repair of damage and
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-45 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate Transport Canada AD CF-2025-45 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with Transport Canada AD CF-2025-45 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Material required by Transport Canada AD CF-2025-45 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 83 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition action that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition action:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by November 13, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type Certificate previously held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.) Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-45, dated August 29, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-45).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 92, Electrical system installation.
This AD was prompted by the discovery on the production line that electrical system harnesses in lavatory A had reduced bend radii, were not properly secured and did not meet the requirement for clearance from an oxygen supply line. The FAA is issuing this AD to address inadequately secured and installed wire harnesses, which if not addressed, could result in a chafing condition leading to a source of ignition, and when combined with an oxygen leak as well as loss of ventilation, may lead to an uncontrolled fire.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, Transport Canada AD CF-2025-45.
(1) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2025-45 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2025-45 refers to January 30, 2025 (the effective date of Transport Canada AD CF-2025-04), this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
For more information about this AD, contact Yves Petiote, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (202) 975-4867; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Transport Canada AD CF-2025-45, dated August 29, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Transport Canada material identified in this AD, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of shim installations at certain stub beam to longitudinal floor beam locations that were not installed per specifications, and an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating inadequate baseline inspections for cracking of the stub beam. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for any crack of the stub beam straps at certain stations and repairing any crack found. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 13, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Boeing material identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available at
Luis Cortez-Muniz, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3958; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Luis Cortez-Muniz, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3958; email:
The FAA has received reports of shim installations at the station (STA) 559 to STA 639 stub beam to buttock line (BL) 45 longitudinal floor beam locations that were not installed per specifications, and an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating inadequate baseline inspections for cracking of the stub beam. The FAA is issuing this AD to address potential cracking in the stub beam strap. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in undetected cracks in the stub beam strap that may grow in length and sever the strap, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1404 RB, Revision 1, dated November 29, 2023. This material specifies procedures for repetitive ultrasonic inspections for any crack of the stub beam straps at STA 578 and STA 597, or STA 578 and STA 601, as applicable. This material specifies procedures for repetitive ultrasonic and open hole eddy current inspections for any crack of the stub beam straps at STA 616 and STA 639. This material also specifies repairing any crack found.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the material already described except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Referenced Material,” and except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this material at
Boeing received reports of several crack findings from operators after accomplishment of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1404 RB, Revision 1, dated November 29, 2023. The crack findings were discovered prior to the inspection threshold of 34,000 total flight cycles, which is specified in the compliance tables in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1404 RB, Revision 1, dated November 29, 2023. Further analysis by Boeing determined that the existing compliance times in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1404 RB, Revision 1, dated November 29, 2023, are inadequate and would need to be reduced. Following coordination with Boeing, the FAA is proposing to require reduced compliance times to address the unsafe condition and maintain safety in the fleet.
Additionally, Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1404 RB, Revision 1, dated November 29, 2023, specifies reduced compliance times for airplanes on which Boeing Business Jet (BBJ) Lower Cabin Altitude Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01697SE has been incorporated. This proposed AD would require using those reduced compliance times, but the reduction would be applied to the reduced compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this AD, not those specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1404 RB, Revision 1, dated November 29, 2023.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 1,981 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the repairs specified in this proposed AD.
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by November 13, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of shim installations at the station (STA) 559 to STA 639 stub beam to buttock line (BL) 45 longitudinal floor beam locations that were not installed per specifications, and an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating inadequate baseline inspections for cracking of the stub beam. The FAA is issuing this AD to address potential cracking in the stub beam strap. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in undetected cracks in the stub beam strap that may grow in length and sever the strap, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable time specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this AD, except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, do all applicable inspections identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1404 RB, Revision 1, dated November 29, 2023. If no cracking is found, repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,000 flight cycles.
(1) For airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 30,000 total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Before 22,000 total flight cycles, or within 4,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2) For airplanes that have accumulated 30,000 total flight cycles or greater but fewer than 40,000 total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
(3) For airplanes that have accumulated greater than 40,000 total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
If any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
For airplanes on which Boeing Business Jet (BBJ) Lower Cabin Altitude Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01697SE has been incorporated: The flight cycle related compliance times are different from those specified in paragraph (g) of this AD. All initial compliance times (thresholds) specified in flight cycles must be reduced to half of those specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this AD. All repeat interval compliance times specified in flight cycles must be reduced to one-quarter of those specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Luis Cortez-Muniz, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3958; email:
(2) Material identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the address specified in paragraph (l)(3) this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1404 RB, Revision 1, dated November 29, 2023.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For the Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Model DHC-8 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracked barrel nuts at the wing front spar and horizontal stabilizer to vertical stabilizer joint. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracking and corrosion of the affected barrel nuts and applicable corrective actions. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 13, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Material Incorporated by Reference
• For De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited material identified in this proposed AD, contact De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited, Dash 8 Series Customer Response Centre, 5800 Explorer Drive, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5K9, Canada; telephone North America (toll-free): 855-310-1013, Direct: 647-277-5820; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Christopher Spencer, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (516) 228-7300; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated
Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Transport Canada AD CF-2020-06R1, dated January 7, 2021 (Transport Canada AD CF-2020-06R1) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Model DHC-8-100 series airplanes; Model DHC-8-200 series airplanes; Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes (which includes Model DHC-8-314 airplanes); and Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. Model DHC-8-314 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this proposed AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability. The MCAI states there were findings related to cracked barrel nuts at the wing front spar and horizontal stabilizer to vertical stabilizer joint. For those locations, Transport Canada issued AD CF-2011-24R1 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2019-20-09, Amendment 39-19762 (84 FR 56680, October 23, 2019)) and AD CF-2015-13R1 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2018-22-03, Amendment 39-19476 (83 FR 53563, October 24, 2018)) to address the unsafe condition. Barrel nuts are also installed in other locations on the airplane. An investigation determined that the cracking is caused by corrosion from inadequate cadmium plating on the barrel nuts. This condition, if not addressed, could result in failed barrel nuts that could compromise the structural integrity of the affected joints (
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 8-05-11, dated April 29, 2022. This material specifies procedures for detailed inspections for cracks and corrosion of the barrel nuts at the flight compartment windshield side posts, the nose landing gear trunnion plate assemblies, nacelle lower longeron attachments, the front, mid and rear spar horizontal stabilizer to vertical stabilizer attachments, the bathtub fittings attachments, the wing rib YW23.858 assemblies, and at the wing rib YW42.00 assemblies, and applicable corrective actions (
The FAA also reviewed De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-27-73, dated May 8, 2019; and De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 8-27-121, dated July 30, 2019. This material specifies procedures, for a detailed inspection for cracks and corrosion of the barrel nuts, having part number (P/N) DSC228-4, at the rudder pedal adjustment mechanism, and applicable corrective actions (
The FAA also reviewed De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 8-27-122, dated July 18, 2019. This material specifies procedures for a detailed inspection for cracks and corrosion of the barrel nuts, having P/N DSC228-5, at the control attachment fittings, and applicable corrective actions (
The FAA also reviewed De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-05-02, dated April 29, 2022. This material specifies procedures for detailed inspections for cracks and corrosion of the barrel nuts at the flight compartment windshield side posts, the vertical stabilizer pitch feel trim frame, the front and rear spar wing to fuselage attachment joint struts and fittings, and the bathtub fitting attachments, and applicable corrective actions (
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and material referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the material already described, except as discussed under “Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Referenced Material.”
Transport Canada AD CF-2020-06R1 introduces new maintenance review board report (MRBR) intervals that the FAA cannot mandate as MRBRs as specified in the MCAI. Instead of mandating the MRBR tasks as done in the Transport Canada AD, the FAA, after coordination with Transport Canada, determined the procedures specified in the service information in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this proposed AD will be used because those procedures refer to the corresponding airplane maintenance manual (AMM) task numbers of the MRBR tasks. Therefore, the FAA proposes to mandate the procedures as specified in the service information in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this proposed AD.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 111 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by November 13, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to all De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD.
(1) Model DHC-8-101, -102, -103, and -106 airplanes.
(2) Model DHC-8-201 and -202 airplanes.
(3) Model DHC-8-301, -311, and -315 airplanes.
(4) Model DHC-8-400, -401 and -402 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 14, Hardware; 51, Standard practices/structures.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracked barrel nuts at the wing front spar and horizontal stabilizer to vertical stabilizer joint, which was caused by corrosion from inadequate cadmium plating on the barrel nuts. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking and corrosion of the affected barrel nuts. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failed barrel nuts that could compromise the structural integrity of the airplane and could lead to loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For Model DHC-8-101, -102, -103, and -106 airplanes, Model DHC-8-201 and -202 airplanes, and Model DHC-8-301, -311, and -315 airplanes: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this AD.
(1) As of 60 days after the effective date of this AD: At the next flight compartment windshield replacement, do a detailed inspection for cracks and corrosion of the barrel nuts at the windshield side posts and, before further flight, do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 8-05-11, dated April 29, 2022. Repeat the inspection thereafter at each flight compartment windshield replacement.
(2) Within 6 years since entry into service, or within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do detailed inspections for cracks and corrosion of the barrel nuts at the nose landing gear trunnion plate assemblies, nacelle lower longeron attachments, the front, mid and rear spar horizontal stabilizer to vertical stabilizer attachments, the bathtub fittings attachments, the wing rib YW23.858 assemblies, and the wing rib YW42.00 assemblies, and before further flight, do all applicable corrective
(3) Within 6 years since entry into service, or within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a detailed inspection for cracks and corrosion of the barrel nuts, having part number (P/N) DSC228-5, at the control attachment fittings, and before further flight, do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 8-27-122, dated July 18, 2019. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6 years.
(4) Within 7 years since entry into service, or within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a detailed inspection for cracks and corrosion of the barrel nuts, having P/N DSC228-4, at the rudder pedal adjustment mechanism, and before further flight, do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 8-27-121, dated July 30, 2019. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7 years.
For Model DHC-8-400, -401 and -402 airplanes: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this AD.
(1) As of 60 days after the effective date of this AD: At the next flight compartment windshield replacement, do a detailed inspection for cracks and corrosion of the barrel nuts at the flight compartment windshield side posts, and before further flight, do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-05-02, dated April 29, 2022. Repeat the inspection thereafter at each flight compartment windshield replacement.
(2) Within 6 years since entry into service, or within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do detailed inspections for cracks and corrosion of the barrel nuts at the vertical stabilizer pitch feel trim frame, the front and rear spar wing to fuselage attachment joint struts and fittings, and the bathtub fitting attachments, and before further flight, do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-05-02, dated April 29, 2022. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6 years.
(3) Within 7 years since entry into service, or within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a detailed inspection for cracks and corrosion of the barrel nuts, having P/N DSC228-4, at the rudder pedal adjustment mechanism, and before further flight, do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-27-73, dated May 8, 2019. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7 years.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact Christopher Spencer, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (516) 228-7300; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 8-05-11, dated April 29, 2022.
(ii) De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 8-27-121, dated July 30, 2019.
(iii) De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 8-27-122, dated July 18, 2019.
(iv) De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-05-02, dated April 29, 2022.
(v) De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-27-73, dated May 8, 2019.
(3) For De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited material identified in this AD, contact De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited, Dash 8 Series Customer Response Centre, 5800 Explorer Drive, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5K9, Canada; telephone North America (toll-free): 855-310-1013, Direct: 647-277-5820; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of withdrawal of proposed rules.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) is formally withdrawing certain notices of proposed rulemaking issued between October 2009 and July 2024. The Commission does not intend to issue final rules with respect to these proposals. If the Commission decides to pursue future regulatory action in any of these areas, it will issue a new proposed rule.
The Commission is withdrawing the proposed rules published at 74 FR 55495 (October 28, 2009), 82 FR 22190 (May 12, 2017), 87 FR 43688 (July 21, 2022), and 89 FR 61363 (July 31, 2024) as of September 29, 2025.
Matthew A. Campbell, General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: (301) 504-0124; email:
The Commission is withdrawing the proposed rulemaking documents described below. The Commission does not intend to issue final rules with respect to these proposals. If the Commission decides to pursue future regulatory action in any of these areas, it will issue a new proposed rule.
On October 11, 2011, the Commission started a rulemaking with an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR).
On October 28, 2009, the Commission started a rulemaking with the publication of an ANPR under the CPSA to consider whether there may be unreasonable risks of injury and death associated with overturning and collisions related to recreational off-highway vehicles (OHVs).
On May 11, 2021, the Commission started a rulemaking with the publication of an ANPR inviting comments concerning the risks of injury associated with OHV fire and debris-penetration hazards.
On July 31, 2024, the Commission published a notice of proposed rulemaking to declare that any aerosol duster products that contain more than 18 mg in any combination of HFC-152a and/or HFC-134a are banned hazardous substances under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA).
The Commission is withdrawing these proposals because, as noted above, the Commission no longer intends to issue final rules with respect to these proposals. If the Commission decides to pursue future regulatory action in any of these areas, it will do so by publishing a new proposed rule or other issuance consistent with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, as applicable.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to revise 38 CFR 4.118, diagnostic code (DC) 7804 (“Scar(s), unstable or painful”), by adding a note clarifying that VA still requires objective evidence of pain when rating a scar as painful. The inclusion of this note would align with current policy and ensure consistent application of the rating criteria.
Comments must be received on or before November 28, 2025.
You may submit comments through
Chad Stodden and Leah Carey, Regulations Analysts, VASRD Regulations Staff, Compensation Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, (202) 461-9700.
As part of the revision of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD), VA proposes to revise 38 CFR 4.118, DC 7804 (“Scar(s), unstable or painful”), by adding a note clarifying that rating personnel must continue to require objective evidence of pain prior to denoting a scar as painful. Since its inclusion in the VASRD, VA has always required objective evidence of pain to assign a compensable evaluation using this DC. Starting on April 1, 1946, VA titled DC 7804 “Scars, superficial, tender and painful on objective demonstration.” See 29 FR 6718, 6748 (May 22, 1964) (adding the 1945 rating schedule, which became effective April 1, 1946, to part 4 of 38 CFR). On August 30, 2002, VA subsequently retitled DC 7804 “Scars, superficial, painful on examination.” Schedule for Rating Disabilities; the Skin, 67 FR 49590, 49596 (Jul. 31, 2002). Finally, VA changed the title again, effective October 23, 2008, to “Scar(s), unstable or painful.” Schedule for Rating Disabilities; Evaluation of Scars, 73 FR 54708, 54710 (Sep. 23, 2008). The purpose of the most recent title change was threefold. First, VA removed DC 7803, which VA had used to evaluate unstable superficial scars, and moved its evaluation criteria into DC 7804; thus, it was necessary to update DC 7804's title to include unstable scars.
During the time preceding the 2008 publication, traditional examinations, which included an objective assessment of the condition, were most frequently used in support of claims. Indeed, most relevant medical evidence contained, and still contains, an objective aspect of the evaluation. Podder, V., Lew, V., and Ghassemzadeh, S. “SOAP Notes,”
Although VA previously removed the phrase “on examination” from the DC title as an unnecessary redundancy, it is now apparent that an added note re-confirming this longstanding requirement would provide more clarity to veterans and rating personnel. The new note would specify that pain must be confirmed by objective evidence upon evaluation or demonstration. DC 7804 recognizes the impact of pain on functional impairment indicative of occupationally significant disabilities, and although VA accepts subjective evidence when appropriate, VA requires objective indications to support the subjective reports of pain to award a compensable evaluation under this DC.
In sum, VA intends this proposed change to clarify VA's longstanding policy, but does not intend to alter the substantive rating criteria nor change the way VA compensates veterans under DC 7804. Rather, this rulemaking would merely reinforce and reaffirm VA's original and longstanding requirement of objective evidence when evaluating a painful scar under DC 7804.
VA examined the impact of this rulemaking as required by Executive Orders 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993) and 13563 (Jan. 18, 2011), which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The factual basis for this certification is based on the fact that no small entities or businesses evaluate disabilities for VA benefits. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply.
This proposed rule would not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.
This proposed rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
Disability benefits, Pension, Veterans.
Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on September 24, 2025, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR part 4 as set forth below:
38 U.S.C. 1155, unless otherwise noted.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of and solicits public comment on initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities. The Agency is providing this notice in accordance with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). EPA uses the month and year in the title to identify when the Agency compiled the petitions identified in this notice of filing. Unit II. of this document identifies certain petitions received in 2021, 2023, 2024, and 2025 that are currently being evaluated by EPA, along with information about each petition, including who submitted the petition and the requested action.
Comments must be received on or before October 29, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition (PP) of interest identified in Unit II. of this document, online at
Each application summary in Unit II. specifies a contact division. The appropriate division contacts are identified as follows:
• BPPD (Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division) (Mail Code 7511M); Shannon Borges; main telephone number: (202) 566-1400; email address:
• RD (Registration Division) (Mail Code 7505T); Charles Smith; main telephone number: (202) 566-1030; email address:
This action provides information that is directed to the public in general.
EPA regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities are established under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), requires EPA to publish a notice of receipt of these petitions in the
As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the receipt of pesticide petitions filed under FFDCA section 408 that request the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioner. Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition identified in this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2), and 40 CFR 180.7(b); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.
Based upon review of the data supporting these petitions and in accordance with its authority under FFDCA section 408(d)(4)(A)(i), EPA may establish a final tolerance or tolerance exemption that “may vary from that sought by the petitioner.” For example, EPA may determine that it is appropriate to vary the commodity name for consistency with EPA's Food and Feed Commodity Vocabulary, which is located here
1.
2.
This unit provides the following information about the petitions:
• The Pesticide Petition (PP) Identification (IN) number;
• EPA docket ID number for the petition;
• Information about the petition (
• The analytical method available to detect and measure the pesticide chemical residue or the petitioner's statement about why such a method is not needed; and
• The division to contact for that petition.
Additional information on the petitions may be obtained through the petition summaries that were prepared by the petitioners pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2)(A)(i)(I) and 40 CFR 180.7(b)(1), which are included in the docket for the petition as identified in this unit.
•
•
• PP
•
•
•
21 U.S.C. 346a.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice of Federal advisory committee meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice announces an upcoming meeting of the Grain Inspection Advisory Committee (Committee). The Committee meets no less than once annually to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on the programs and services delivered by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS or the Agency) under the U.S. Grain Standards Act. Recommendations by the Committee help AMS meet the needs of its customers, who operate in a dynamic and changing marketplace.
The meeting will be held on October 28, 2025, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central and on October 29, 2025, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Central.
Anthony Goodeman by phone at (202) 720-0291 or by email at
The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to AMS with respect to the implementation of the U.S. Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71-87k). Information about the Committee is available on the AMS website at
The agenda for the upcoming meeting will focus on grain inspection matters including, but not limited to, regulatory updates; technology modernization initiatives; inspection policies; operational updates; and a presentation on how the Agency uses technology for grading other commodities.
The meeting will be open to the public. Public participation will be limited to written statements and interested parties who have registered to present comments orally to the Committee.
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 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 of communication for program information (
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public of our determination that MON 95379 Lepidopteran-Protected Maize (corn), which was developed using genetic engineering to produce two insecticidal proteins to protect against feeding damage caused by target lepidopteran pests, is no longer considered regulated. Our determination is based on our evaluation of information and data Bayer U.S.-Crop Science submitted in its petition for a determination of nonregulated status, available scientific data, the plant pest risk assessment, and public comments received in response to a previous notice announcing the availability of the petition for nonregulated status and a draft plant pest risk assessment. This notice announces the availability of our written determination and the
This change in regulatory status is recognized as of September 24, 2025.
You may read the petition, our determination referenced in this notice, and supporting documents by any of the following methods:
•
• Our reading room, located in 1620 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.
Mr. Joseph Tangredi, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, USDA, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, AP100-3-WS-1100, Beltsville, MD 20705; (301) 851-4061; email:
Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701
The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340.
APHIS received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 20-205-01p) from Bayer U.S.-Crop Science seeking a determination of nonregulated status for MON 95379 Lepidopteran-Protected Maize (corn) which has been developed using genetic engineering to produce two insecticidal proteins to protect against feeding damage caused by target lepidopteran pests. The petition provides information in support of the position that MON 95379 is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and therefore should not be regulated under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.
As part of our decision-making process regarding the organism's regulatory status, APHIS prepared a draft plant pest risk assessment (PPRA) to assess the plant pest risk of the organism. APHIS published the draft PPRA in the
APHIS also prepared and published a draft environmental assessment (EA). However, on July 9, 2025, APHIS issued a Program Update titled “APHIS Announces Update to Practices for Reviewing Petitions Seeking a Determination of Nonregulated Status for Organisms Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering,” available at
Based on APHIS’ evaluation in the final PPRA of information and data submitted by Bayer U.S.-Crop Science in its petition, available scientific data, and public comments received in response to the petition and PPRA, APHIS has determined that MON 95379 is unlikely to pose a greater plant pest risk than the unmodified comparator and therefore is no longer subject to our regulation governing the introduction of certain organisms developed using genetic engineering.
Copies of the signed determination, final PPRA, and response to comments, as well as the previously published petition and supporting documents, are available as indicated in the
Commodity Credit Corporation, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Notice.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this notice to: (1) revise fiscal year (FY) 2025 (crop year 2024) State cane sugar allotments and allocations to sugarcane processors; and (2) announce the FY 2026 (crop year 2025) overall sugar marketing allotment quantity (OAQ), State cane sugar allotments, and sugar beet and sugarcane processor allocations. Action (1) applies to all domestic cane sugar marketed for human consumption in the United States from October 1, 2024, through September 30, 2025, and action (2) applies to all domestic beet and cane sugar marketed for human consumption in the United States from October 1, 2025, through September 30, 2026.
Carlann Unger; telephone: (773) 573-5163; or email,
In accordance with section 359e of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359ee), after evaluating each sugarcane processor's ability to market its full allocation, USDA is transferring FY 2025 allocations from sugarcane processors with surplus allocation to those with deficit allocation, as shown in the table below. Further evaluation resulted in no adjustments to the beet sector allotments or allocations.
The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, requires USDA to establish the OAQ at a quantity not less than 85 percent of the estimated quantity of sugar for domestic human consumption for the crop year. USDA is establishing the initial FY 2026 (crop year 2025) OAQ at 10,166,000 STRV, equal to 85 percent of 11,960,000 STRV, the estimated quantity of sugar for domestic human consumption for FY 2026 as forecast in the September 2025 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report. Per the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, 54.35 percent of the OAQ is distributed among beet processors and 45.65 percent is distributed among the sugarcane States and cane processors, with the beet and cane sector allotments distributed to individual processors according to formulas set out in law.
USDA will closely monitor stocks, consumption, imports and all sugar market and program variables on an ongoing basis and may make program adjustments during FY 2026 if needed.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement 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 (FACA) that the Oklahoma Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold virtual business meetings via ZoomGov on Wednesday, October 8, 2025 from 2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. CT and on Tuesday, November 4, 2025 from 2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. CT. The purpose is for the Committee to review and discuss their project proposal and upcoming meetings.
The meetings will take place on Wednesday, October 8, 2025 from 2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. CT and on Tuesday, November 4, 2025 from 2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. CT.
•
•
•
•
Brooke Peery, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at
Committee meetings are available to the public through the videoconference link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. 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 Corrine Sanders, Support Services Specialist,
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments can be sent via email to Brooke Peery (DFO) 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
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that certain chassis and subassemblies thereof (chassis) from Thailand are being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable September 29, 2025.
Jacob Keller or Blair Hood, 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) 482-4849 or (202) 482-8329, respectively.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on March 24, 2025.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation,
The products covered by this investigation are chassis from Thailand. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. Furthermore, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, Commerce preliminarily relied upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences for Panus Assembly Co., Ltd. (Panus). For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination,
Sections 733(d)(1)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
Commerce calculated an individual estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Dee Siam Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Dee Siam), the only individually examined exporter and producer for which a rate was calculated in this investigation. Because the only individually calculated dumping margin is not zero,
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Commerce normally adjusts cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties by the amount of export subsidies countervailed in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding, when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce preliminarily made an affirmative determination for countervailable export subsidies, Commerce has offset the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the appropriate CVD rate. For this preliminary determination, Commerce did not adjust the estimated weighted-average dumping margins. As an extension of adverse inference, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, Commerce adjusted Panus's cash deposit rate by the lowest export subsidy rate determined in the CVD investigation, which is zero percent.
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination 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).
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce will analyze and, if appropriate, correct any timely allegations of significant ministerial errors by amending the preliminary determination. However, consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(d), Commerce will not consider incomplete allegations that do not address the significance standard under 19 CFR 351.224(g) following the preliminary determination. Instead, Commerce will address such allegations in the final determination together with issues raised in the case briefs or other written comments.
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination with respect to Dee Siam. However, because Panus is receiving a rate based on facts available with adverse inferences, and Commerce preliminarily determines Panus has been uncooperative, we do not intend to conduct verification of Panus' information.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. 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 brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this investigation, 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. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), Commerce requires that a request by exporters for postponement of the final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On September 17, 2025, Panus requested postponement of the final determination.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by these investigations consists of chassis and subassemblies thereof whether finished or unfinished, whether assembled or unassembled, whether coated or uncoated, regardless of the number of axles, for carriage of containers, or other payloads (including self-supporting payloads) for road, marine roll-on/roll-off (RORO) and/or rail transport. Chassis are typically, but are not limited to, rectangular framed trailers with a suspension and axle system, wheels and tires, brakes, a lighting and electrical system, a coupling for towing behind a truck tractor, and a locking system or systems to secure the shipping container or containers to the chassis using twistlocks, slide pins or similar attachment devices to engage the corner fittings on the container or other payload.
Subject merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the following subassemblies:
• Chassis frames, or sections of chassis frames, including kingpin assemblies, bolsters consisting of transverse beams with locking or support mechanisms, goosenecks, drop assemblies, extension mechanisms and/or rear impact guards;
• Running gear assemblies or axle assemblies for connection to the chassis frame, whether fixed in nature or capable of sliding fore and aft or lifting up and lowering down, which may or may not include suspension(s) (mechanical or pneumatic), wheel end components, slack adjusters, dressed axles, brake chambers, locking pins, and tires and wheels; and
• Assemblies that connect to the chassis frame or a section of the chassis frame, such as but not limited to, pintle hooks or B-trains (which include a fifth wheel), which are capable of connecting a chassis to a converter dolly or another chassis.
Importation of any of these subassemblies, whether assembled or unassembled, constitutes an unfinished chassis for purposes of these investigations.
Subject merchandise also includes chassis, whether finished or unfinished, entered with components such as, but not limited to: hub and drum assemblies, brake assemblies (either drum or disc), bare axles, brake chambers, suspensions and suspension components, wheel end components, landing gear legs, spoke or disc wheels, tires, brake control systems, electrical harnesses and lighting systems.
Processing of finished and unfinished chassis and components such as trimming, cutting, grinding, notching, punching, drilling, painting, coating, staining, finishing, assembly, or any other processing either in the country of manufacture of the in-scope product or in a third country does not remove the product from the scope. Inclusion of other components not identified as comprising the finished or unfinished chassis does not remove the product from the scope.
Individual components entered and sold by themselves are not subject to the investigations, but components entered with a finished or unfinished chassis are subject merchandise. A finished chassis is ultimately comprised of several different types of subassemblies. Within each subassembly there are numerous components that comprise a given subassembly.
This scope excludes dry van trailers, refrigerated van trailers and flatbed trailers. Dry van trailers are trailers with a wholly enclosed cargo space comprised of fixed sides, nose, floor and roof, with articulated panels (doors) across the rear and occasionally at selected places on the sides, with the cargo space being permanently incorporated in the trailer itself. Refrigerated van trailers are trailers with a wholly enclosed cargo space comprised of fixed sides, nose, floor and roof, with articulated panels (doors) across the rear and occasionally at selected places on the sides, with the cargo space being permanently incorporated in the trailer and being insulated, possessing specific thermal properties intended for use with self-contained refrigeration systems. Flatbed (or platform) trailers consist of load carrying main frames and a solid, flat or stepped loading deck or floor permanently incorporated with and supported by frame rails and cross members.
The finished and unfinished chassis subject to these investigations are typically classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 8716.39.0090 and 8716.90.5060. Imports of finished and unfinished chassis may also enter under HTSUS subheading 8716.90.5010. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing an antidumping duty (AD) order on paper file folders (file folders) from Sri Lanka.
Applicable September 29, 2025.
Samuel Frost, 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) 482-8180.
In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on August 8, 2025, Commerce published its affirmative final determination of sales at less than fair value (LTFV) of file folders from Sri Lanka.
On September 22, 2025, pursuant to section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final affirmative determinations that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of dumped imports of file folders from Sri Lanka within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act.
The product covered by this order is file folders from Sri Lanka. For a complete description of the scope of the order,
On September 22, 2025, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured, within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, by reason of imports of file folders from Sri Lanka that are sold in the United States at LTFV. Therefore, in accordance with sections 735(c)(2) and 736(a) of the Act, Commerce is issuing this AD order. Because the ITC determined that imports of file folders from Sri Lanka are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from Sri Lanka, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.
Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise on all relevant entries of file folders from Sri Lanka. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of file folders entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 29, 2025, the date of publication of the
Except as noted in the “Provisional Measures” section of this notice, in accordance with section 736 of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of file folders from Sri Lanka, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the
Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the estimated dumping margins as indicated in the table below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication in the
The estimated dumping margins are as follows:
Section 733(d) of the Act states that suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request that Commerce extend the four-month period to no more than six months. Commerce published its affirmative
Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of file folders from Sri Lanka entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 26, 2025, the first day provisional measures were no longer in effect, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the
On September 20, 2021, Commerce published the
In accordance with the
Interested parties who wish to be added to the annual inquiry service list for an order must submit an entry of appearance to the annual inquiry service list segment for the order in ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of the order. For ease of administration, Commerce requests that law firms with more than one attorney representing interested parties in an order designate a lead attorney to be included on the annual inquiry service list. Commerce will finalize the annual inquiry service list within five business days thereafter. As mentioned in the
Commerce may update an annual inquiry service list at any time as needed based on interested parties' amendments to their entries of appearance to remove or otherwise modify their list of members and representatives, or to update contact information. Any changes or announcements pertaining to these procedures will be posted to the ACCESS website.
In the
This notice constitutes the AD order with respect to file folders from Sri Lanka pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of AD and countervailing duty orders currently in effect at
This order is issued and published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The products within the scope of this order 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 order is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains (ceramic abrasive grains) from the People's Republic of China (China).
Applicable September 29, 2025.
Thomas Cloyd (AD China) or Suresh Maniam (CVD China), 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) 482-1246 or (202) 482-1603, respectively.
In accordance with sections 705(d) and 735(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on August 15, 2025, Commerce published its affirmative final determination of sales at less than fair value (LTFV) of ceramic abrasive grains from China,
On September 19, 2025, pursuant to sections 705(d) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final affirmative determinations that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of dumping imports of ceramic abrasive grains from China, and subsidized imports of ceramic abrasive grains from China, within the meaning of sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act.
The products covered by these orders are ceramic abrasive grains from China. For a complete description of the scope of the orders,
On September 19, 2025, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of imports of ceramic abrasive grains from China that are sold in the United States at less than fair value.
Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise on all relevant entries of ceramic abrasive grains from China. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of ceramic abrasive grains entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 2, 2025, the date of publication of the
Commerce intends to instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of ceramic abrasive grains from China, in accordance with section 736 of the Act. These instructions suspending liquidations will remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin indicated in the table below, adjusted by the relevant subsidy offsets. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication in the
The estimated weighted-average dumping margin is as
As stated above, based on the above-referenced affirmative final determination by the ITC that an industry in the United States is
Therefore, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, Commerce intends to direct CBP to assess, upon further instructions by Commerce, countervailing duties on all relevant entries of ceramic abrasive grains from China, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 22, 2025, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 706 of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation of ceramic abrasive grains from China, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the
The estimated countervailing duty subsidy rates are as follows:
Section 703(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. Commerce published the
In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, unliquidated entries of ceramic abrasive grains from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after September 19, 2025, the date on which the provisional measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the
On September 20, 2021, Commerce published the
In accordance with the
Interested parties who wish to be added to the annual inquiry service list for an order must submit an entry of appearance to the annual inquiry service list segment for the order in ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of the order. For ease of administration, Commerce requests that law firms with more than one attorney representing interested parties in an order designate a lead attorney to be included on the annual inquiry service list. Commerce will finalize the annual inquiry service list within five business days thereafter. As mentioned in the
Commerce may update an annual inquiry service list at any time as needed based on interested parties' amendments to their entries of appearance to remove or otherwise modify their list of members and representatives, or to update contact information. Any changes or announcements pertaining to these procedures will be posted to the ACCESS website.
In the
This notice constitutes the AD order with respect to ceramic abrasive grains from China and the CVD order with respect to ceramic abrasive grains from China, pursuant to sections 706(a) and 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of AD and CVD orders currently in effect at
These orders are published in accordance with sections 706(a) and 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The merchandise covered by these orders is sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains which are comprised of minimum 94% aluminum oxide (Al2O3), and may contain other compounds, including, but not limited to, titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, calcium oxide, sodium superoxide, ferric oxide, magnesium oxide, di-aluminum magnesium tetroxide, lanthanum oxide, lanthanum magnesium oxide, zirconium dioxide, or zirconium carbonate. Grain sizes of sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains range from 0.85 mm to 0.0395 mm (which corresponds to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) grit sizes from 20 to 280).
Shapes include but are not limited to angular, sharp, extra sharp, blocky, splintery, round stripped, triangular or shaped like extruded rods or stars.
Ceramic abrasive grains have unique crystalline structures that impart certain advanced properties, such as their extreme hardness and strength ranging between 16 and 22 gigapascals by the Vickers Diamond Indent Method, high melting point (2050 °C), and a single- or multi-phase microstructure, which may contain multiple phases, having crystalline sizes ranging from 0.05 to 30µm. These ceramic abrasive grains include but are not limited to blue, white, white-translucent, or off-white opaque colors.
Sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains are covered by the scope of these orders, whether or not incorporated into downstream articles, including but not limited to, abrasive papers, grinding wheels, grinding cylinders, and grinding discs. When incorporated into downstream articles, only the sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains component of such articles is covered by the product scope, and not the downstream product as a whole.
The merchandise subject to these orders is properly classified under subheadings 2818.10.2010 and 2818.10.2090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Other merchandise subject to the current scope, including when incorporated into the abovementioned downstream articles, may be classified under HTSUS subheadings 2818.10.1000, 2818.20.0000, 2818.30.0000, 3824.99.1100, 3824.99.1900, 6805.10.0000, 6805.20.0000, 6805.30.1000, 6805.30.5000, 6804.22.1000, 6804.22.4000, 6804.22.6000, 8204.12.0000, 8474.90.0010, 8474.90.0020, 8474.90.0050, and 8474.90.0090. Although the HTSUS statistical reporting numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that certain chassis and subassemblies thereof (chassis) from Mexico are being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable September 29, 2025.
Jun Jack Zhao or Thomas Gilgunn, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on March 24, 2025.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation,
The products covered by this investigation are chassis from Mexico. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has relied on facts available under section 776(a) of the Act for Hyundai de Mexico S.A. de C.V. (HYMEX). Furthermore, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, Commerce has preliminarily relied upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences for HYMEX. For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination,
Sections 733(d)(1)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, if the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually examined are zero,
The following nine exporters and/or producers of chassis from Mexico did not respond to the quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaire: (1) BRD Trailers, S.A. de C.V.; (2) Carrocerias Gallegos S.A. de C.V.; (3) Commercializadora Nimmka; S.A. de C.V. (d/b/a Atro Remolques y Carroceria); (4) Carrocerias Corpus Christi S.A. DE C.V.; (5) Fruehauf de Mexico; S.A. de C.V.; (6) Lodi Trailers; (7) Norstar Trailers Mexico S de R.L. de C.V. (d/b/a Iron Bull Trailers); (8) Semiremolques El Paisano S.A. de C.V.; and (9) Ventura Trailers (collectively, the non-responsive companies). We find that, by not responding to the Q&V questionnaire, these companies withheld necessary information that was requested of them, failed to provide information within the deadlines established and significantly impeded this proceeding. Thus, in reaching our preliminary determination, pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) and (2)(A)-(C) of the Act, we are basing the antidumping duty rate for the non-responsive companies on facts otherwise available.
In addition, we preliminary determine that an adverse inference is warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. By failing to submit responses to Commerce's Q&V questionnaire, the non-responsive companies did not cooperate to the best of their ability in this investigation. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that an adverse inference is warranted to ensure that the non-responsive companies will not obtain a more favorable result than had they fully complied with our request for information. For more information on the application of adverse facts available (AFA),
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Commerce normally adjusts cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties by the amount of export subsidies countervailed in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding, when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce preliminarily made an affirmative determination for countervailable export subsidies, Commerce has offset the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the appropriate CVD rate. Any such adjusted cash deposit rate may be found in the “Preliminary Determination” section above.
Should provisional measures in the companion CVD investigation expire prior to the expiration of provisional measures in this LTFV investigation, Commerce will direct CBP to begin collecting estimated antidumping duty cash deposits unadjusted for countervailed export subsidies at the time that the provisional CVD measures expire.
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a preliminary 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 preliminary determination in the
Because HYMEX, the mandatory respondent in this investigation, did not provide information requested by Commerce, and Commerce preliminarily determines HYMEX has been uncooperative, we will not conduct verification.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination, unless the Secretary alters the time limit.
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 investigation, 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. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), Commerce requires that a request by exporters for postponement of the final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On September 18, 2025, pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(i) and (ii), the petitioner and HYMEX requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation consists of chassis and subassemblies thereof whether finished or unfinished, whether assembled or unassembled, whether coated or uncoated, regardless of the number of axles, for carriage of containers, or other payloads (including self-supporting payloads) for road, marine roll-on/roll-off (RORO) and/or rail transport. Chassis are typically, but are not limited to, rectangular framed trailers with a suspension and axle system, wheels and tires, brakes, a lighting and electrical system, a coupling for towing behind a truck tractor, and a locking system or systems to secure the shipping container or containers to the chassis using twistlocks, slide pins or similar attachment devices to engage the corner fittings on the container or other payload.
Subject merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the following subassemblies:
• Chassis frames, or sections of chassis frames, including kingpin assemblies, bolsters consisting of transverse beams with locking or support mechanisms, goosenecks, drop assemblies, extension mechanisms and/or rear impact guards;
• Running gear assemblies or axle assemblies for connection to the chassis frame, whether fixed in nature or capable of sliding fore and aft or lifting up and lowering down, which may or may not include suspension(s) (mechanical or pneumatic), wheel end components, slack adjusters, dressed axles, brake chambers, locking pins, and tires and wheels; and
• Assemblies that connect to the chassis frame or a section of the chassis frame, such as but not limited to, pintle hooks or B-trains (which include a fifth wheel), which are capable of connecting a chassis to a converter dolly or another chassis.
Importation of any of these subassemblies, whether assembled or unassembled, constitutes an unfinished chassis for purposes of this investigation.
Subject merchandise also includes chassis, whether finished or unfinished, entered with components such as, but not limited to: hub and drum assemblies, brake assemblies (either drum or disc), bare axles, brake chambers, suspensions and suspension components, wheel end components, landing gear legs, spoke or disc wheels, tires, brake control systems, electrical harnesses and lighting systems.
Processing of finished and unfinished chassis and components such as trimming, cutting, grinding, notching, punching, drilling, painting, coating, staining, finishing, assembly, or any other processing either in the country of manufacture of the in-scope product or in a third country does not remove the product from the scope. Inclusion of other components not identified as comprising the finished or unfinished chassis does not remove the product from the scope.
Individual components entered and sold by themselves are not subject to the investigation, but components entered with a finished or unfinished chassis are subject merchandise. A finished chassis is ultimately comprised of several different types of subassemblies. Within each subassembly there are numerous components that comprise a given subassembly.
This scope excludes dry van trailers, refrigerated van trailers and flatbed trailers. Dry van trailers are trailers with a wholly enclosed cargo space comprised of fixed sides, nose, floor and roof, with articulated panels (doors) across the rear and occasionally at selected places on the sides, with the cargo space being permanently incorporated in the trailer itself. Refrigerated van trailers are trailers with a wholly enclosed cargo space comprised of fixed sides, nose, floor and roof, with articulated panels (doors) across the rear and occasionally at selected places on the sides, with the cargo space being permanently incorporated in the trailer and being insulated, possessing specific thermal properties intended for use with self-contained refrigeration systems. Flatbed (or platform) trailers consist of load carrying main frames and a solid, flat or stepped loading deck or floor permanently incorporated with and supported by frame rails and cross members.
The finished and unfinished chassis subject to this investigation are typically classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 8716.39.0090 and 8716.90.5060. Imports of finished and unfinished chassis may also enter under HTSUS subheading 8716.90.5010. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable September 29, 2025.
Gorden Struck at (202) 482-8151 and Sarah Keith at (202) 482-0264, respectively, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On September 8, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated a countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of imports of high purity dissolving pulp (dissolving pulp) from Brazil.
Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation until no later than 130 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) the petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.
On September 22, 2025, the petitioners
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner submitted its request for postponement of the preliminary determination in this investigation 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and stated the reasons for its request. Commerce finds no compelling reason to deny the request. Therefore, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, Commerce is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations in these investigations to no later than 130 days after the date on which it initiated this investigation,
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that certain chassis and subassemblies thereof (chassis) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable September 29, 2025.
Elizabeth Beuley or Benito Ballesteros, AD/CVD Operations, Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on March 24, 2025.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation,
The products covered by this investigation are chassis from Vietnam. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated export price in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Because Vietnam is a non-market economy (NME), within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, Commerce has calculated normal value (NV) in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's preliminary determination,
In the
In this investigation, Commerce received two separate rate applications, from Thaco Special Vehicles Manufacturing Limited Company and Thaco Industries Trailers and Heavy Steel Structures Manufacturing Limited Liability Company (collectively, Thaco
Thaco is the only respondent that Commerce individually examined in this investigation, and Commerce preliminarily calculated an estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Thaco that is not zero,
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce will analyze and, if appropriate, correct any timely allegations of significant ministerial errors by amending the preliminary determination. However, consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(d), Commerce will not consider incomplete allegations that do not address the significance standard under 19 CFR 351.224(g) following the preliminary determination. Instead, Commerce will address such allegations in the final determination together with issues raised in the case briefs or other written comments.
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify information relied upon in making its final determination.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this investigation.
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 investigation, 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. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), Commerce requires that requests by respondents for postponement of the final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On September 17, 2025, pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e), Thaco requested that Commerce postpone the final
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of the subject merchandise are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation consists of chassis and subassemblies thereof whether finished or unfinished, whether assembled or unassembled, whether coated or uncoated, regardless of the number of axles, for carriage of containers, or other payloads (including self-supporting payloads) for road, marine roll-on/roll-off (RORO) and/or rail transport. Chassis are typically, but are not limited to, rectangular framed trailers with a suspension and axle system, wheels and tires, brakes, a lighting and electrical system, a coupling for towing behind a truck tractor, and a locking system or systems to secure the shipping container or containers to the chassis using twistlocks, slide pins or similar attachment devices to engage the corner fittings on the container or other payload.
Subject merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the following subassemblies:
• Chassis frames, or sections of chassis frames, including kingpin assemblies, bolsters consisting of transverse beams with locking or support mechanisms, goosenecks, drop assemblies, extension mechanisms and/or rear impact guards;
• Running gear assemblies or axle assemblies for connection to the chassis frame, whether fixed in nature or capable of sliding fore and aft or lifting up and lowering down, which may or may not include suspension(s) (mechanical or pneumatic), wheel end components, slack adjusters, dressed axles, brake chambers, locking pins, and tires and wheels; and
• Assemblies that connect to the chassis frame or a section of the chassis frame, such as but not limited to, pintle hooks or B-trains (which include a fifth wheel), which are capable of connecting a chassis to a converter dolly or another chassis.
Importation of any of these subassemblies, whether assembled or unassembled, constitutes an unfinished chassis for purposes of this investigation.
Subject merchandise also includes chassis, whether finished or unfinished, entered with components such as, but not limited to: hub and drum assemblies, brake assemblies (either drum or disc), bare axles, brake chambers, suspensions and suspension components, wheel end components, landing gear legs, spoke or disc wheels, tires, brake control systems, electrical harnesses and lighting systems.
Processing of finished and unfinished chassis and components such as trimming, cutting, grinding, notching, punching, drilling, painting, coating, staining, finishing, assembly, or any other processing either in the country of manufacture of the in-scope product or in a third country does not remove the product from the scope. Inclusion of other components not identified as comprising the finished or unfinished chassis does not remove the product from the scope.
Individual components entered and sold by themselves are not subject to the investigation, but components entered with a finished or unfinished chassis are subject merchandise. A finished chassis is ultimately comprised of several different types of subassemblies. Within each subassembly there are numerous components that comprise a given subassembly.
This scope excludes dry van trailers, refrigerated van trailers and flatbed trailers. Dry van trailers are trailers with a wholly enclosed cargo space comprised of fixed sides, nose, floor and roof, with articulated panels (doors) across the rear and occasionally at selected places on the sides, with the cargo space being permanently incorporated in the trailer itself. Refrigerated van trailers are trailers with a wholly enclosed cargo space comprised of fixed sides, nose, floor and roof, with articulated panels (doors) across the rear and occasionally at selected places on the sides, with the cargo space being permanently incorporated in the trailer and being insulated, possessing specific thermal properties intended for use with self-contained refrigeration systems. Flatbed (or platform) trailers consist of load carrying main frames and a solid, flat or stepped loading deck or floor permanently incorporated with and supported by frame rails and cross members.
The finished and unfinished chassis subject to this investigation are typically classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 8716.39.0090 and 8716.90.5060. Imports of finished and unfinished chassis may also enter under HTSUS subheading 8716.90.5010. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
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 Wednesday, October 8, 2025, beginning at 9 a.m. Webinar Registration information:
This meeting is being held at the Hilton Garden Inn Boston Logan; 100 Boardman St., Boston, MA 02128; Phone: (617) 567-6789.
Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The SSC will meet to consider the information provided by the Council's Scallop and Groundfish Plan Development Teams, including stock assessment or data update information where appropriate; recommend the overfishing limits and acceptable biological catches for: Atlantic sea scallops for fishing years (FY) 2026 & 2027 (default); Ocean pout for FY 2026-2030; and Atlantic wolffish for FY 2026-2030. 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 Adam Gilbertsen, University of Minnesota, 689 23rd Avenue Southeast, MRF Room 1-151, Minneapolis, MN 55455, has applied in due form for a permit to import, export, and receive marine mammal parts for scientific research.
Written comments must be received on or before October 29, 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
Shasta McClenahan, Ph.D., or Jennifer Skidmore, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant requests a 5-year research permit to import, export, and receive marine mammal parts to derive, cryopreserve, and characterize cell lines for comparative virology experiments. Parts from up to 30 cetaceans and 30 pinnipeds, excluding walrus, per year may be obtained from the following foreign or domestic legal sources: other researchers, captive animals, subsistence harvests, bycatch in legal fisheries, museums, scientific collections, and foreign stranded animals.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permits and permit amendments.
Notice is hereby given that permits and permit amendments have been issued under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as applicable.
The permits and related documents are available for review upon written request via email to
Courtney Smith, Ph.D. (File No. 22629), Amy Hapeman (File No. 28217), Erin Markin, Ph.D., (File No. 29010), and Sara Young (File No. 23188); at (301) 427-8401.
The requested permits have been issued under the MMPA of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
For File No. 22629, an EA was prepared for the original permit (85 FR 56219, September 11, 2020) analyzing the effects of the permitted activities on the human environment in compliance with NEPA. Based on the analyses in that EA, NMFS determined that issuance of that permit would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment and that preparation of an EIS was not required. That determination is documented in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), signed on August 27, 2020. NMFS determined that issuance of this minor amendment (No. 22629-04) with a 1 year extension would not change the findings of the original EA and FONSI.
For File No. 29010, NMFS has determined that the activities proposed are consistent with the Preferred Alternative in the Final Programmatic EIS for the Coral Reef Conservation Program (NMFS 2020), and that issuance of the permit would not have a significant adverse impact on the human environment.
As required by the ESA, as applicable, issuance of these permits was based on a finding that such permits: (1) were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
In notice document 2025-17979, appearing on pages 44809-44810 in the issue of Wednesday, September 17, 2025, make the following correction:
On page 44809, in the second column, in the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (OASD(HA)), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 29, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
U.S. Department of Education.
Final priorities, requirements, and definitions.
The Department of Education (Department) announces final priorities, requirements, and definitions under the School-Based Mental Health Services (SBMH) Program, Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.184H. We may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, and definitions for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2025 and later years. These final priorities, requirements, and definitions are designed to target activities with the purpose of increasing the number of credentialed school-based mental health services providers, specifically school psychologists, in high-need local educational agencies (LEAs) available to provide mental health services to students. These priorities, requirements, and definitions replace the Notice of Final Priorities, Requirements, and Definitions published in the
The final priorities, requirements and definitions are effective October 29, 2025.
Dana Carr, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4B210, Washington, DC 20202-6450. Telephone: (202)987-0119. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or suggested changes that the law does not authorize us to make under applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general comments regarding concerns not directly related to the proposed priorities, requirements, or definitions.
Over the past several years, concerns about the mental health of children and youth have increased.
While schools may continue to hire and train school counselors and social workers using State and local funds, the Department's policy approach is to use its limited Federal funds to focus on school psychologists because of their expertise to both assess and identify students with the greatest needs and provide specialized services appropriate to those needs.
Regarding commenters' requests for the Department to provide guidance regarding allowable activities, we encourage commenters to read resources such as the Department of Justice's “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination,”
The Department establishes the following priorities for use in this program. We may use one or more of these priorities in any year in which this program is in effect.
To meet this priority, an SEA must propose a plan to recruit and retain credentialed school psychologists for employment in high-need LEAs.
To meet this priority, a high-need LEA or a consortium of high-need LEAs must propose a plan to recruit and retain credentialed school psychologists for employment in high-need LEAs.
To meet this priority, applicants must propose to increase the number of credentialed school psychologists who will engage in the following:
(a) Providing intensive mental health services and supports to individual students most in need of those services,
(b) Providing early intervention mental health services to address acute concerns and determine if intensive mental health services are needed, and
(c) Building necessary capacity and local support to ensure the provision of intensive mental health services beyond the life of the grant.
To meet this priority, an SEA must propose to increase the number of credentialed school psychologists employed in high-need LEAs by implementing a respecialization plan. The respecialization plan must support professionals who hold, at a minimum, a degree in a related field (
The Department establishes the following application and program requirements for this program. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any year in which the program is in effect.
(a) SEA applicants must identify in their applications the specific high-need LEAs that will benefit from the grant or how they will identify and select the high-need LEAs designated to benefit from the grant.
(b) LEA applicants must describe how they and each LEA in the consortium, if applicable, meets the definition of high-need LEA.
(c) Applicants must include in their applications the most recently available data on the number of credentialed school psychologists delivering services in the high-need LEA(s) and the projected number of credentialed school psychologists that will be hired and retained to deliver services in the high-need LEA(s) for each year of the project using funds from this grant.
(a) Eligible Applicants for this program are one or both of SEAs, as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(49), or LEAs, as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(30), including consortia of LEAs.
(b) Administrative costs for SEA applicants that receive an award under this program may not exceed 10 percent of the annual grant award. Administrative costs for LEA applicants that receive an award under this program may not exceed 5 percent of the annual grant award.
(c) Applicants that receive an award under this program must use grant funds to supplement, and not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this program.
(d) Applicants that receive an award under this program are prohibited from using program funds for: (1) gender ideology, (2) political activism, (3) racial stereotyping, or (4) hostile environments for students of particular races.
(e) Applicants that receive an award under this program must ensure that school psychologists funded by this grant begin delivering services to students as soon as possible, but not later than 270 days from award.
(f) Applicants that receive an award under this program must ensure that any school psychologist hired under this grant, including any provider that offers telehealth services (as defined in this notice), is credentialed by the State to work in an elementary school (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(19)) or secondary school (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(45)).
(g) Applicants that receive an award under the program must comply with section 4001(a) of Title IV of the ESEA. In carrying out the Informed Written Consent requirements described in paragraph (a)(1), the exception in (a)(2)(B)(i) only applies after the applicant has documented that it has made multiple repeated attempts through various communication methods to obtain parent consent. Subsequently, where parent consent is not obtained under (a)(2), not including the provisions in (B)(ii), the parent of a child participating in such services will be provided notice of initial and subsequent service delivery.
(h) Applicants that receive an award under this program must ensure that any school psychologist offering services (including telehealth services) does so in a manner consistent with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as all other applicable Federal, State, and local laws.
The Department establishes definitions of “credentialed,” “early intervention mental health services,” “high-need LEA,” “intensive mental health services,” “recruitment,” “respecialization,” “retention,” and “telehealth” for use in this program. We may apply these definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.
(a)(1) a ratio of students to school psychologists that exceeds a ratio of 500 students to 1 school psychologist and (2) high rates of school violence, poverty, substance use, suicide, trafficking, or other adverse childhood experiences;
(b) having received a Project School Emergency Response to Violence (SERV) grant from the U.S. Department of Education since October 1, 2020; or
(c) having experienced a traumatic event since January 1, 2025, and did not receive a Project School Emergency Response to Violence (SERV) grant from the U.S. Department of Education.
(1) Providing an annual salary or stipend to newly hired school psychologists.
(2) Creating pathways to grant cross-State credentialing reciprocity for school psychologists.
(3) Providing hiring incentives and supports, for example, increasing pay; offering monetary incentives for relocation to serve in high-need LEAs; providing services via telehealth; creating hybrid roles that allow for leadership, academic, or research opportunities; and offering service scholarship programs, such as those that provide grants in exchange for a commitment to serve in the LEA for a minimum number of years.
(1) Revising, updating, or streamlining requirements for such individuals so that additional training or other requirements focus only on the training needed to obtain a credential as a school psychologist.
(2) Providing a stipend or making a payment to support the training needed to obtain a credential as a school psychologist.
(3) Offering flexible options for completing training needed to obtain a credential as a school psychologist.
(4) Offering other meaningful activities that result in such individuals obtaining a credential as a school-psychologist.
(1) Providing opportunities for advancement or leadership, such as career pathways programs, recognition and award programs, and mentorship programs; and
(2) Offering incentives and supports to help mitigate shortages, for example, increasing pay; offering monetary incentives for relocation to serve in high-need LEAs; providing services via telehealth; offering service scholarship programs, such as those that provide grants in exchange for a commitment to serve in a high-need LEA for a minimum number of years; and developing paid internship programs.
Participation in this program is voluntary. For this reason, the priorities, requirements, and definitions would impose no burden on small entities unless they applied for funding under the program. Eligible applicants would determine whether to apply for funds and would weigh the requirements for preparing applications, and any associated costs, against the likelihood of receiving funding and the requirements for implementing projects under the program. Eligible applicants most likely would apply only if they determine that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an application. The likely benefits include the potential receipt of a grant as well as other benefits that may accrue to an entity through its development of an application, such as the use of that application to seek funding from other sources to address a shortage in school-based mental health services providers.
You may also access Department documents published in the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2025 funds for the School-Based Mental Health Services Grant program (SBMH).
The Department will post a preapplication presentation for prospective applicants. To access the preapplication presentation, visit the SBMH web page at
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Amy Banks, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202-6450. Telephone: (202) 987-1780. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
(a) SEA applicants must identify in their applications the specific high-need LEAs that will benefit from the grant or how they will identify and select the high-need LEAs designated to benefit from the grant.
(b) LEA applicants must describe how they and each LEA in the consortium, if applicable, meets the definition of high-need LEA.
(c) Applicants must include in their applications the most recently available data on the number of credentialed school psychologists delivering services in the high-need LEA(s) and the projected number of credentialed school psychologists that will be hired and retained to deliver services in high-need LEA(s) for each year of the project using funds from this grant.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
The Secretary intends to create two funding slates for SBMH applications, one slate for applications that meet Absolute Priorities 1 and 3 and a second slate for applications that that meet Absolute Priorities 2 and 3. As a result, the Secretary may fund applications out of the overall rank order.
These priorities are:
Priority 1—SEAs proposing to increase the number of credentialed school psychologists employed in high-need LEAs.
To meet this priority, an SEA must propose a plan to recruit and retain credentialed school psychologists for employment in high-need LEAs.
Priority 2—LEAs proposing to increase the number of credentialed school psychologists employed in high-need LEAs.
To meet this priority, a high-need LEA or a consortium of high-need LEAs must propose a plan to recruit and retain credentialed school psychologists for employment in high-need LEAs.
Priority 3—SEAs or LEAs increasing the number of credentialed school psychologists delivering early intervention and intensive mental health services in high-need LEAs.
To meet this priority, applicants must propose to increase the number of credentialed school psychologists who will engage in the following:
(a) Providing intensive mental health services and supports to individual students most in need of those services,
(b) Providing early intervention mental health services to address acute concerns and determine if intensive mental health services are needed, and
(c) Building necessary capacity and local support to ensure the provision of intensive mental health services beyond the life of the grant.
The total number of competitive preference points an SEA applicant may compete for is 6. The total number of competitive preference points an LEA or consortium of LEAs applicant may compete for is 3. As stated previously, these entities will not be competing against one another.
An applicant must clearly identify in the project abstract and the project narrative section of its application the competitive preference priority or priorities it wishes the Department to consider for purposes of earning competitive preference priority points.
These priorities are:
To meet this priority, an SEA must propose to increase the number of credentialed school psychologists employed in high-need LEAs by implementing a respecialization plan. The respecialization plan must support professionals who hold, at a minimum, a degree in a related field (
Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate the following:
(a) The applicant proposes to serve a community that is served by one or more LEAs—
(i) With a National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43; or
(ii) With a NCES locale code of 41, 42, or 43.
Program Requirements:
These program requirements are from the NFP published elsewhere in this issue of the
(a) Eligible Applicants for this program are one or both of SEAs, as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(49), or LEAs, as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(30), including consortia of LEAs.
(b) Administrative costs for SEA applicants that receive an award under this program may not exceed 10 percent of the annual grant award. Administrative costs for LEA applicants that receive an award under this program may not exceed 5 percent of the annual grant award.
(c) Applicants that receive an award under this program must use grant funds to supplement, and not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this program.
(d) Applicants that receive an award under this program are prohibited from using program funds for: (1) gender ideology, (2) political activism, (3) racial
(e) Applicants that receive an award under this program must ensure that school psychologists funded by this grant begin delivering services to students as soon as possible, but not later than 270 days from award.
(f) Applicants that receive an award under this program must ensure that any school psychologist hired under this grant, including any services provider that offers telehealth services (as defined in this notice), is credentialed to work in an elementary school (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(19)) or secondary school (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(45)).
(g) Applicants that receive an award under the program must comply with section 4001(a) of part A of Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). In carrying out the Informed Written Consent requirements described in paragraph (a)(1), the exception in (a)(2)(B)(i) only applies after the applicant has made multiple repeated attempts through various communication methods to obtain parent consent. Subsequently, where parent consent is not obtained under (a)(2), not including the provisions in (B)(ii), the parent of a child participating in such services will be provided notice of initial and subsequent service delivery.
(h) Applicants that receive an award under this program must ensure that any school psychologist offering services (including telehealth services) does so in a manner consistent with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as all other applicable Federal, State, and local laws.
Selection Criteria:
The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210. The points assigned to each criterion are indicated in the parentheses next to the criterion. An applicant may earn up to a total of 100 points based on the selection criteria. Non-Federal peer reviewers will evaluate and score each application program narrative against the following selection criteria:
(a) Need for the Project: (Up to 20 points)
The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project.
(1) In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the specific nature and magnitude of gaps or challenges are identified and the extent to which these gaps or challenges will be addressed by the services, supports, infrastructure, or opportunities described in the proposed project.
(b) Quality of the Project Design: (Up to 30 points)
The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, measurable, and ambitious yet achievable within the project period, and aligned with the purposes of the grant program. (Up to 20 points)
(ii) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates that it is designed to build capacity and yield sustainable results that will extend beyond the project period. (Up to 10 points)
(c) Adequacy of resources. (Up to 30 points)
The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project and the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project. (Up to 20 points)
(ii) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served, the depth and intensity of services, and the anticipated results and benefits. (Up to 10 points)
(d) Quality of the management plan. (Up to 20 points)
The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The feasibility of the management plan to achieve project objectives and goals on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks. (Up to 10 points)
(ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project. (Up to 10 points)
Performance Measures: For the purpose of Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, we have established the following performance measures for the School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program:
(a) The unduplicated, cumulative number of new school psychologists hired for each high-need LEA as a result of the grant.
(b) The unduplicated, cumulative number of school psychologists retained in high-need LEAs as a result of the grant.
(c) The ratio of students to school psychologist for each high-need LEA served by the grant, and the numbers of school psychologists and students used to calculate the ratio.
These measures constitute the Department's indicators of success for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to these measures in conceptualizing the approach for its proposed project plan. Each grantee will be required to provide, in its annual performance and final reports, data about its progress in meeting these measures.
Performance measure targets: The applicant must propose annual targets for the measures listed above in their application. Applicants must also provide the following information as directed under 34 CFR 75.110(b) and (c):
(1) An explanation of how each proposed performance target is ambitious (as defined in this notice) yet achievable compared to the baseline (as defined in this notice) for the performance measure.
(2) An explanation of the data collection and reporting methods the applicant would use and why those methods are likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data.
(3) An explanation of the applicant's capacity to collect and report reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, as evidenced by high-quality data collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.
Note: If the applicant does not have experience with collection and reporting of performance data through other projects or research, the applicant should provide other evidence of capacity to successfully carry out data collection and reporting for its proposed project.
The reviewers of each application will score related selection criteria on the basis of how well an applicant has considered these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation of the project.
All grantees must submit an annual performance report and final performance report with information that is responsive to these performance measures.
Definitions:
The definitions of “credentialed,” “early intervention mental health services,” “high-need LEA,” “intensive mental health services,” “recruit or recruitment,” “respecialization,” “retain or retention,” and “telehealth” are from the NFP published elsewhere in this issue of the
Credentialed means an individual who possesses a valid license or certificate from the SEA or relevant regulatory body as a school psychologist approved by the State to provide services aligned with the practice of school psychology.
Early intervention mental health services mean services for students who are exhibiting signs of distress or impairment or are at heightened risk of needing mental health services. Based on current best practices in school psychology for serving an individual student, early intervention mental health services may include, for example, screening and referrals, small group services, or brief individualized interventions.
High-need LEA means an LEA that has a significant need for additional school psychologists based on:
(a)(1) a ratio of students to school psychologists that exceeds a ratio of 500 students to 1 school psychologist and (2) high rates of school violence, poverty, substance use, suicide, trafficking, or other adverse childhood experiences;
(b) having received a Project School Emergency Response to Violence (SERV) grant from the U.S. Department of Education since October 1, 2020; or
(c) having experienced a traumatic event since January 1, 2025, and did not receive a Project School Emergency Response to Violence (SERV) grant from the U.S. Department of Education.
(1) The term includes any other public institution or agency having administrative control and direction of a public elementary school or secondary school.
(2) The term includes an elementary or secondary school funded by the Bureau of Indian Education but only to the extent that including the school makes the school eligible for programs for which specific eligibility is not provided to the school in another provision of law and the school does not have a student population that is smaller than the student population of the LEA receiving assistance under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) with the smallest student population, except that the school shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any SEA other than the Bureau of Indian Education.
(3) The term includes educational service agencies and consortia of those agencies.
(4) The term includes the SEA in a State in which the SEA is the sole educational agency for all public schools.
(1) Providing an annual salary or stipend to newly hired school psychologists.
(2) Creating pathways to grant cross-State credentialing reciprocity for school psychologists.
(3) Providing hiring incentives and supports, for example, increasing pay; offering monetary incentives for relocation to serve in high-need LEAs; providing services via telehealth; creating hybrid roles that allow for leadership, academic, or research opportunities; and offering service scholarship programs, such as those that provide grants in exchange for a commitment to serve in the LEA for a minimum number of years.
(1) Revising, updating, or streamlining requirements for such individuals so that additional training or other requirements focus only on the training needed to obtain a credential as a school psychologist.
(2) Providing a stipend or making a payment to support the training needed to obtain a credential as a school psychologist.
(3) Offering flexible options for completing training needed to obtain a credential as a school psychologist.
(4) Offering other meaningful activities that result in such individuals obtaining a credential as a school-psychologist.
(1) Providing opportunities for advancement or leadership, such as career pathways programs, recognition and award programs, and mentorship programs; and
(2) Offering incentives and supports to help mitigate shortages, for example, increasing pay; offering monetary incentives for relocation to serve in high-need LEAs; providing services via telehealth; offering service scholarship programs, such as those that provide grants in exchange for a commitment to serve in a high-need LEA for a minimum number of years; and developing paid internship programs.
1. a.
b.
c.
d.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; the one-page abstract, resumes, bibliography, charts with timelines and milestones, or letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.
You may also access Department documents published in the
U.S. Department of Education.
Final priorities, requirements, and definitions.
The Department of Education (Department) announces final priorities, requirements, and definitions under the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program (MHSP), Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.184X. We may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, and definitions for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2025 and later years. These final priorities, requirements, and definitions are designed to better target activities to address shortages of school-based mental health services providers, specifically school psychologists, in high-need local educational agencies (LEAs). These priorities, requirements, and definitions replace the Notice of Final Priorities, Requirements, and Definitions published in the
The final priorities, requirements, and definitions are effective October 29, 2025.
Dana Carr, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4B210, Washington, DC 20202-6450. Telephone: (202) 987-0119. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or suggested changes that the law does not authorize us to make under applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general comments regarding concerns not directly related to the proposed priorities, requirements, or definitions.
Over the past several years, concerns about the mental health of children and youth have increased.
While schools may continue to hire and train school counselors and social workers using State and local funds, the Department's policy approach is to use its limited Federal funds to focus on school psychologists because of their expertise to both assess and identify students with the greatest needs and provide specialized services appropriate to those needs.
Regarding commenters' requests for the Department to provide guidance regarding allowable activities, we encourage commenters to read resources such as the Department of Justice's “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination,”
The Department establishes the following priorities for use in this program. We may use one or more of these priorities in any year in which this program is in effect.
To meet this priority, an SEA applicant must propose a project designed to train and place school psychology graduate candidates into high-need LEAs for the purpose of fulfilling requirements necessary to complete a degree and obtain a license or certification as a credentialed school psychologist.
To meet this priority, the applicant must propose a project designed to train and place school psychology graduate candidates into high-need LEAs for the purpose of fulfilling requirements necessary to complete a degree and obtain a license or certification as a credentialed school psychologist.
To meet this priority, applicants must propose to increase the number of credentialed school psychologists available to engage in:
(a) Providing intensive mental health services and supports to individual students most in need of those services,
(b) Providing early intervention mental health services to address acute concerns and determine if intensive mental health services are needed.
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the
The Department establishes the following application and program requirements for this program. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any year in which the program is in effect.
(a) SEA applicants must identify in their applications the specific high-need LEAs that will benefit from the grant or describe how they will identify and select the high-need LEAs that will benefit from the grant.
(b) Applicants must describe in their applications a school-based mental health partnership designed to train school psychology graduate candidates and place them into participating high-need LEAs.
(c) Applicants must include in their applications the most recently available data on the number of school psychologists in the high-need LEA(s) and the projected number of school psychology graduate candidates that will be trained and placed into employment in the identified LEA(s) for each year of the plan using funds from this grant.
(a) Eligible applicants for this program are one or both of SEAs, as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(49), or LEAs, as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(30), including consortia of LEAs.
(b) Applicants that receive an award under this program must use grant funds to supplement, and not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this program.
(c) Administrative costs for SEA applicants that receive an award under this program may not exceed 10 percent of the annual grant award. Administrative costs for applicants that are LEAs and consortia of LEAs may not exceed five percent of the annual grant award.
(d) Applicants that receive an award under this program are prohibited from using program funds for: (1) gender ideology, (2) political activism, (3) racial stereotyping, or (4) hostile environments for students of particular races.
(e) Applicants that receive an award under this program must provide within six months of award a memorandum of understanding (MOU), a memorandum of agreement (MOA), or letter of agreement documenting the applicant's school-based mental health partnership, as defined in this notice to the Department. The agreement must be signed by each entity's authorized representative. The agreement must detail each entity's roles and responsibilities in training and placing school psychology graduate candidates into high-need LEAs to achieve the goals and objectives of the project.
(f) Applicants that receive an award under the program must comply with section 4001(a) of Title IV of the ESEA. In carrying out the Informed Written Consent requirements described in paragraph (a)(1), the exception in (a)(2)(B)(i) only applies after the applicant has documented that it has made multiple repeated attempts through various communication methods to obtain parent consent. Subsequently, where parent consent is not obtained under (a)(2), not including the provisions in (a)(2)(B)(ii), the parent of a child participating in such services
(g) Applicants that receive an award under this program must ensure that any school psychologist or any school psychology graduate candidate offering services does so in a manner consistent with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as all other applicable Federal, State, and local laws.
The Secretary establishes the definitions of “credentialed,” “early intervention mental health services,” “
(a)(1) a ratio of students to school psychologists that exceeds a ratio of 500 students to 1 school psychologist and (2) high rates of school violence, poverty, substance use, suicide, trafficking, or other adverse childhood experiences;
(b) having received a Project School Emergency Response to Violence (SERV) grant from the U.S. Department of Education since October 1, 2020; or
(c) having experienced a traumatic event since January 1, 2025, and did not receive a Project School Emergency Response to Violence (SERV) grant from the U.S. Department of Education.
(a) One or more eligible institutions of higher education partners, as defined in this notice, or
(b) One or more entities, recognized by the State, to train and prepare school psychology graduate candidates for a school psychology credential; or
(c) State entities such as Governors, State workforce development agencies or boards, State vocational rehabilitation agencies, or State higher education agencies.
Participation in this program is voluntary. For this reason, the priorities, requirements, and definitions would impose no burden on small entities unless they applied for funding under the program. Eligible applicants would determine whether to apply for funds and would weigh the requirements for preparing applications, and any associated costs, against the likelihood of receiving funding and the requirements for implementing projects under the program. Eligible applicants most likely would apply only if they determine that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an application. The likely benefits include the potential receipt of a grant as well as other benefits that may accrue to an entity through its development of an application, such as the use of that application to seek funding from other sources to address a shortage in school-based mental health services providers.
You may also access Department documents published in the
U.S. Department of Education, Accreditation Group, Office of Postsecondary Education.
Call for written third-party comments.
This notice provides information to members of the public on submitting written comments for accrediting agencies currently undergoing review during the period of recognition by the U.S. Secretary of Education.
Comments must be received on or before October 31, 2025.
Elizabeth Daggett, Director, Accreditation Group, Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5C104, Washington, DC 20202, telephone: (202) 453-7615, or email:
This request for written third-party comments concerning the performance of accrediting agencies during their period of recognition is pursuant to 34 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 602.33(c)(4)(iii)(B).
Additional information for this accrediting agency will be added to the agenda for the Winter 2026 National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) meeting, notice of which was published November 6, 2024 (89 FRN 88046). The meeting date and location have not been determined but will be announced in a later
The Department requests written comments from the public on the following accrediting agency, which is currently undergoing review and evaluation during their period of recognition by the Department's Office of Postsecondary Education Accreditation Group, in accordance with the procedures set forth in 34 CFR 602.33. Inquiries under 34 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 602.33: Midwifery Education Accreditation Council (MEAC).
a. 34 CFR 602.33 review initiated by inquiry letter dated March 19, 2025 (letter available at
Written comments about the recognition of a specific accrediting agency must be received on or before October 31, 2025, in the
The Criteria are available at
Only written material submitted by the deadline to the email address listed in this notice, and in accordance with these instructions, become part of the official record concerning agencies scheduled for review and are considered by the Department and NACIQI in their deliberations.
A later
This document of the U.S. Department of Education was signed on September 24, 2025, by Christopher J. McCaghren, ED.D.,
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2025 funds for the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant program (MHSP).
The Department will post a preapplication presentation for prospective applicants. To access the preapplication presentation, visit the MHSP web page at
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Nicole White, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202-6450. Telephone: (202) 987-1594. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
(a) SEA applicants must identify in their applications the specific high-need LEAs that will benefit from the grant or describe how they will identify and select the high-need LEAs that will benefit from the grant.
(b) Applicants must describe in their applications a school-based mental health partnership designed to train school psychology graduate candidates and place them into participating high-need LEAs.
(c) Applicants must include in their applications the most recently available data on the number of school psychologists in the high-need LEA(s) and the projected number of school psychology graduate candidates that will be trained and placed into employment in the identified LEA(s) for each year of the plan using funds from this grant.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
This competition has three absolute priorities and one competitive preference priority. Absolute priorities 1, 2, and 3 are from the NFP published elsewhere in this issue of the
The Secretary intends to create two funding slates for MHSP applications,
These priorities are:
To meet this priority, an SEA applicant must propose a project designed to train and place school psychology graduate candidates into high-need LEAs for the purpose of fulfilling requirements necessary to complete a degree and obtain a license or certification as a credentialed school psychologist.
To meet this priority, the applicant must propose a project designed to train and place school psychology graduate candidates into high-need LEAs for the purpose of fulfilling requirements necessary to complete a degree and obtain a license or certification as a credentialed school psychologist.
To meet this priority, applicants must propose to increase the number of credentialed school psychologists available to engage in:
(a) Providing intensive mental health services and supports to individual students most in need of those services,
(b) Providing early intervention mental health services to address acute concerns and determine if intensive mental health services are needed.
An applicant must clearly identify in the project abstract and the project narrative section of its application if it wishes the Department to consider it for purposes of earning competitive preference priority points.
This priority is:
Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate the following:
(a) The applicant proposes to serve a community that is served by one or more LEAs—
(i) With a National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43; or
(ii) With a NCES locale code of 41, 42, or 43.
These program requirements are from the NFP published elsewhere in this issue of the
(a) Eligible applicants for this program are one or both of SEAs, as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(49), or LEAs, as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(30), including consortia of LEAs.
(b) Applicants that receive an award under this program must use grant funds to supplement, and not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this program.
(c) Administrative costs for SEA applicants that receive an award under this program may not exceed 10 percent of the annual grant award. Administrative costs for applicants that are LEAs and consortia of LEAs may not exceed five percent of the annual grant award.
(d) Applicants that receive an award under this program are prohibited from using program funds for: (1) gender ideology, (2) political activism, (3) racial stereotyping, or (4) hostile environments for students of particular races.
(e) Applicants that receive an award under this program must provide within six months of award a memorandum of understanding (MOU), a memorandum of agreement (MOA), or letter of agreement documenting the applicant's school-based mental health partnership, as defined in this notice to the Department. The agreement must be signed by each entity's authorized representative. The agreement must detail each entity's roles and responsibilities in training and placing school psychology graduate candidates into high-need LEAs to achieve the goals and objectives of the project.
(f) Applicants that receive an award under the program must comply with section 4001(a) of Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). In carrying out the Informed Written Consent requirements described in paragraph (a)(1), the exception in (a)(2)(B)(i) only applies after the applicant has documented that it has made multiple repeated attempts through various communication methods to obtain parent consent. Subsequently, where parent consent is not obtained under (a)(2), not including the provisions in (a)(2)(B)(ii), the parent of a child participating in such services will be provided notice of initial and subsequent service delivery.
(g) Applicants that receive an award under this program must ensure that any school psychologist or any school psychology graduate candidate offering services does so in a manner consistent with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as all other applicable Federal, State, and local laws.
The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210. The points assigned to each criterion are indicated in the parentheses next to the criterion. An applicant may earn up to a total of 100 points based on the selection criteria. Non-Federal peer reviewers will evaluate and score each application program narrative against the following selection criteria:
(a)
The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project.
(1) In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the specific nature and magnitude of gaps or challenges are identified and the extent to which these gaps or challenges will be addressed by the services, supports, infrastructure, or opportunities described in the proposed project.
(b)
The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, measurable, and ambitious yet achievable within the project period, and aligned with the purposes of the grant program. (Up to 20 points)
(ii) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates that it is designed to build capacity and yield sustainable results that will extend beyond the project period. (Up to 10 points)
(c)
The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project and the costs are reasonable in
(ii) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served, the depth and intensity of services, and the anticipated results and benefits. (Up to 10 points)
(d)
The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The feasibility of the management plan to achieve project objectives and goals on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks. (Up to 10 points)
(ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project. (Up to 10 points)
(a) The unduplicated, cumulative number of school psychologists trained by the grantee under the project to provide school-based mental health services in high-need LEAs.
(b) The unduplicated, cumulative number of school psychologists placed in a practicum or internship by the grantee in high-need LEAs to provide school-based mental health services.
(c) The unduplicated, cumulative number of school psychologists hired by high-need LEAs to provide school-based mental health services.
These measures constitute the Department's indicators of success for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed project. Each grantee will be required to provide, in its annual performance report, data about its progress in meeting these measures.
(1) An explanation of how each proposed performance target is ambitious (as defined in this notice) yet achievable compared to the baseline (as defined in this notice) for the performance measure.
(2) An explanation of the data collection and reporting methods the applicant would use and why those methods are likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data; and
(3) An explanation of the applicant's capacity to collect and report reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, as evidenced by high-quality data collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.
The reviewers of each application will score related selection criteria on the basis of how well an applicant has considered these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation of the project.
All grantees must submit an annual performance report and final performance report with information that is responsive to these performance measures.
The definitions of “credentialed,” “early intervention mental health services,” “eligible institution of higher education partner,” “high-need LEA,” “intensive mental health services, “school psychology graduate candidate,” and “school-based mental health partnership” are from the NFP published elsewhere in this issue of the
(a)(1) a ratio of students to school psychologists that exceeds a ratio of 500 students to 1 school psychologist and (2) high rates of school violence, poverty, substance use, suicide, trafficking, or other adverse childhood experiences;
(b) having received a Project School Emergency Response to Violence (SERV) grant from the U.S. Department of Education since October 1, 2020; or
(c) having experienced a traumatic event since January 1, 2025, and did not receive a Project School Emergency Response to Violence (SERV) grant from the U.S. Department of Education.
(1) The term includes any other public institution or agency having administrative control and direction of a public elementary school or secondary school.
(2) The term includes an elementary or secondary school funded by the Bureau of Indian Education but only to the extent that including the school makes the school eligible for programs for which specific eligibility is not provided to the school in another provision of law and the school does not have a student population that is smaller than the student population of the LEA receiving assistance under the
(3) The term includes educational service agencies and consortia of those agencies.
(4) The term includes the SEA in a State in which the SEA is the sole educational agency for all public schools.
(a) One or more eligible institutions of higher education partners, as defined in this notice, or
(b) One or more entities, recognized by the State, to train and prepare school psychology graduate candidates for a school psychology credential; or
(c) State entities such as Governors, State workforce development agencies or boards, State vocational rehabilitation agencies, or State higher education agencies.
1. a.
b.
c.
d.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; the one-page abstract, resumes, bibliography, charts with timelines and milestones, or letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.
You may also access Department documents published in the
Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of application.
The Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) (formerly the Office of Fossil Energy (FE)) of the Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice (Notice) of receipt of an application (Amendment Application), filed by Southern LNG Company, L.L.C. (Southern LNG) on July 31, 2025, and supplemented on September 11, 2025. Southern LNG seeks to amend its existing long-term authorization to export domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG) to non-free trade agreement countries set forth in DOE/FE Order No. 3956 (as amended)—specifically to allow such exports (1) in approved containers loaded onto vessels and (2) in bulk, loaded into bunkering vessels for ship-to-ship transfer as marine fuel to ships located within the territorial seas of foreign countries (including that country's ports). No other part of the existing authorization would be affected. Southern LNG also seeks to amend an application it filed in a separate proceeding, to allow additional exports to non-FTA countries, to include the same amendments to the activities it seeks for its existing authorization. Southern LNG filed the Amendment Application under the Natural Gas Act (NGA).
Protests, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention, as applicable, and written comments are to be filed as detailed in the Public Comment Procedures section no later than 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, on October 29, 2025.
Due to potential delays in DOE's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, we encourage respondents to submit filings electronically to ensure timely receipt.
On December 16, 2016, in Order No. 3956 (as amended),
On September 25, 2023, Southern LNG filed an application for authorization to export an additional 28.25 Bcf/yr from the Elba Island Terminal to non-FTA countries in Docket No. 23-109-LNG.
In the Amendment Application filed on July 31, 2025, Southern LNG seeks to utilize additional methods for the export of LNG: “(i) in approved ISO containers loaded in such containers onto vessels, and (ii) in bulk, loaded into bunkering vessels for transfer as marine fuel to ships located within the territorial sea of a foreign country (including ships located in foreign ports)[.]”
On September 11, 2025, Southern LNG filed a supplement to the Amendment Application “to (i) add a docket to [its] Amendment Application and to request that DOE/FECM authorize the actions requested in [its] Amendment Application as part of its order in that proceeding; and (ii) clarify certain aspects of its original
Additional details can be found in the Amendment Application and Amendment Application Supplement, posted on the DOE website at
In reviewing the Amendment Application, DOE will consider any issues required by law or policy under NGA section 3(a), DOE's regulations, and any other documents deemed appropriate.
Parties that may oppose the Amendment Application should address these issues and documents in their comments and/or protests, as well as other issues deemed relevant to the Amendment Application.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321
In response to this Notice, any person may file a protest, comments, or a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable, addressing the Amendment Application. Interested parties will be provided 30 days from the date of publication of this Notice in the
Any person wishing to become a party to the proceeding evaluating the Amendment Application must file a motion to intervene or notice of intervention.
Filings may be submitted using one of the following methods:
(1) Submitting the filing electronically at
(2) Mailing the filing to the Office of Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement at the address listed in the
(3) Hand delivering the filing to the Office of Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement at the address listed in the
For administrative efficiency, DOE prefers filings to be filed electronically. All filings must include a reference to “Docket Nos. 12-100-LNG and 23-109-LNG” or “Southern LNG Amendment Application” in the title line. Filings must be submitted in English to be considered.
The Amendment Application, and any filed protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, and comments will be available electronically on the DOE website at
A decisional record on the Amendment Application will be developed through responses to this Notice by parties, including the parties' written comments and replies thereto. Additional procedures will be used as necessary to achieve a complete understanding of the facts and issues. If an additional procedure is scheduled, notice will be provided to all parties. If no party requests additional procedures, a final Order may be issued based on the official record, including the Amendment Application and responses filed by parties pursuant to this Notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 590.316.
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, with changes, to the Petroleum Supply Reporting System (PSRS), as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The PSRS consists of six weekly surveys that make up the Weekly Petroleum Supply Reporting System (WPSRS), eight monthly surveys that make up the Monthly Petroleum Supply Reporting System (MPSRS), and one annual survey.
EIA must receive all comments on this proposed information collection no later than November 28, 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 1905-0165, by email at
Kenneth Pick, EIA Clearance Officer, at (202) 586-5562. The forms and instructions are available on EIA's website at
EIA uses WPSRS surveys to collect data from a sample of operators on input, production, imports, and inventory levels of crude oil, hydrocarbon gas liquids, petroleum products, and biofuels. EIA uses MPSRS surveys to collect data from all in-scope operators on input, production, imports, biofuel feedstocks consumed, refinery capacity, biofuel plant production capacity, fuels consumed in plant operations, and annual storage capacity of crude oil, hydrocarbon gas liquids petroleum products, and biofuels. EIA uses annual Form EIA-820 to collect data on refinery capacity, refinery fuels and feedstocks consumed, and the quantity of crude oil received by method of transportation.
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
EIA requires data from PSRS surveys to meet the requirements of energy data users for credible, reliable, and timely energy information. EIA uses PSRS survey data in statistical reports including, but not limited to, the Weekly Petroleum Status Report (WPSR), Petroleum Supply Monthly (PSM), and the Monthly Energy Review (MER). EIA uses PSRS survey data to support analysis and projection work with results reported in the Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), and other reports. EIA makes reports available at
Data from PSRS surveys provide data to inform policy and business decisions. The data promote efficient markets by providing transparency to petroleum and biofuel supplies. Use of PSRS data by academic researchers, educators, news media, and the general public promotes understanding of energy and its interaction with the economy and the environment.
(4a)
EIA proposes three modifications to Form EIA-819 form and instructions:
1. EIA proposes changing the name of the form from
2. EIA proposes revision of the disclosure language in the instructions to align treatment of EIA-819 data with that of all other PSRS surveys. The current disclosure rules for feedstock consumption are a remnant of the discontinued EIA-22M,
3. EIA proposes discontinuation of Part 10 of the Form EIA-819. Respondents have not reported any data in part 10a since its inception. EIA eliminated the data collected in part 10b from petroleum balances published in the
(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.
15 U.S.C. 772(b) and 42 U.S.C. 7101
Take notice that on September 23, 2025, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation submitted an annual report on the Find, Fix, Track and Compliance Exception programs, in accordance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Orders.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
The Commission encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
The filing is accessible online through the Commission's Home Page (
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
On April 4, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) received a request from the U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) for an updated jurisdictional determination for the unlicensed Tunnel Hydroelectric Project. The project is located on the Quinebaug River in New London County, Connecticut.
Pursuant to section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
A stream is navigable under section 3(8) of the FPA
Commission staff previously investigated the Commission's jurisdiction over the Tunnel Hydroelectric Project. On December 6, 1979, Commission staff determined that the project was non-jurisdictional based on Commission staff's finding that there was insufficient evidence that the Quinebaug River was navigable at the site of the Tunnel Project and that there was no post-1935 construction at the project.
In response to Interior's request, Commission staff is investigating the jurisdictional status of the Tunnel Hydroelectric Project (UL25-1-000). A copy of Interior's request may be viewed on the Commission's website at
The Commission is soliciting comments, motions to intervene, and protests in this proceeding. Comments, motions to intervene, and protests must be filed by
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, protests, and motions to intervene using the Commission's eFiling system at
For further information, please contact Maryam Akhavan at (202) 502-6110 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of receipt and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of and solicits comment on applications to register new pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients that would entail a change in use pattern. The Agency is providing this notice in accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA uses the month and year in the title to identify when the Agency complied the applications identified in this notice of receipt. Unit II. of this document identifies certain applications received in 2024 that are currently being evaluated by EPA, along with information about each application, including when it was received, who submitted the application, and the purpose of the application.
Comments must be received on or before October 29, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by the docket identification (ID) number and the
Each application summary in Unit II. specifies a contact division. The appropriate division contacts are identified as follows:
• RD (Registration Division) (Mail Code 7505T); Charles Smith; main telephone number: (202) 566-1030; email address:
This action provides information that is directed to the public in general.
EPA is taking this action pursuant to section 3(c)(4) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4), and 40 CFR 152.102.
EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on the applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients that were received during the covered period. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications. For actions being evaluated under EPA's public participation process for registration actions, there will be an additional opportunity for public comment on the proposed decisions. Please see EPA's public participation website for additional information on this process (
1.
2.
This unit provides the following information about the applications received during this period: The EPA File Symbol or Registration number(s); EPA docket ID number for the application; name and address of the applicant; name of the active ingredient, product type and proposed uses; and the division to contact for that application. Additional information about the application may also be available in the related docket for the application as identified in this unit.
•
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of and solicits comment on applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. The Agency is providing this notice in accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA uses the month and year in the title to identify when the Agency
Comments must be received on or before October 29, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by the docket identification (ID) number and the
Each application summary in Unit II. specifies a contact division. The appropriate division contacts are identified as follows:
• BPPD (Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division) (Mail Code 7511M); Shannon Borges; main telephone number: (202) 566-1400; email address:
This action provides information that is directed to the public in general.
EPA is taking this action pursuant to section 3(c)(4) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4), and 40 CFR 152.102.
EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products that were received during the covered period. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications. For actions being evaluated under EPA's public participation process for registration actions, there will be an additional opportunity for public comment on the proposed decisions. Please see EPA's public participation website for additional information on this process (
1.
2.
This unit provides the following information about the applications received during this period: The EPA File Symbol or Registration number(s); EPA docket ID number for the application; name and address of the applicant; name of the active ingredient, product type and proposed uses; and the division to contact for that application. Additional information about the application may also be available in the related docket for the application as identified in this unit.
•
Notice of the forthcoming regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (FCSIC), is hereby given in accordance with the provisions of the Bylaws of the FCSIC.
10 a.m., Wednesday, October 8, 2025.
You may observe the open portions of this meeting in person at 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090, or virtually. If you would like to virtually attend, at least 24 hours in advance, visit
If you need more information or assistance for accessibility reasons, or have questions, contact Ashley Waldron, Secretary to the Board. Telephone: 703-883-4009. TTY: 703-883-4056.
Parts of this meeting will be open to the public. The rest of the meeting will be closed to the public. The following matters will be considered:
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's 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 October 29, 2025.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice, request for comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invites comment on a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the Report of Net Debit Cap and Max Cap Resolution (FR 2226; OMB No. 7100-0217).
Comments must be submitted on or before November 28, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by FR 2226, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available on the Board's website at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer for the Federal Reserve Board, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.
During the comment period for this proposal, a copy of the proposed PRA OMB submission, including the draft reporting form and instructions, supporting statement (which contains more detail about the information collection and burden estimates than this notice), and other documentation, will be made available on the Board's public website at
The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Board's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Board's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Board should modify the proposal.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice, request for comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invites comment on a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the Annual Daylight Overdraft Capital Report for U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks (FR 2225; OMB No. 7100-0216).
Comments must be submitted on or before November 28, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by FR 2225, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available on the Board's website at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer for the Federal Reserve Board, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.
During the comment period for this proposal, a copy of the proposed PRA OMB submission, including the draft reporting form and instructions, supporting statement (which contains more detail about the information collection and burden estimates than this notice), and other documentation, will be made available on the Board's public website at
The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Board's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Board's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Board should modify the proposal.
Adding institution identifiers—The Board is proposing to add the RSSD ID fields (for both the foreign bank and the U.S. branch or agency responding for the foreign bank) and the ABA Number (for the U.S. branch or agency only). The information will assist staff at the Administrative Reserve Bank to accurately process the submissions in cases such as where the foreign bank has a complex multi-tiered system with multiple U.S. branches of agencies.
Clarifying reporting option 1.b—Currently, the reporting option in 1.b allows the respondents to select one of two options for reporting their worldwide capital “Equity only” or “Total qualifying capital.” The Board is proposing to relabel the reporting option in 1.b from “Equity only” to “Tier 1 capital.” The instructions to the form currently clarify that the “Equity only” option is the core capital under the Basel Capital Accords. Core capital is also known as the Tier 1 capital. The clarification in the form and instructions will help to ensure that respondents report the Tier 1 capital and not the Common Equity Tier 1 Capital (a component of Tier 1) given the reference to “Equity” in the reporting option.
Adding a request that institutions provide supporting documentation—The Board is proposing to add language requesting that the institution attach or provide links to supporting documentation for the figures reported in Items 1 and 2.
Adding a request that respondents identify legal entity reorganizations—The Board is proposing a new field requesting information on whether there have been reorganizations for the foreign banks that have impacted the worldwide capital and, if so, to provide an explanation. Requesting this information will assist staff at the Administrative Reserve Bank with verifying the values provided.
Clarifying the Authorized Officer signature requirement—The Board is clarifying that the Authorized Officer signing the FR 2225 must be listed on the Federal Reserve's Official Authorization List (OAL) and must submit their name and title. Individuals on the OAL are authorized to execute agreements, transact business, and issue instructions on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, this clarification will ensure that an individual has the authority to submit the FR 2225.
Adding clarifying suggestions to fields—The Board is proposing adding suggestions to the response fields by referencing language from the instructions to the FR 2225. In addition, the full date for the fiscal year ending field is required. Further, the FR 2225 respondents are requested to provide full amounts of values without rounding. These clarifications and suggestions will assist the respondents with accurately filing the FR 2225 and will also result in fewer erroneous submissions of data.
Updating contact information fields—The Board is proposing to add an email field for a contact at the responding entity who may be contacted in cases where staff at the Administrative Reserve Bank has a question about the submission.
Allowing submission of the form in Reporting Central—The Board is proposing that respondents will be able to submit the FR 2225 through Reporting Central in addition to the currently-available mechanism for submitting the form as a PDF through electronic mail. Reporting Central will provide an efficient method for submitting the form and any other supporting statements.
Removing address fields for physical submission of the form to the Administrative Reserve Bank—The Board is proposing to eliminate the address fields at the end of the form that correspond to the Administrative Reserve Bank receiving the form. The fields are no longer required given that the FR 2225 will be submitted electronically either via email or through Reporting Central.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 25, 2025.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the Selected Balance Sheet Items for Discount Window Borrowers (FR 2046; OMB No. 7100-0289).
The information collection revisions are effective October 29, 2025.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer for the Federal Reserve Board, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) submitted a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an emergency extension of the information collection request currently approved under OMB control number 0938-1147 (CMS-10410), entitled “Medicaid Program; Eligibility Changes under the Affordable Care Act of 2010.” In accordance with the implementing regulations of the PRA at 5 CFR 1320.13, CMS requested an emergency extension to enable the collection to remain active while CMS completes the pending PRA extension process and to prevent the public harm that would ensue in the event of a lapse of approval. No changes are being made to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The information collection is currently in the midst of its required 60-day public comment period which ends on November 7, 2025 (September 8, 2025, 90 FR 43189). The public can submit comments via the instructions provided in the notice.
To ensure OMB approval of the currently approved information collection remains valid during the PRA extension process, CMS submitted a request to the OMB on September 25, 2025, for a short-term emergency extension to extend the expiration date from October 31, 2025, to November 30, 2025. The emergency extension is intended to avoid the potential for public harm by providing CMS with enough time to publish the required 30-day
Office on Trafficking in Persons, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for Public Comments.
The Office on Trafficking in Persons (OTIP), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is requesting an extension of approval with revisions of an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved information collection: Domestic Victims of Human Trafficking (DVHT) Program Data (OMB #0970-0542; expiration date 2/28/2026).
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
OTIP proposes to continue to collect information to measure grant project performance, provide technical assistance to grant recipients, assess program outcomes, inform program evaluation, respond to congressional inquiries and mandated reports, and inform policy and program development that is responsive to the needs of victims.
The information collection captures information on participant demographics (
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for MIPLYFFA and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see
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
Jack Dan, Office of Regulatory Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6200, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-6940.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug or biological product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: a testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product, MIPLYFFA (arimoclomol), indicated for use in combination with miglustat for the treatment of neurological manifestations of Niemann-Pick disease type C (NPC) in adult and pediatric patients 2 years of age and older. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for MIPLYFFA (U.S. Patent No. 11,045,460) from Zevra Denmark A/S and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated March 17, 2025, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of MIPLYFFA represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for MIPLYFFA is 6,941 days. Of this time, 5,414 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 1,527 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,179 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by October 29, 2025.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection supports FDA's Accredited Third-Party Certification Program (also referred to as the third-party food program or TPP), administered under section 808 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 384d), and codified in 21 CFR part 1, subpart M (21 CFR 1.600 through 1.725) of Agency regulations. The regulation communicates eligibility criteria, assessment standards, and establishes procedures and requirements for participation. For more information visit our website at
Under TPP, accreditation bodies (ABs) apply to FDA for recognition. Recognized ABs accredit third-party certification bodies (CBs) under the program, except in limited circumstances. The accredited CBs conduct food safety audits and issue food or facility certifications to eligible foreign entities. Section 808(c)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act specifies that FDA uses certifications issued by accredited CBs under TPP in deciding whether to admit certain imported food (both food for human and food for animals) into the United States that we have determined poses a food safety risk under section 801(q) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 381(q)) and in deciding whether an importer is eligible to participate in a program for expedited review and entry under section 806 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 384b). Under TPP, FDA may grant recognition of an AB for up to 5 years from the date of recognition. There are current AB participants that are recognized through fiscal year 2027 or 2028 and will need to submit renewal of recognition applications to continue their participation. Specific requirements and procedures are found in 21 CFR part 1, subpart M.
There are approximately 200,000 foreign food (both food for human and food for animals) exporters who offer their food products for import into the United States. These foreign food exporters include approximately 130,000 food production facilities and approximately 71,000 farms. A proportion of these foreign food exporters may offer food subject to mandatory certification requirements under section 801(q)(3) of the FD&C Act. In that case, to continue importing food products into the United States, eligible entities must either obtain certification from a CB accredited under TPP, or obtain certification from a foreign government designated by FDA. We assume in any given year, 75 foreign food exporters will be subject to requirements in section 801(q) of the FD&C Act.
Use of accredited CBs and food and facility certifications issued under TPP helps reduce the number of redundant audits necessary to assess compliance with food safety requirements of the FD&C Act and applicable regulations. We have developed Forms FDA 3997 and FDA 3997a to enable respondents to submit required data elements using FDA's Unified Registration Listing System (FURLS), an electronic portal (Forms FDA 3997 for ABs and 3997a for CBs) that enables respondents to complete data fields and provide information to FDA electronically. The AB and CB portals provide a standardized format for entering information, prompting respondents for input, and facilitating FDA's review of the submittal. Respondents are subject to user fees for application, renewal, and annual fees, as set forth in 21 CFR 1.700 through 1.725. The user fee rates are calculated each fiscal year and published in the
Respondents to the collection of information are the accredited CBs that conduct audits and issue certifications to eligible entities, the ABs and CBs seeking to participate in TPP, and the recognized ABs and accredited CBs complying with the TPP requirements. An accredited CB is a foreign government, agency of a foreign government, foreign cooperative, or any other third party that a recognized AB (or, in the case of direct accreditation, FDA) has determined meets the applicable requirements of TPP and is accredited to conduct food safety audits and to issue food or facility certifications to eligible entities. An AB is an authority, such as a private third-
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate. However, a miscalculation in the burden estimate was identified during a review of the prior renewal and has been corrected.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for NIKTIMVO and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human biological product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see
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
Jack Dan, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6200, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-6940.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug or biologic product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: a testing phase and an approval phase. For human biological products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the biological product becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human biological product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the biological product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human biological product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human biologic product NIKTIMVO (axatilimab-csfr). NIKTIMVO is a colony stimulating factor-1 receptor (CSF-1R)-blocking antibody indicated for the treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) after failure of at least two prior lines of systemic therapy in adult and pediatric patients weighing at least 40 kg. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for NIKTIMVO (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,908,939; 10,039,826) from UCB BIOPHARMA SRL, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining these patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated March 17, 2025, FDA advised the USPTO that this human biological product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of NIKTIMVO represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for NIKTIMVO is 2,605 days. Of this time, 2,374 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 231 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that SEMPREX-D (acrivastine and pseudoephedrine hydrochloride) capsules, 8 milligrams (mg) and 60 mg, was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for acrivastine and pseudoephedrine hydrochloride capsules, 8 mg and 60 mg, if all other legal and regulatory requirements are met.
Stacy Kane, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6236, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8363,
Section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(j)) allows the submission of an ANDA to market a generic version of a previously approved drug product. To obtain approval, the ANDA applicant must show, among other things, that the generic drug product: (1) has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, route of administration, strength, conditions of use, and (with certain exceptions) labeling as the listed drug, which is a version of the drug that was previously approved, and (2) is bioequivalent to the listed drug. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
Section 505(j)(7) of the FD&C Act requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
SEMPREX-D (acrivastine and pseudoephedrine hydrochloride) capsules, 8 mg and 60 mg, is the subject of NDA 019806, held by Endo Pharmaceuticals, and initially approved on March 25, 1994. SEMPREX-D is indicated for relief of symptoms associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis such as sneezing, rhinorrhea, pruritus, lacrimation, and nasal congestion.
In a letter dated August 3, 2020, Endo Pharmaceuticals notified FDA that SEMPREX-D (acrivastine and pseudoephedrine hydrochloride) capsules, 8 mg and 60 mg, was being discontinued, and FDA moved the drug product to the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book.
Pharmobedient Consulting, LLC submitted a citizen petition dated April 1, 2025 (Docket No. FDA-2025-P-1028), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether SEMPREX-D (acrivastine and pseudoephedrine hydrochloride) capsules, 8 mg and 60 mg, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that SEMPREX-D (acrivastine and pseudoephedrine hydrochloride) capsules, 8 mg and 60 mg, was not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that SEMPREX-D (acrivastine and pseudoephedrine hydrochloride) capsules, 8 mg and 60 mg, was withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of SEMPREX-D (acrivastine and pseudoephedrine hydrochloride) capsules, 8 mg and 60 mg, from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have found no information that would indicate that this drug product was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list SEMPREX-D (acrivastine and pseudoephedrine hydrochloride) capsules, 8 mg and 60 mg, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to SEMPREX-D (acrivastine and pseudoephedrine hydrochloride) capsules, 8 mg and 60 mg, may be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for DIAMONDBACK 360 CORONARY ORBITAL ATHERECTOMY DEVICE and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that medical device.
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
Jack Dan, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6200, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-6940.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the device and continues until permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent
FDA has approved for marketing the medical device, DIAMONDBACK 360 CORONARY ORBITAL ATHERECTOMY DEVICE. DIAMONDBACK 360 CORONARY ORBITAL ATHERECTOMY DEVICE is indicated for a change in the design of the DIAMONDBACK 360 Coronary Orbital Atherectomy System (OAS), called OAS Micro Crown. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for DIAMONDBACK 360 CORONARY ORBITAL ATHERECTOMY DEVICE (U.S. Patent No. 9,055,966) from Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated October 16, 2017, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of DIAMONDBACK 360 CORONARY ORBITAL ATHERECTOMY DEVICE represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that the FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for DIAMONDBACK 360 CORONARY ORBITAL ATHERECTOMY DEVICE is 1,069 days. Of this time, 848 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 221 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application(s) for patent extension, this applicant seeks 645 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for TRICLIP and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that medical device.
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:
•
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the
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
Jack Dan, Office of Regulatory Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6200, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-6940.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the device and continues until permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a medical device will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the medical device, TRICLIP. TRICLIP is indicated for improving quality of life and functional status in patients with symptomatic severe tricuspid regurgitation despite optimal medical therapy, who are at intermediate or greater risk for surgery and in whom transcatheter edge-to-edge valve repair is clinically appropriate and is expected to reduce tricuspid regurgitation severity to moderate or less, as determined by a multidisciplinary heart team. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for TRICLIP (U.S. Patent Nos. 10,743,876; 11,141,158) from Abbott Cardiovascular Systems Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining these patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated March 17, 2025, FDA advised the USPTO that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of TRICLIP represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for TRICLIP is 2,497 days. Of this time, 2,100 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 397 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application(s) for patent extension,
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by October 29, 2025.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10 a.m.-12 p.m, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection supports Food and Drug Administration guidance. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorizes FDA to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health generally and to reduce tobacco use by minors.
Tobacco products are governed by chapter IX of the FD&C Act (sections 900 through 920) (21 U.S.C. 387 through 387t). Section 201(rr) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(rr)), as amended, defines a tobacco product as any product made or derived from tobacco, or containing nicotine from any source, that is intended for human consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product (except for raw materials other than tobacco used in manufacturing a component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product). Section 910 of the FD&C Act sets out premarket requirements for new tobacco products. The term new tobacco product is defined as any tobacco product (including those products in test markets) that was not commercially marketed in the United States as of February 15, 2007, or any modification (including a change in design, any component, any part, or any constituent, including a smoke constituent, or in the content, delivery, or form of nicotine, or any other additive or ingredient) of a tobacco product where the modified product was commercially marketed in the United States after February 15, 2007 (section 910(a)(1) of the FD&C Act).
FDA refers to tobacco products that were commercially marketed (including those products in test markets) in the United States as of February 15, 2007, as Pre-Existing tobacco products. Pre-Existing tobacco products are not considered new tobacco products and are not subject to the premarket requirements of section 910 of the FD&C Act. The guidance document associated with this information collection provides information on how a manufacturer may establish that a tobacco product was commercially marketed in the United States as of February 15, 2007. A Pre-Existing tobacco product (except such products exclusively in test markets) may also serve as the predicate tobacco product in a section 905(j) report (intended to be used toward demonstrating substantial equivalence) for a new tobacco product (section 905(j)(1)A)(i)) of the FD&C Act.
The guidance document “Establishing That a Tobacco Product Was Commercially Marketed in the United States as of February 15, 2007 (Revised)” (2023) (
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
FDA's estimate of the number of respondents is based on the fact that requesting an Agency determination of the Pre-Existing status of a tobacco product under the guidance is not required and also on the number of Pre-Existing tobacco product submissions received from 2011 to October 2024. All new tobacco products require a marketing authorization order from FDA before introducing such products in the U.S. market. If a deemed new tobacco product was on the market as of August 8, 2016, a marketing application was required to be submitted by September 9, 2020 as required by the Court, and as set forth in the Center for Tobacco Products compliance policy (see exception for premium cigars).
FDA further estimates it would take a manufacturer approximately 5 hours to put together this collection of evidence and to submit the package to FDA for review. FDA estimates that it would take approximately 2,500 hours annually to respond to this collection of information.
We have adjusted our burden estimate, which has resulted in a decrease to the currently approved burden. Our estimated burden for the information collection reflects an overall decrease of 2,500 hours and a corresponding decrease of 500 responses. The number of submissions FDA received to establish marketing as of February 15, 2007 has decreased and we have therefore revised the number of respondents to the information collection based on this data.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by October 29, 2025.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection supports FDA regulations. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as amended by the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), certain provisions have been established to protect against the intentional adulteration of food. Section 418 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350g) addresses intentional adulteration in the context of facilities that manufacture, process, pack, or hold food and are required to register under section 415 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350d). Section 419 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350h) addresses intentional adulteration in the context of fruits and vegetables that are raw agricultural commodities. Section 420 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350i) addresses intentional adulteration in the context of high-risk foods and exempts farms except for farms that produce milk. These provisions are codified at part 121 (21 CFR part 121) and include requirements that an owner, operator, or agent in charge of a facility must:
• Prepare and implement a written food defense plan that includes a vulnerability assessment to identify significant vulnerabilities and actionable process steps, mitigation strategies, and procedures for food defense monitoring, corrective actions, and verification (§ 121.126 (21 CFR 121.126));
• identify any significant vulnerabilities and actionable process steps by conducting a vulnerability assessment for each type of food manufactured, processed, packed, or held at the facility using appropriate methods to evaluate each point, step, or
• identify and implement mitigation strategies at each actionable process step to provide assurances that the significant vulnerability at each step will be significantly minimized or prevented and the food manufactured, processed, packed, or held by the facility will not be adulterated. For each mitigation strategy implemented at each actionable process step, include a written explanation of how the mitigation strategy sufficiently minimizes or prevents the significant vulnerability associated with the actionable process step (§ 121.135 (21 CFR 121.135));
• establish and implement mitigation strategies management components, as appropriate to ensure the proper implementation of each such mitigation strategy, taking into account the nature of the mitigation strategy and its role in the facility's food defense system (21 CFR 121.138);
• establish and implement food defense monitoring procedures, for monitoring the mitigation strategies, as appropriate to the nature of the mitigation strategy and its role in the facility's food defense system (§ 121.140 (21 CFR 121.140));
• establish and implement food defense corrective action procedures that must be taken if mitigation strategies are not properly implemented, as appropriate to the nature of the actionable process step and the nature of the mitigation strategy (§ 121.145 (21 CFR 121.145));
• establish and implement specified food defense verification activities, as appropriate to the nature of the mitigation strategy and its role in the facility's food defense system (§ 121.150 (21 CFR 121.150));
• conduct a reanalysis of the food defense plan (21 CFR 121.157);
• ensure that all individuals who perform required food defense activities are qualified to perform their assigned duties (§ 121.4 (21 CFR 121.4)); and
• establish and maintain certain records, including the written food defense plan (vulnerability assessment, mitigation strategies and procedures for food defense monitoring, corrective actions, and verification) and documentation related to training of personnel. All records are subject to certain general recordkeeping and record retention requirements (§§ 121.301 through 121.330 (21 CFR 121.301 through 121.330).
Under the regulations, an owner, operator, or agent in charge of a facility must prepare, or have prepared, and implement a written food defense plan, including written identification of actionable process steps, written mitigation strategies, written procedures for defense monitoring, written food defense corrective actions, and written food defense verification procedures.
The purpose of the information collection is to ensure compliance with the provisions under part 121 related to protecting food from intentional adulteration. The regulations are intended to address hazards that may be intentionally introduced to foods, including by acts of terrorism, with the intent to cause widespread harm to public health. Under the regulations, domestic and foreign food facilities that are required to register under the FD&C Act are required to identify and implement mitigation strategies to significantly minimize or prevent significant vulnerabilities identified at actionable process steps in a food operation.
To facilitate the collection of information, FDA offers tools and educational materials related to protecting food from intentional adulteration, including the FDA Food Defense Plan Builder, a user-friendly tool designed to help owners and operators of food facilities develop a personalized food defense plan, and the Mitigation Strategies Database, a database for the food industry providing a range of preventative measures that firms may choose to implement. These and other informational resources are available at
In the
Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period. OMB may act on HRSA's ICR only after the 30-day comment period for this notice has closed.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than October 29, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to:
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Samantha Miller, the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, at
A 60-day notice was published in the
A commenter provided support of the CHGME Payment Program, stating that the Program is the only federal program that specifically supports pediatric and pediatric subspecialty training at the nation's children's hospitals. The commenter cited HRSA's National Center for Workforce Analysis fact sheet with Program accomplishments showing CHGME Payment Program-participating children's hospitals trained 55 percent of all pediatric residents and 56 percent of all pediatric subspecialists in the United States in the 2023-2024 academic years and provided valuable care to the nation's children, including those in military-connected families and rural and underserved communities. Both commenters expressed their satisfaction with HRSA's efforts to reduce reporting burden through its plans to adopt Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' direct graduate medical education methodology for determining the weighted FTE count for children's hospitals participating in the CHGME Payment Program.
HRSA appreciates the commenters' support for the CHGME Payment Program and the agency's efforts to minimize administrative burden on children's hospitals who must report FTE counts to the CHGME Payment Program and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Both comments expressed the following:
• Stated that the time, effort, and costs associated with tracking residents, gathering the data, and completing the forms is burdensome.
• Expressed concern about the amount of information collected on HRSA's forms. Commenters encouraged HRSA to increase the use of automation, improve the efficiency of their processes to improve accuracy, reduce duplication, ensure the efficient use of hospital resources, and enable the CHGME hospitals to focus their resources on their training programs.
• Recommended HRSA implement clear guidelines and definitions, streamline data requests to encompass the most relevant information, use Medicare cost report data where appropriate, improve the data submission software, and fully utilize automation when possible.
HRSA appreciates these comments; however, they are not directly related to the data gathered as part of this notice. The data collection instruments associated with this notice collect hospital level data and aggregate FTE resident counts. Commenters mentioned the collection of burdensome, sensitive data directly from residents, which is due to HRSA in July—a very busy time for teaching hospitals. These comments appear to be directed at the CHGME annual performance report forms (OMB No. 0906-0086), which have a July deadline and require the collection of sensitive data directly from residents. The annual performance report forms collect more comprehensive individual level information rather than the aggregate information on FTEs in this data collection.
HRSA clarifies that the submission times for the forms included in this notice are as follows: (1) the reconciliation applications forms are due in early May, (2) the FTE assessment data is required during the fall and winter of each fiscal year, and (3) the initial application forms have a late August or early September submission date. The data gathered as part of this notice is hospital level data and aggregate FTE resident counts. Because the comments received are outside the scope of this final notice, HRSA is not addressing comments pertaining to the annual performance report forms and data collection.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Translational Research in Neurology and Neuropsychiatry. November 07, 2025, 09:00 a.m. to November 07, 2025, 06:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
This meeting is being amended to change the date from November 7, 2025, to November 14, 2025. The meeting is closed to the public.
Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
ASPR intends to provide a five-year single-source Cooperative
The five-year period of performance is from September 30, 2025, through September 29, 2030. The FY 2025 budget period is September 30, 2025, through September 29, 2026. FY 2025 award amount: $7,730,000.
Jennifer Hannah; Director, Office of Health Care Readiness, (202) 245-0722;
The Office of Health Care Readiness (OHCR) is the program office for this CoAg.
This National Special Pathogen System (NSPS) is a national, tiered system-of-care—similar to the National Trauma Care System—with four facility levels that have increasing capabilities to care for patients that have suspected or confirmed HCIDs. NETEC is a consortium consisting of Emory University, the Nebraska Medicine/University of Nebraska Medical Center, and the New York City (NYC) Health + Hospitals/Bellevue. Congressionally designated as the NSPS Coordinating Body, NETEC has served as a special pathogen response advisor to ASPR and the United States Government for over a decade. In this role, NETEC leads 13 Regional Emerging Special Pathogen Treatment Centers (RESPTCs), or Level 1 facilities, to act as regional hubs for special pathogen readiness in the United States (U.S.). NETEC is the architect of the NSPS System of Care Strategy and implementation plan and has brokered relationships with hundreds of health care partners across the U.S. and globally to advance special pathogen preparedness and response capabilities. Due to the complexity and scale of this role, the level of technical and clinical subject matter expertise needed, and the unique capabilities required, NETEC is the only entity that can serve in this role.
During recent outbreaks including avian influenza, Argentine and Bolivian Hemorrhagic Fever, and Nipah Virus, NETEC provided training materials, situational awareness, technical assistance, and recommendations on patient care to relevant health care entities, enabling high-quality, lifesaving special pathogen care for patients. NETEC directly supports state-level capabilities for special pathogen readiness, partnering with state public health departments and providing consultative services to help strengthen private and public sector health care partners. In FY 2024 alone, NETEC addressed 74 requests for consultation and provided targeted support services to entities like the South Dakota Department of Public Health, which worked with NETEC to revise their concept of operations for responding to HCID threats and facilitating cross-jurisdictional exercises with neighboring states in the region. This award will enable NETEC to build on these capabilities and strengthen the NSPS to build resilience against HCID threats, including avian influenza.
The timing of this award requires a single-source of funding for NETEC, as this award is intended to enable NETEC to continue to lead special pathogen preparedness and response for currently active or emergent HCID threats. The NSPS serves a critical role in streamlining special pathogen preparedness and response, ultimately saving patient lives and avoiding preventable outbreaks. For example, when a patient in Iowa was diagnosed with Lassa Fever, all components of the NSPS quickly activated to prevent a potential outbreak in the U.S. NETEC coordinated with five health care facilities, including RESPTCs, for a timely and effective response, including managing infection control, preventing secondary transmission among 180 close contacts, and maintaining situational awareness across all response partners. This rapid and coordinated response resulted in zero additional infections. An interruption or delay will disrupt NETEC's ability to carry out critical activities needed to prevent and mitigate HCID threats. Through this award, ASPR will collaborate with NETEC to continue to build capabilities and capacity to protect the health of the nation, mitigate impacts of current and emerging HCIDs, and save lives.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0057, Small Passenger Vessels; with change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before November 28, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2025-0296] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy Management, telephone (571) 607-4058, or email
This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C., chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) the practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, USCG-2025-0296, and must be received by November 28, 2025.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to
• CG-5256, U.S. Coast Guard Inspected Small Passenger Vessel [sticker].
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 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 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than November 28, 2025) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0076 in the subject line and the agency name. Please submit written comments and/or suggestions in English. Please use the following method to submit comments:
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The respondents to this information collection are members of the trade community who are familiar with CBP regulations.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 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 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than November 28, 2025) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0025 in the subject line and the agency name. Please submit written comments and/or suggestions in English. Please use the following method to submit comments:
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
CBP Form 26 is accessible at:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
This notice advises the public that the quarterly Internal Revenue Service interest rates used to calculate interest on overdue accounts (underpayments) and refunds (overpayments) of customs duties will remain the same from the previous quarter. For the calendar quarter beginning October 1, 2025, the interest rates for underpayments will be 7 percent for both corporations and non-corporations. The interest rate for overpayments will be 7 percent for non-corporations and 6 percent for corporations. This notice is published for the convenience of the importing public and U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel.
The rates announced in this notice are applicable as of October 1, 2025.
Bruce Ingalls, Revenue Division, Collection Refunds & Analysis Branch, 8899 E 56th Street, Mail Stop 203J, Indianapolis, IN 46249; telephone (317) 298-1107.
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1505 and Treasury Decision 85-93, published in the
The interest rates are based on the Federal short-term rate and determined by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury on a quarterly basis. The rates effective for a quarter are determined during the first-month period of the previous quarter.
In Revenue Ruling 2025-18, the IRS determined the rates of interest for the calendar quarter beginning October 1, 2025, and ending on December 31, 2025. The interest rate paid to the Treasury for underpayments will be the Federal short-term rate (4%) plus three percentage points (3%) for a total of seven percent (7%) for both corporations and non-corporations. For overpayments made by non-corporations, the rate is the Federal short-term rate (4%) plus three percentage points (3%) for a total of seven percent (7%). For corporate overpayments, the rate is the Federal short-term rate (4%) plus two percentage points (2%) for a total of six percent (6%). These interest rates used to calculate interest on overdue accounts (underpayments) and refunds (overpayments) of customs duties remain the same as the previous quarter. These interest rates are subject to change for the calendar quarter beginning January 1, 2026, and ending on March 31, 2026.
For the convenience of the importing public and U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel, the following list of IRS interest rates used, covering the period from July of 1974 to date, to calculate interest on overdue accounts and refunds of customs duties, is published in summary format.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 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 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than November 28, 2025) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s)
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This form is accessible at:
This form is being utilized as part of the Vessel Entrance and Clearance System Public Test which has been very successful. CBP is considering regulatory change to move the test into a requirement.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 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 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than November 28, 2025) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0110 in the subject line and the agency name. Please submit written comments and/or suggestions in English. Please use the following method to submit comments:
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Visa Waiver Program Carrier Agreement (CBP Form I-775) is used by carriers to request acceptance by CBP into the Visa Waiver Program (VWP). This form is an agreement whereby carriers agree to the terms of the VWP as delineated in Section 217(e) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1187(e)). Once participation is granted, CBP Form I-775 serves to hold carriers liable for certain transportation costs, to ensure the completion of required forms, and to require sharing passenger data, among other requirements. Regulations are promulgated at 8 CFR 217.6, Carrier Agreements. A fillable copy of CBP Form I-775 is accessible at:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 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 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than November 28, 2025) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0082 in the subject line and the agency name. Please submit written comments and/or suggestions in English. Please use the following method to submit comments:
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
For preferential treatment of textile and apparel articles under AGOA, the exporter or producer, or the exporter's or producer's authorized agent having knowledge of the facts, is required to prepare a certificate of origin and provide it to the importer. The certificate of origin includes information such as contact information for the importer, exporter, and producer; the basis for which preferential treatment is claimed; and a description of the imported merchandise. The importers are required to have the certificate in their possession at the time of the claim, and to provide it to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) upon request. The collection of this information is provided for in 19 CFR 10.214, 10.215, and 10.216.
Instructions for complying with this regulation are posted on
This collection of information applies to the importing and trade community who are familiar with import procedures and with the CBP regulations.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 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 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than November 28, 2025) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0057 in the subject line and the agency name. Please submit written comments and/or suggestions in English. Please use the following method to submit comments:
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The respondents to this information collection are members of the trade community who are familiar with CBP requirements and regulations.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 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 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than November 28, 2025) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0052 in the subject line and the agency name. Please submit written comments and/or suggestions in English. Please use the following method to submit comments:
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The information on these forms may also be filed electronically at:
Similarly, as authorized by COBRA, as amended, CBP collects fees from each carrier or operator using an express consignment carrier facility (ECCF) or a centralized hub facility as provided in 19 CFR 24.23(b)(4). The payment must be made to CBP on a quarterly basis and must cover the individual fees for all subject transactions that occurred during a calendar quarter. 19 CFR 24.23(b)(4)(i). The information set forth in 19 CFR 24.23(b)(4)(iii)(B) must be included with the quarterly payment (ECCF Quarterly Report). In cases of overpayments, carriers or operators using an ECCF or a centralized hub facility may send a request to CBP for a refund in accordance with 19 CFR 24.23(b)(4)(iii)(C). This request must specify the grounds for the refund.
In addition, CBP requires a prospective ECCF to include a list of all carriers or operators intending to use the facility, as well as other information requested in the application for approval of the ECCF in accordance with 19 CFR 128.11(b)(2). ECCFs are also required to provide to CBP at the beginning of each calendar quarter, a list of all carriers or operators currently using the facility and notify CBP whenever a new carrier or operator begins to use the facility or whenever a carrier or operator ceases to use the facility in accordance with 19 CFR 128.11(b)(7)(iv).
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 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 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than November 28, 2025) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0022 in the subject line and the agency name. Please submit written comments and/or suggestions in English. Please use the following method to submit comments:
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
For certain Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) classifications of steel imports, the country where the steel used in the manufacture of the product was melted and poured; the country where the steel used in the manufacture of the product was melted and poured applies to the original location where the raw steel is first produced in a steel-making furnace in a liquid state; and then poured into its first solid shape.
For certain HTS classifications of aluminum imports, the countries where the largest and second largest volume of primary aluminum used in the manufacture of the imported aluminum product was smelted; and the country where the aluminum used in the imported aluminum product was most recently cast. The fields requiring identification of the countries where the largest volume of primary aluminum used in the manufacture of the product was smelted applies to the country where the largest volume of new aluminum metal is produced from alumina (or aluminum oxide) by the electrolytic Hall-Héroult process. Importers may be required to report if primary aluminum from specific countries is used in the imported aluminum product, if required by law and/or Presidential Proclamation.
Importers will be required to report on the Form 7501 the steel country of melt and pour and aluminum countries of smelt and cast for imports under those steel and aluminum HTS classifications subject to the Commerce Department's steel and aluminum import license applications, and where applicable, the Section 232 steel and aluminum measures.
These data fields will substantially align the Form 7501 reporting requirements with the Commerce Department's existing reporting requirements for steel melt and pour and aluminum smelt and cast countries for steel and aluminum import license applications under 19 CFR 360.103(c)(1) and 19 CFR 361.103(c)(1). The aluminum and steel license application information is used by the Commerce Department for monitoring of anticipated imports of certain aluminum and steel products into the United States. The Form 7501 data is used by CBP to determine, when imports are entered for consumption, the proper amount of duties, applicable fees, taxes, and imports subject to quota.
These data fields are also required to enforce the tariff rate quotas for imported steel and aluminum established by the following Presidential Proclamations under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended: for products of the European Union, Proclamation 10327 of December 27, 2021 (87 FR 1, January 3, 2022) and Proclamation 10328 of December 27, 2021 (87 FR 11, January 3, 2022); for products of Japan (steel-only), Proclamation 10356 of March 31, 2022 (87 FR 19351, April 1, 2022); and for products of the United Kingdom, Proclamation 10405 of May 31, 2022 (87 FR 33583, June 3, 2022) and Proclamation 10406 of May 31, 2022 (87 FR 33591, June 3, 2022); and any amendments to these Proclamations.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 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 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than November 28, 2025) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0027 in the subject line and the agency name. Please submit written comments and/or suggestions in English. Please use the following method to submit comments:
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This form is being utilized as part of the Vessel Entrance and Clearance System Public Test which has been very successful. CBP is considering regulatory change to move the test into a requirement.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 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 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than November 28, 2025) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0124 in the subject line and the agency name. Please submit written comments and/or suggestions in English. Please use the following method to submit comments:
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The respondents to this information collection are members of the trade community who are familiar with CBP regulations.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 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 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than November 28, 2025) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0100 in the subject line and the agency name. Please submit written comments and/or suggestions in English. Please use the following method to submit comments:
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This collection of information applies to members of the public who may not be familiar with import procedures and CBP regulations. It may also be used by
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have received applications for permits to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation and survival of endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We invite the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies to comment on these applications. Before issuing the requested permits, we will take into consideration any information that we receive during the public comment period.
We must receive your written comments on or before October 29, 2025.
•
•
Karen Colson, Regional Recovery Permit Coordinator, Ecological Services, (503) 231-6283 (telephone);
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on applications for permits under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities that constitute take of listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activity. The ESA's definition of “take” includes such activities as pursuing, harassing, trapping, capturing, or collecting, in addition to hunting, shooting, harming, wounding, or killing.
A recovery permit issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or for enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. These activities often include such prohibited actions as capture and collection. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of propagation or survival of the species in the wild. The ESA requires that we invite public comment before issuing the requested permits. Accordingly, we invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to submit written data, views, or arguments with respect to these applications. The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are those supported by quantitative information or studies.
Written comments we receive become part of the administrative record associated with this action. 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 request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
If we decide to issue a permit to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
We publish this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is proposing an extension to an existing information collection for approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 28, 2025.
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
You may view this information collection request (ICR) at
Robert M. de Groot by email at
In accordance with the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
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 the agency might 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 personally identifiable information (PII) in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your PII from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, nor is a person 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
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is scheduled to file plats of survey 30-calendar days from the date of this publication in the BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming. These surveys, which were executed at the request of the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the BLM are necessary for the management of these lands.
Protests must be received by the BLM no later than October 29, 2025, which is the date of official filing.
You may submit written protests to the Wyoming State Director at WY926, Bureau of Land Management, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009.
Jeremy D. Davis, Acting BLM Wyoming Chief Cadastral Surveyor, by telephone at 307-775-6467 or by email at
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
A person or party who wishes to protest one or more plats of survey identified in this notice must file a written notice of protest with the Wyoming State Director by the date in the
If a notice of protest against a plat of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing, the official filing of the plat of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day following dismissal or resolution of all protests of the plat.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your protest, you should be aware that your entire protest—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Copies of the preceding described plat and field notes are available to the public at a cost of $4.20 per plat and $0.15 per page of field notes. Requests can be made to
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of withdrawal application.
The United States Department of the Air Force (DAF), has filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requesting that the Secretary of the Interior withdraw 4,988 acres of public lands from settlement, sale, location, and entry under the general land laws, including the United States mining laws, mineral and geothermal leasing laws, for 20 years—subject to valid existing rights—and reserve the lands for use of the DAF for military purposes. The DAF has also requested that the Secretary transfer administrative jurisdiction over these lands to the Secretary of the Air Force.
Comments and requests for a public meeting must be received by December 29, 2025.
All comments and meeting requests should be sent to the BLM Oregon/Washington State Director, 1220 SW 3rd Ave., Portland, Oregon 97204. The application and case file are available for public examination by interested persons by appointment at the BLM Public Room, 1220 SW 3rd Ave., 11th Floor, Portland, Oregon 97208 during regular business hours 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except holidays. Please call 503-808-6001 to make an appointment.
Luke Poff, Realty Specialist, BLM Oregon/Washington State Office by telephone: 503-808-6249; email:
The DAF requests this withdrawal for the purpose of constructing, operating, and maintaining the Homeland Defense Over the Horizon Radar receiver site facilities.
The following described lands are the subject of the DAF's withdrawal application: A parcel of land situated in T. 35 S., R. 37 E., secs. 35 and 36, and T. 36 S., R. 37 E., secs. 1, 2, 10 thru 16, and 21 thru 25, Willamette Meridian, Malheur County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the cor. of secs. 2, 3, 34, and 35, on the N. bdy. of T. 36 S., R. 37 E., the Point of Beginning;
thence along the line bet. secs. 2 and 35, N. 88°21′02″ E., 2645.10 feet, to the
thence along the N. and S. center line of sec. 35, T. 35 S., R. 37 E., N. 1°40′46″ W., 1251.23 feet;
thence leaving said center line, S. 69°37′52″ E., 4859.85 feet;
thence S. 20°23′07″ W., 1810.97 feet;
thence S. 69°37′49″ E., 4432.97 feet, to the line bet. secs. 1 and 6, on the E. bdy. of T. 36 S., R. 37 E.;
thence along the line bet. secs. 1 and 6, and the line bet. secs. 7 and 12, on the E. bdy. of T. 36 S., R. 37 E., S. 1°38′38″ E., 2085.14 feet;
thence leaving said section line, S. 9°46′58″ W., 1786.00 feet;
thence S. 30°09′28″ W., 2256.31 feet;
thence S. 61°50′42″ W., 644.30 feet, to the easterly boundary of a corridor for a road to be built;
thence along said corridor boundary, S. 3°38′33″ E., 2885.44 feet;
thence leaving said corridor boundary, S. 48°32′42″ E., 247.68 feet;
thence S. 3°29′21″ E., 474.32 feet;
thence S. 11°31′39″ W., 629.15 feet, to the southeasterly boundary of a corridor for a road to be built;
thence along said corridor boundary, S. 35°00′12″ W., 3184.73 feet, to the easterly boundary of another corridor for a different road to be built;
thence along said corridor boundary the following twelve (12) courses and distances:
1. S. 19°59′48″ E., 638.89 feet, to Whitehorse Ranch Road, more or less;
2. S. 5°43′23″ W., 493.82 feet;
3. S. 11°15′55″ E., 283.63 feet;
4. S. 3°37′23″ W., 277.03 feet;
5. S. 38°21′53″ W., 322.25 feet;
6. S. 28°16′39″ W., 195.78 feet;
7. S. 2°44′31″ W., 1310.65 feet;
8. S. 17°36′03″ E., 631.67 feet;
9. S. 10°16′55″ E., 608.49 feet;
10. S. 12°03′06″ E., 355.49 feet;
11. S. 23°25′30″ E., 2412.99 feet;
12. S. 31°58′15″ E., 792.25 feet;
thence leaving said corridor boundary, N. 72°27′16″ E., 222.41 feet;
thence S. 17°32′44″ E., 370.63 feet;
thence S. 72°27′16″ W., 48.58 feet;
thence S. 17°32′44″ E., 112.67 feet;
thence S. 72°27′16″ W., 287.21 feet;
thence N. 17°32′44″ W., 422.31 feet, to the westerly boundary of a corridor for a road to be built;
thence along said corridor boundary the following eighteen (18) courses and distances:
1. N. 31°58′15″ W., 832.40 feet;
2. N. 23°25′30″ W., 711.50 feet;
3. N. 26°46′11″ W., 120.68 feet;
4. N. 25°25′10″ W., 211.77 feet;
5. N. 23°23′38″ W., 346.30 feet;
6. N. 23°53′57″ W., 627.49 feet;
7. N. 20°45′44″ W., 417.84 feet;
8. N. 12°03′06″ W., 369.86 feet;
9. N. 10°13′54″ W., 605.36 feet;
10. N. 17°40′51″ W., 643.26 feet;
11. N. 2°44′31″ E., 1361.40 feet;
12. N. 28°16′39″ E., 235.14 feet;
13. N. 38°21′53″ E., 294.23 feet;
14. N. 3°39′31″ E., 219.02 feet;
15. N. 11°09′36″ W., 290.52 feet;
16. N. 7°27′49″ E., 198.79 feet;
17. N. 19°59′48″ W., 276.93 feet, to Whitehorse Ranch Road, more or less;
18. N. 19°59′48″ W., 590.06 feet, to the southwesterly boundary of another corridor for a different road to be built;
thence along said corridor boundary the following three (3) courses and distances:
1. N. 74°59′48″ W., 1267.48 feet;
2. N. 33°52′25″ W., 1272.58 feet;
3. N. 69°28′16″ W., 514.92 feet;
thence leaving said corridor boundary, S. 58°44′03″ W., 234.53 feet;
thence N. 69°36′52″ W., 1746.62 feet;
thence S. 20°23′08″ W., 2189.40 feet;
thence S. 69°36′23″ E., 514.00 feet;
thence S. 20°23′08″ W., 1743.40 feet;
thence S. 86°05′22″ W., 1811.42 feet;
thence N. 46°53′52″ W., 538.28 feet;
thence N. 70°20′18″ W., 1101.79 feet;
thence N. 60°54′06″ W., 674.46 feet;
thence N. 69°36′52″ W., 3231.46 feet;
thence N. 44°51′34″ W., 442.83 feet;
thence N. 69°39′36″ W., 1831.86 feet;
thence N. 20°11′03″ E., 4857.41 feet, to the line bet. secs. 9 and 16, T. 36 S., R. 37 E.;
thence along said section line, N. 88°21′21″ E., 383.58 feet, to the cor. of secs. 9, 10, 15, and 16, T. 36 S., R. 37 E.;
thence along the line bet. secs. 9 and 10, N. 1°39′59″ W., 5309.62 feet, to the cor. of secs. 3, 4, 9, and 10, T. 36 S., R. 37 E.;
thence along the line bet. secs. 3 and 10, N. 88°17′41″ E., 5276.06 feet, to the cor. of secs. 2, 3, 10, and 11, T. 36 S., R. 37 E.;
thence along the line bet. secs. 2 and 3, N. 1°12′12″ W., 5291.75 feet, to the cor. of secs. 2, 3, 34, and 35, on the N. bdy. of T. 36 S., R. 37 E., the Point of Beginning.
Containing 4,988 acres of land, more or less.
Basis of Bearing: GIS.
The use of a right-of-way, interagency agreement, or cooperative agreement would not adequately constrain non-discretionary uses which could impede DAF's construction, operating, and maintenance of the radar systems.
The DAF will satisfy water requirements by constructing two on-site groundwater wells, adjacent to each water supply building. A third well is required for backup.
The DAF identified, visited, and surveyed 16 potential sites in the region and found there are no suitable alternative sites based on the DAF's seven siting criteria areas (Mission, Schedule, Acquisition, Electromagnetic environment, Environmental impacts, Construction, and Supportability).
For a period of 90 days from the date of publication of this notice, all persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the withdrawal application may present their views in writing to the BLM Oregon/Washington State Director at the address listed above in the
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. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives of officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety.
This withdrawal application will be processed in accordance with the
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has completed an inventory of associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after October 29, 2025.
Send written requests for repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice to Lindsay Busse and Althea Asaro, PQS Principal Investigators—Prehistoric Archaeology, California Department of Transportation, District 4, 111 Grand Avenue, Oakland, CA 94612, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of Caltrans, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
The 1,830 associated funerary objects are catalog entries representing lithics, soil samples, clay, charcoal, faunal remains, shell and beads; of the 1,830 associated funerary object catalogs, 83 catalog numbers are missing and Caltrans and Sonoma State University (SSU) and San Francisco State University (SFSU) continue to look for them. These collections are primarily the result of archaeological investigations along Highway 101 in Novato in Marin County for Caltrans improvement projects between 1966 and 2005 at archaeological site CA-MRN-192 (Acc. #47-0 & 2005-3). There were known/documented potentially hazardous substances in the SFSU facility where cultural items were previously housed, which may have contaminated the housing (bags/boxes). This is currently remediated with personal protective equipment (PPE), but through consultation, the housing may be replaced before the transfer of custody.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the associated funerary objects described in this notice.
Caltrans has determined that:
• The 1,830 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California.
Written requests for repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 29, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Caltrans must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. Caltrans is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting electronic comments on the significance of properties nominated before August 23, 2025, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted electronically by October 14, 2025.
Comments are encouraged to be submitted electronically to
Sherry A. Frear, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program, 1849 C Street NW, MS 2013, Washington, DC 20240,
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before August 23, 2025. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other
Nominations submitted by State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers:
An owner objection received for the following resource(s):
Additional documentation has been received for the following resource(s):
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Brown University (HMA) intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after October 29, 2025.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Kellie Bowers, Brown University, Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, 300 Tower Street, Bristol, RI 02889, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The
A total of four cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The four unassociated funerary items are one lot of pyrite and other stones, one lot of pigment, one possible clay vessel, and one lot of lithics including adzes, blades, celts, flakes, gouges, hammerstones, hoes, knives, mortars, pendants, pestles, plummets, polishing stones, projectile points, scrapers, sinkers, smoothers, weights, and whetstones. These items were removed from multiple burials from at least nine locations in Maine. Many were excavated under the supervision of Warren K. Moorehead in the first half of the 20th century.
The HMA has determined that:
• The four unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians; Mi'kmaq Nation (
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 29, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the HMA must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The HMA is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Sonoma State University intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and/or objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after October 29, 2025.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Elise-Alexandria Green, Sonoma State University, 1801 East Cotati Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA 94928, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Sonoma State University, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of 1,846 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. Of the cultural items being requested 1,746 lots are unassociated funerary objects and 100 lots are sacred objects.
A total of 25 lots of unassociated funerary objects were donated to Sonoma State University by Robert Rausch in 1978. The items were removed from CA-MRN-0045 near Tiburon, California in Marin County. The items include flaked stone tools, debitage, ground stone tools, historic material, and unmodified faunal bone. The cultural items have been at Sonoma State University since their donation.
A total of four lots of sacred objects were removed from the Lawson's Landing, Jackson's site #4 in Dillon Beach, California in Marin County. No additional information was located on why the items were removed from the site. The cultural items include unmodified faunal bone and have been at Sonoma State University since 1981.
A total of one lot of sacred objects was removed from CA-MRN-151, California in Marin County. No additional information was located on why the items were removed from the site. The lot of items are flaked stone and have been at Sonoma State University since 1991.
A total of 11 lots of sacred objects were removed from CA-MRN-80, near San Rafael, California in Marin County. The items were removed for their location during a test augering project for the Marin County Water District. The items include flaked stone, debitage, unmodified faunal bone, and unmodified shell. The cultural items have been at Sonoma State University since 1991.
A total of 806 lots of unassociated funerary objects were removed from CA-MRN-673, in Tomales, California in Marin County. The cultural items were removed from the site during a cultural resource survey of the area by Tom Origer & Associates for the Tomales Village Community Services District. The purpose of the investigation was to determine if the site fit the criteria for the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Places. The cultural items include flaked stone tools, debitage, ground stone tools, historic material,
A total of 515 lots of unassociated funerary objects were removed from CA-MRN-150 in Novato, California in Marin County. These cultural items were removed from the site during a PG&E project to remove an abandoned segment of pipeline that laid within the northern boundary of the site. Recovery of the cultural items were collected to evaluate the site's eligibility for both California Register of Historical Resources and National Register of Historical Places. The items include flaked stone tools, debitage, ground stone tools, historic material, unmodified faunal bone, and unmodified shell. The cultural items have been at Sonoma State University since 2013.
A total of one lot of sacred objects was removed from the Russian River Marin Water Project in Marin County California. No additional information was located on why the cultural items were removed from the site. The lot of cultural items are flaked stone and have been at Sonoma State University since 1973.
A total of two lots of sacred objects were removed from the Point Reyes Beach Site located in Marin County California. No additional information was located on why the items were removed from the site. The cultural items are flaked stone and have been at Sonoma State University since 1976.
A total of one lot of sacred objects was removed from CA-MRN-372, near Bolinas, California in Marin County. No additional information was located on why the cultural items were removed from the site. The lot of cultural items are flaked stone and have been at Sonoma State University since 1984.
A total of 400 lots of unassociated funerary objects were removed from CA-MRN-124, near Santa Venetia, California in Marin County. All documentation for this collection was not located during inventory verification, so no additional information was available on why the cultural items were removed from the site. The cultural items include modified faunal bone, modified shell, charcoal, clay, flaked stone lithics, debitage, unmodified faunal bone, ground stone tools, gravel, historic material, modified flaked stone tools, organic/seeds, petrified wood, projectile points, unmodified shell, and soil. The cultural items have been at Sonoma State University since 1970.
A total of three lots of sacred objects were removed from CA-MRN-532 and CA-MRN-534H, near San Rafael, California in Marin County. No additional information was available on why the items were removed from the site. The cultural items are unmodified faunal bone and unmodified shell and have been at Sonoma State University since 1986.
A total of 77 lots of sacred objects were removed from CA-MRN-601, near Novato, California in Marin County. No additional information was available on why the items were removed from the site. The lots of items are flaked stone debitage, unmodified faunal bone, and historic material and have been at Sonoma State University since 1992.
In the case of missing cultural items, any additional items when located will also be repatriated from the collections discussed above. Based on records concerning the cultural items and the institution in which they are housed, there is no evidence of the items being treated with hazardous substances.
The Sonoma State University has determined that:
• The 1,746 unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• The 100 lots of sacred objects described in this notice are specific ceremonial objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 29, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Sonoma State University must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Sonoma State University is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)-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 October 29, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Michael Howell by telephone at 202-693-6782, or by email at
A Continuous Personal Dust Monitors (CPDM) determines the concentration of respirable dust in coal mines. A CPDM must be designed and constructed for coal miners to wear and operate without impeding their ability to perform their work safely and effectively, and must be durable to perform reliably in normal working conditions of coal mines. Paperwork requirements imposed on applicants are related to the application process and CPDM testing procedures. 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.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)-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 October 29, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Michael Howell by telephone at 202-693-6782, or by email at
In support of 30 CFR parts 48 and 75 to improve the emergency evacuation and rescue in underground coal mines, these regulations include requirements for immediate accident notification applicable to all mines. In addition, they contain reporting and record keeping requirements for new and expanded training, including evacuation drills; self-contained self-rescuer (SCSR) storage, training, and use; and the installation and maintenance of lifelines in underground coal mines. 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.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to expand the scope of recognition for NSF International, as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on September 29, 2025.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition for NSF International (NSF), as a NRTL. NSF's expansion covers the addition of four test standards to the NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA's recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes: (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the
NSF submitted an application to OSHA for expansion of the NRTL scope of recognition on April 11, 2023 (OSHA-2006-0048-0019), requesting the addition of four standards to the NRTL scope of recognition. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform an on-site review in response to this application. OSHA staff preliminarily determined that OSHA should grant the application for test standard expansion.
OSHA published a
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to the NSF expansion application, go to
OSHA staff examined NSF's expansion application and examined other pertinent information. Based on review of this evidence, OSHA finds that NSF meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition, subject to the specified limitations and conditions. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant expansion of NSF's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of NSF's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of compliance to the test standards listed below in Table 1.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, NSF also must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
1. NSF must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. NSF must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. NSF must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on NSF's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of NSF as a NRTL, subject to the limitations and conditions specified above.
Amanda Laihow, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 7-2027 (90 FR 27878; June 30, 2025), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of UL LLC, for expansion of the scope of recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the agency's preliminary finding to grant the application. Additionally, OSHA proposes to add one test standard to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before October 14, 2025.
Submit comments by any of the following methods:
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA is providing notice that UL LLC, (UL) is applying to expand the current recognition as a NRTL. UL requests the addition of one test standard to the NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The agency processes applications by NRTLs or applicant organizations for initial recognition, as well as for expansion or renewal of recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the
UL submitted an application, dated July 11, 2024 (OSHA-2009-0025-0074), to expand recognition to include one additional test standard. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
Table 1, below, lists the test standard found in UL's application for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.
Periodically, OSHA will propose to add new test standards to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards following an evaluation of the test standard document. To qualify as an appropriate test standard, the agency evaluates the document to: (1) verify it represents a product category for which OSHA requires certification by a NRTL; (2) verify the document represents a product and not a component; and (3) verify the document defines safety test specifications (not installation or operational performance specifications). OSHA becomes aware of new test standards through various avenues. For example, OSHA may become aware of new test standards by: (1) monitoring notifications issued by certain standards developing organizations; (2) reviewing applications by NRTLs or applicants seeking recognition to include new test standards in their scopes of recognition; and (3) obtaining notification from manufacturers, manufacturing organizations, government agencies, or other parties. OSHA may determine to include a new test standard in the list, for example, if the test standard is for a particular type of product that another test standard also covers or it covers a type of product that no standard previously covered.
In this notice, OSHA proposes to add one new test standard to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. Table 2, below, lists the test standard that is new to the NRTL Program. OSHA preliminarily determines that this test standard is an appropriate test standard. OSHA seeks public comment on this preliminary determination.
UL submitted an acceptable application for expansion of the scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file and related material preliminarily indicates that UL can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding recognition to include the addition of the test standard listed above for NRTL testing and certification. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of UL's application.
OSHA also preliminarily determined that the test standard listed above is an appropriate test standard.
OSHA seeks public comment on these preliminary determinations.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether UL meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition as a NRTL and whether the test standard listed above is an appropriate test standard that should be included in the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits.
Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer time period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not adequately justified.
To review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. These materials also are generally available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and after addressing the issues raised by these comments, make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health on whether to grant UL's application for expansion of its scope of recognition and to add the test standard listed above to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application and on adding the test standard listed above to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. In making these decisions, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
OSHA will publish a public notice of its final decision in the
Amanda Laihow, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 7-2025 (90 FR 27878, June 30, 2025), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Division of Federal Employees' Compensation, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, US Department of Labor.
Request for public comments; correction.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is correcting a notice that appeared in the
Anjanette Suggs, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, OWCP at
In FR Doc 2025-17326 appearing at 90 FR 436462 in the
Under “OWCP/DFEC Forms” a form was omitted. The Notice of Injury or Disease and Claim for Benefits under the War Hazards Compensation Act (WH-1) should have also been listed as a form added to this collection and the burden totals are corrected as below.
Currently, OWCP utilizes the CA-278 form for insurance carriers and self-insured to request reimbursement. The form is used for submission of reimbursement requests. While the form is also used for initial claim intake, it was not designed for this purpose. There is currently no adequate form for beneficiaries to file initial claims under the WHCA.
Under section 1701, the WHCA states that compensation for injury or death resulting from a war-risk hazard may be claimed by person covered as specified in this section of the WHCA. Section 1701 provides the authority to administer benefits for persons covered under the WHCA. The CA-278 form exists that allows insurance carriers or self-insured to claim reimbursements of benefits paid due to an injury or death resulting from a covered War Hazard under the WHCA.
To this end, the Department of Labor is proposing a new form allowing beneficiaries to file a claim under the WHCA. This new form, WH-1, will simplify the process of filing an initial claim for benefits and gather the necessary information to expedite claim decisions and reimbursements. The regulations under the WHCA and the FECA that support the creation of the new WH-1 form are also the regulations used to implement the existing CA-278 form. Therefore, the revision to the existing OMB Control No. 1240-0006 will include the new WH-1 form.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the proposed information collection request; they will become a matter of public record and will be available at
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Notice.
The NCUA's staff draft “detailed business-type budget” is being made available for public review as required by federal statute. The proposed resources will finance the agency's annual operations and capital projects, both of which are necessary for the agency to accomplish its mission of protecting the system of cooperative credit and its member-owners through effective chartering, supervision, regulation, and insurance. Comment instructions are included in the supplementary information section. The schedule for a public hearing about the budget will be announced in a future notice.
Written comments may be submitted by October 24, 2025.
You may submit written comments by October 24, 2025, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Copies of the NCUA Staff Draft 2026-2027 Budget and associated materials are also available on the NCUA website at
Melissa M. Lowden, Acting Chief Financial Officer, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428, or telephone: (703) 518-1182.
The following itemized list details the sections in this Notice made available for public review:
Section 212 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act amended 12 U.S.C. 1789(b)(1)(A) to require the NCUA Board (Board) to “on an annual basis and prior to the submission of the detailed business-type budget make publicly available and publish in the
The staff draft budget details the resources required to support NCUA's mission. The staff draft budget includes personnel and dollar estimates for three major budget components: (1) the Operating Budget; (2) the Capital Budget; and (3) the Share Insurance Fund Administrative Budget. The resources proposed in the staff draft budget are to carry out the agency's operations in 2026 and 2027. This document is a draft, staff-level budget proposal made available to the NCUA Board members and the public for their consideration and comment. The NCUA Board directed the NCUA Executive Director to develop the staff draft budget under delegated authority. The staff draft budget may change based on public comments, Board member decisions, and staff's ongoing consideration of estimates and programs that impact the budget.
The NCUA Chief Financial Officer will present the staff draft budget at a budget hearing open to the public, the schedule for which will be announced in a future notice.
Written comments on the staff draft budget will be accepted by October 24, 2025, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
All comments should provide specific, actionable recommendations about the staff draft budget rather than general remarks. The NCUA Board will review and consider any comments from the public prior to approving the NCUA 2026-2027 budget.
Created by the U.S. Congress in 1970, the National Credit Union Administration is a federal agency that
As of June 30, 2025, the NCUA regulates and supervises 4,370 federally insured credit unions, which have approximately 144 million members and more than $2.4 trillion in assets across all states and U.S. territories.
Pursuant to the Federal Credit Union Act, the NCUA Board determines the resources needed for carrying out the NCUA's responsibilities under the Act.
The Federal Credit Union Act authorizes two primary sources to fund the NCUA: (1) Requisitions from the Share Insurance Fund “for such administrative and other expenses incurred in carrying out the purposes of [Title II of the Act] as [the Board] may determine to be proper” and (2) “fees and assessments (including income earned on insurance deposits) levied on insured credit unions under [the Act].” 12 U.S.C. 1783(a); 12 U.S.C. 1766(j)(3).
Upon determination of the budgeted annual expenses for the agency's operations, the Board determines an operating fee schedule to assess federal credit unions. The Board considers federal credit unions' ability to pay such a fee, and the necessity of the expenses that the NCUA will incur, in carrying out its responsibilities in connection with federal credit unions.
Pursuant to its authority to use the Share Insurance Fund to carry out its insurance-related responsibilities, the Board approved an Overhead Transfer Rate (OTR) methodology and authorized the Office of the Chief Financial Officer to transfer resources from the Share Insurance Fund to the Operating Fund to account for insurance-related expenses.
Each year, all the directors of each component of the NCUA develop an initial budget request identifying the resources necessary, including the supporting justifications, for their office to support the agency's mission, goals, and objectives. This effort also includes a field-level review of every federally insured credit union to estimate the workload to carry out credit union examinations and supervision in the forthcoming year, which is translated into the cost of the staff and associated expenses. In addition to this workload analysis, each NCUA office estimates its fixed and recurring expenses, such as for employee travel, rental payments for leased property, operations and maintenance for owned facilities or equipment, supplies, telecommunications services, major capital investments, and other administrative and contracted services costs.
The NCUA stands out as the only Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act agency that releases a detailed draft budget and solicits public comments on it. As required by statute, before adopting a budget, the NCUA presents a draft budget to the public on the agency's website and in the
The NCUA Board reviews the comments from the public and evaluates other considerations, including any direction from the Administration, in arriving at a final budget. The Board then approves the final budget. Once the budget is approved, the operating fees to be paid by federal credit unions to finance the agency's programs and the OTR are set for the first year of the two-year budget.
The NCUA's 2026-2027 staff draft budget includes three separate budgets: the Operating Budget, the Capital Budget, and the Share Insurance Fund Administrative Expenses Budget. Combined, these three proposed 2026 budgets total $313.8 million, which is $105.7 million (25.2 percent) lower than the $419.5 million 2026 funding level approved by the NCUA Board as part of the two-year 2025-2026 budget. The three proposed 2026 budgets combined are $81.6 million (20.6 percent) lower than the $395.4 million 2025 budget.
There are three main drivers that contribute to the reduction in proposed 2026 budget levels compared to the NCUA's approved 2025 budget:
1. A 23 percent reduction to NCUA staffing levels, which generates a corresponding reduction to employee compensation budgets.
2. A 34 percent reduction to contracted services budgets, reflecting the NCUA's efforts to lower its total spending pursuant to the Administration's directives.
3. A 13 percent reduction in budgets for employee travel.
These reductions are partially offset by an increase in the NCUA's Capital Budget for 2026, which includes $10.0 million for implementation of the NCUA's reorganization plan and investment in systems and process improvements that align with government efficiency goals and other Administration priorities.
The proposed 2027 combined total for the three budgets for the NCUA is $344.7 million, which is $30.9 million, or 9.8 percent, higher than the proposed 2026 total budget. However, the proposed 2027 combined total for the three budgets is $50.7 million (12.8 percent) lower than the 2025 total budget.
For planning purposes, the draft budget projects 3 percent budgetary growth in all spending categories. A lower projected level of unspent past-year budget surpluses in 2027 compared to 2026, in addition to the one-time proceeds from the sale of the Austin, TX building, accounts for the remaining change in the proposed total budget for 2027. While the agency presents a two-year draft budget for planning purposes, the Board's practice has been to revisit each year's budget before that budget year begins.
On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a memorandum titled Guidance on Agency RIF and Reorganization Plans Requested by Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Workforce Optimization Initiative. Consistent with the President's order and this memorandum, the agency has been developing reorganization plans that focus on more productive, efficient agency operations. Throughout 2025, the NCUA focused on increasing efficiency, improving service delivery, and aligning resources to statutory and Administration priorities.
To facilitate a reorganization to achieve a smaller, more efficient agency structure, the NCUA Board voted on March 21, 2025, to approve a Voluntary Separation Programs (VSP) for agency staff. The VSP required participating staff to end their employment at the NCUA by no later than December 31, 2025. A total of 262 eligible staff elected to participate in the VSP. In addition, the hiring freeze and normal levels of employee attrition resulted in further reductions. As a result, the staff draft budget anticipates a total staffing level of 967 employees whose compensation will be funded by the operating budget in 2026, a reduction of 23 percent compared to the 2025 budget level.
While other specific organizational changes will not be finalized until later in 2025, the draft 2026-2027 budget supports implementation of those revisions throughout 2026. The proposed capital budget for 2026 includes $10.0 million for reorganization costs and investment in technology to increase productivity and effectiveness and implement Administration priorities, including improvements to the customer experience. As the NCUA finalizes its plans for a new organizational structure and revised business processes, the Chairman will approve allocation of this funding for projects and investments that best meet these needs.
At the start of 2025, the NCUA's leadership conducted a comprehensive analysis of non-payroll budgets for travel, contracted services, software licenses, computer applications, and IT infrastructure to identify opportunities for cost savings. The draft 2026 budget formalizes such reductions, which are based on efforts currently underway to eliminate non-essential activities while simultaneously modifying operating processes to increase efficiency and effectiveness. The draft budget reflects a reduction of 25 percent in non-payroll budgets from 2025 to 2026 because of these efforts.
In April 2025, the NCUA Board approved changes to examination timeframes to prudently extend the maximum examination timeframe for credit unions meeting certain criteria. These changes allow Regional Directors and the ONES Director to allocate examination and supervision resources
The proposed 2026 Operating Budget is $292.4 million, or $90.0 million lower than the 2025 Board-approved budget.
The NCUA Operating Budget provides the resources required for the agency to conduct activities prescribed by the Federal Credit Union Act. These mandates include: (1) chartering new federal credit unions; (2) approving field of membership applications of federal credit unions; (3) promulgating regulations and providing guidance; (4) performing regulatory compliance and safety and soundness examinations; (5) implementing and administering enforcement actions, such as prohibition orders, orders to cease and desist, orders of conservatorship and orders of liquidation; and (6) administering the Share Insurance Fund. The NCUA also implements requirements of other statutes and Executive Orders including those related to Bank Secrecy Act compliance and consumer financial protection, and various requirements for federal agencies.
This section explains how these expenditures support the NCUA's operations and presents an overview of the Operating Budget. The following charts present the major categories of spending supported by the proposed 2026 Operating Budget.
• Merit and locality pay increases for the NCUA's employees, which are paid according to the terms of the agency's Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and its merit-based pay system.
• Contributions for employee retirement to the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS), which are set by OPM based on actuarial estimates and cannot be negotiated or changed by the NCUA.
• Contributions for employee health insurance, which are also set by OPM.
• Costs associated with other mandatory employer contributions such as Social Security, Medicare, transportation subsidies, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation.
The proposed 2026 Operating Budget supports a total agency staffing level of 967 positions.
The following chart illustrates the NCUA's staffing levels in recent years.
The proposed 2027 budget for pay and benefits is estimated at $246.8 million, a $7.2 million increase from the proposed 2026 level.
The proposed 2027 budget for travel is estimated at $20.7 million, a 3 percent increase compared to the 2026 level. This budget level reflects an expectation for travel-related cost inflation in 2027.
Funding within this budget category pays for facilities-related costs, telecommunications services, data storage, and information technology network support. Telecommunications charges include leased data lines and data service subscriptions, Voice over internet Protocol and mobile telephony, and other network charges. Facilities-related budgets pay for the cost of the office leases, utilities, rental of the disaster recovery and continuity of operations sites, meeting space rental for offsite events, and postage.
The proposed 2027 budget for the rent, communications, and utilities category is a $6.8 million (38.8 percent) increase compared to 2026. The 2026 budget for rent, communications, and utilities includes a one-time $1.7 million offset that results from the sale of Austin, TX office building. This offset is not available for the 2027 budget.
The proposed 2027 budget for administrative expenses is $3.8 million, an increase of $0.1 million (3 percent) compared to the level proposed for 2026.
The NCUA uses contracted services because acquiring specific expertise or services from contract providers is often the most viable and cost-effective way for the NCUA to accomplish its mission. Such services include critical mission support such as information technology
The following chart illustrates the breakout of the seven categories for the total proposed 2026 contracted services budget:
The proposed contracted services budget for 2027 is $42.8 million, net, plus an additional $28.0 million in expected unspent balances. After adjusting for unspent prior-year budgets in both years, the 2027 budget level represents a net increase of approximately $2.1 million, or 3.0 percent.
The proposed 2026 Capital Budget is $18.1 million, or $10.8 million higher than the 2025 Board-approved budget.
The proposed Capital Budget for 2027 is $18.5 million, an increase of approximately $0.4 million (1.9 percent) compared to the 2026 level, to cover any inflationary increases.
Each year the NCUA carries out a rigorous review of the agency's needs for improvement, repair, or replacement of IT, facilities, equipment, and other capital investments. The proposed 2026 Capital Budget supports continuing investments in the agency's highest priority needs as follows:
The proposed 2026 budget includes $10.0 million for capital projects that will support the NCUA's forthcoming reorganization and invest in technologies that increase productivity and effectiveness, and to implement Administration priorities, including improvements to the customer experience. As the NCUA finalizes its plans for a new organizational structure and revised business processes, the Chairman will approve allocation of this funding for projects and investments that best meet these needs.
The agency's current computers are nearing their end of life. This capital investment will fund replacement computers that offer advanced security features to better combat evolving cyber threats, and improved productivity and mobility features. The funds support not only acquisition of the computers but also the costs of testing, configuration, and deployment.
Investments in the MERIT platform in 2026 will focus on security improvements and further streamlining navigation flow to deliver additional efficiencies for users of MERIT, including NCUA employees, state examiners, and credit unions. In addition, capital funds will be used to re-platform loan and share data analytics applications to the NCUA's common analytics platform, resulting in future operations and maintenance efficiency.
This capital project will upgrade the customer relationship management system used by the Office of Consumer Financial Protection to track consumer inquiries and formal complaints against credit unions. The current version of the system is no longer supported by the vendor, and the upgrade will provide NCUA employees and customers with a more efficient, innovative, and user-friendly platform.
This capital project will improve system availability and stability by replacing outdated or end-of-life network and platform hardware to ensure business continuity and efficient operations. Proposed projects for 2026 include refreshing hardware and software as well as investment in backup storage at the NCUA's disaster recovery site.
The proposed 2026 budget supports the NCUA's multi-year headquarters building improvement plan that identifies projects that can be completed incrementally, prioritizing the replacement of health and safety infrastructure. The ongoing multi-year approach recognizes the critical building management and maintenance needs while reducing the potential budgetary impact of such projects in a single budget year.
The proposed 2026 Share Insurance Fund Administrative Expenses Budget is $3.3 million, which is $2.4 million lower than the 2025 Board-approved budget. The reduction is occurring largely because the NCUA will use approximately $1.7 million in proceeds from the sale of an agency-owned building in Austin, TX to pay for a portion of the activities funded by this budget. Given the increase in virtual training, the proposed 2026 budget also incorporates savings related to state credit union examiner travel reimbursements for NCUA-sponsored training.
The Share Insurance Fund Administrative Expenses Budget funds direct costs associated with authorized Share Insurance Fund activities, including the following for 2026:
• $2.5 million for operating and maintenance costs of the internal analytical capabilities to conduct supervisory stress testing analyses and to perform other quantitative risk assessments of large credit unions.
• $1.1 million for state examiner travel to NCUA-sponsored training classes and $0.2 million to ensure that state supervisory authorities can securely and efficiently access NCUA applications and the NCUA's MERIT system for state examination and supervision activities.
• $0.8 million for financial reporting, including the Share Insurance Fund's annual financial audit and support to ensure effective internal controls for the fund.
• $0.3 million for certain insurance-related activities and expenses of AMAC
• $65.0 thousand for corporate resolution program legacy asset waterfall models and valuation analysis support and data. The budget for corporate resolution program legacy asset support decreases by 43.0 percent in 2026 when compared to the 2025 level given the significantly reduced size of the portfolio.
The proposed 2027 budget is $1.9 million higher than the proposed 2026 level largely because of the $1.7 million in proceeds from the sale of the Austin, TX building that offsets the 2026 budget. When excluding this one-time revenue, the 2027 budget increases $150,000, or 3 percent, compared to the 2026 level.
The NCUA incurs various expenses to satisfy its statutory requirements, including those involved in examining and supervising federally insured credit unions. The NCUA Board adopts an Operating Budget, a Capital Budget, and a Share Insurance Fund Administrative Expenses Budget each year to fund most of the costs to operate the agency.
The Federal Credit Union Act authorizes two primary sources to fund the Operating Budget:
(1) Requisitions from the Share Insurance Fund “for such administrative and other expenses incurred in carrying out the purposes of [Title II of the Act] as [the Board] may determine to be proper,”
(2) “[F]ees and assessments (including income earned on insurance deposits) levied on insured credit unions under [the Act].”
Taken together, these authorities effectively require the Board to determine which expenses are appropriately paid from each source while giving the Board broad discretion in allocating expenses.
In 1972, the U.S. Government Accountability Office recommended the NCUA adopt a method for allocating Operating Budget costs—that is, the portion of the NCUA's budget funded by requisitions from the Share Insurance Fund and the portion covered by operating fees paid by federal credit unions.
The NCUA uses the OTR methodology to allocate agency expenses between these two primary funding sources. Specifically, the OTR is the formula the NCUA uses to allocate insurance-related expenses to the Share Insurance Fund under Title II of the Act. Almost all other operating expenses are funded through collecting annual operating fees paid by federal credit unions.
Two statutory provisions directly limit the Board's discretion with respect to Share Insurance Fund requisitions for the NCUA's Operating Budget and, hence, the OTR. First, expenses funded from the Share Insurance Fund must carry out the purposes of Title II of the Act, which relates to share insurance.
The NCUA conducts a comprehensive workload analysis annually. This analysis estimates the amount of time necessary to conduct examinations and supervise federally insured credit unions to carry out the NCUA's dual mission as insurer and regulator. This analysis starts with a field-level review of every federally insured credit union to estimate the number of workload hours needed for the year. These estimates are informed by the overall parameters of the NCUA's examination program, including workload estimates that are refined by regional managers and submitted to the NCUA headquarters for the annual budget proposal. The OTR methodology accounts for the costs of the NCUA, not the costs of state regulators. Therefore, there are no calculations made for state examiner hours.
There have not been any major changes to the parameters of the examination program since the current OTR methodology went into effect.
The NCUA Board approved the current methodology for calculating the OTR at its November 2017 open meeting.
Based on the Board-approved methodology and the proposed budget, the OTR for 2026 is estimated to be 61.8 percent, which is an increase of one basis point from 2025. Thus, 61.8 percent of the total 2026 Operating Budget is estimated to be paid out of the Share Insurance Fund. The remaining 38.2 percent of the Operating Budget is estimated to be paid for by operating fees collected from federal credit unions. The explicit and implicit distribution of total Operating Budget costs for federal credit unions and federally insured, state-chartered credit unions (FISCUs) is shown in the table below:
The following chart illustrates the share of the proposed 2026 Operating Budget that would be paid by federal credit unions (69.8%) and FISCUs (30.2%).
The Board delegated authority to the Chief Financial Officer to administer the methodology approved by the Board for calculating the operating fee and to set the fee schedule as calculated per the approved methodology. In December 2023, the Board approved and published in the
Under the current methodology to determine the annual operating fee assessed on federal credit unions serving consumers, the NCUA first calculates the average of total assets reported in the preceding four calendar quarters available at the time of the calculation, net of any reported Paycheck Protection Program loans. Credit unions with assets less than approximately $2.2 million are not assessed an operating fee and their assets are therefore excluded from this calculation.
Based on the Board-approved operating fee methodology, which is summarized in the following tables, the share of the proposed 2026 budget funded by the operating fee is $112.4 million. This equates to 0.00935 percent of the actual average of natural person federal credit union assets for the four calendar quarters ending on June 30, 2025. The calculated operating fee rate for 2026 decreases by 23.6 percent compared to the rate in 2025. This computation is shown in the table on the following page.
As part of the Board-approved operating fee methodology, the NCUA can adjust the share of the budget funded by the operating fee based on an analysis of the agency's future cash flow requirements compared to past years' collections that were not spent as planned. Any projected surplus cash from past years' fee collections not required to finance agency operations can accordingly be used to lower the operating fee share of the proposed budget. Because such cash surpluses result from past years' operating fee collections, they do not offset the portion of the budget funded by the OTR. As the final 2026-2027 budget is prepared for consideration by the NCUA Board, the Chief Financial Officer will evaluate the agency's cash position and make a recommendation about any surplus cash that can be credited to the operating fee.
To set the assessment scale for 2026, total growth in natural person federal credit union assets is calculated as the change between the average of the four most current quarters (that is, the third and fourth quarters of 2024 and the first two quarters of 2025) and the previous four quarters (that is, the third and fourth quarters of 2023 and the first two quarters of 2024), which is calculated as 3.6 percent. The fee exemption threshold and the asset level dividing points for the fee tiers are likewise increased by this same growth rate to preserve the same relative relationship of the scale to the applicable asset base.
To illustrate the rate for each asset tier for which operating fees are charged, the tables below show the effect of the average 23.6 percent decrease in the operating fee for natural person federal credit unions, using the $2.2 million exemption threshold.
Weeks of September 29, October 6, 13, 20, 27, and November 3, 2025. The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Public.
Members of the public may request to receive the information in these notices electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, at 301-415-1969, or by email at
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 29, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of October 13, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of October 20, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of October 27, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 3, 2025.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Wesley Held at 301-287-3591 or via email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering a partial site release of property under License No. DPR-72, issued in December 1976 and held by Accelerated Decommissioning Partners Crystal River, Unit 3, LLC (ADP) for the operation of Crystal River Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3 (Crystal River Unit 3). If approved, the license amendment would release property from the NRC license and thus render it no longer under NRC jurisdiction. Based on staff's environmental review, the NRC staff is issuing this environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) associated with the proposed action.
The EA and FONSI are available in this document.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0181 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:
•
•
•
Amy Minor, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 817-200-1454; email:
The NRC received, by letter dated February 10, 2025, as supplemented by letter dated June 18, 2025, a request from ADP to approve a partial site release of approximately 250 hectares (ha) (618 acres (ac)) of land for unrestricted use, and to amend License No. DPR-72 to reduce the site acreage identified in the Crystal River Unit 3 Operating License accordingly. Therefore, in compliance with section 50.83 of title 10 of the
The proposed action is the review of the release of approximately 250 ha (618 ac) of land for unrestricted use and to remove another 1,560 ha (3,854 ac) of property, classified as radiologically non-impacted, from the Crystal River Unit 3 Operating License as approved on January 2, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML19339G509). If the proposed action is approved, an additional 250 ha (618 ac) would no longer be part of the licensed site and thus, no longer under NRC jurisdiction. The licensee plans to release the 250 ha (618 ac) as soon as approval is received from the NRC and indicates that the property will then be returned to Duke Energy, the original license holder.
The licensee has requested the release of 250 ha (618 ac) of land that is entirely within the NRC-licensed area, or controlled area, and remove another 1,560 ha (3,854 ac) of property, from the Crystal River Unit 3 Operating License. The purpose and need for the proposed agency action is to release 250 ha (618 ac) of the licensed site for which the licensee has no further operational need and reduce the site acreage identified in the Crystal River Unit 3 Operating License accordingly.
The NRC staff evaluated the environmental impacts of the proposed action for the unrestricted release of approximately 250 ha (618 ac) of land and amending License No. DPR-72 to reflect the description of the property released and reduce the site acreage identified in the Crystal River Unit 3 Operating License. Maps of the parcels proposed to be released are included in the licensee's application dated February 10, 2025, as supplemented by letter dated June 18, 2025.
Several environmental reviews have been completed for Crystal River Unit 3, most recently in 2024. A final environmental statement for Crystal River Unit 3 was completed in 1973 as required for the issuance of a license to the Florida Power Corporation for the startup and operation of Crystal River Unit 3. Florida Power Corporation, doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc., submitted a license renewal request to NRC in November 2008. The NRC staff completed a May 2011 draft report for comment, NUREG-1437, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 44, Regarding Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant,” that evaluated environmental impacts from a renewed operating license for an additional 20-year period.
On December 2, 2013, Duke Energy Florida (DEF) submitted a post-shutdown decommissioning activities report (PSDAR) to the NRC that includes a discussion providing the basis for concluding that the environmental impacts associated with decommissioning activities were bounded by appropriate, previously issued, EISs including aforementioned NUREG-1437 and NUREG-0586, “Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors” (Decommissioning GEIS), and that no unique site-specific features or unique aspects of the planned decommissioning were identified. The scope of the Decommissioning GEIS is based on
On January 22, 2019, DEF submitted a partial site release request to NRC and stated that the environmental impacts associated with the proposed release of the property were considered compared to the 1973 final environmental statement. DEF confirmed that their evaluation did not identify any significant new environmental impacts or any significant changes from the environmental impacts that NRC previously assessed, and therefore they concluded that previous NRC reviews bounded the potential environmental impacts of the partial site release.
DEF's January 2019 partial site release request to the NRC sought to reduce the licensed footprint by releasing 1,560 ha (3,854 ac) of non-impacted parcels. The NRC approved the release of the parcels in 2020 and stated that the environmental impacts associated with the proposed release of the property are bounded by previously issued EISs. NRC License No. DPR-72 changed ownership to ADP in 2019, and in 2019 APD submitted a revised PSDAR to NRC that again concluded that the environmental impacts associated with decommissioning activities were bounded by appropriate, previously issued, EISs.
ADP submitted a revised license termination plan to the NRC on June 9, 2023. The NRC staff completed an EA in 2024 that evaluated the potential impacts of decommissioning and license termination for Crystal River Unit 3. During its review, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts for most resource areas at the Crystal River Unit 3 were still bounded by the Decommissioning GEIS. NRC's 2024 EA also evaluated the potential impacts of decommissioning and license termination for the Crystal River Unit 3 that cannot be determined generically in the Decommissioning GEIS. The NRC staff concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts from decommissioning and license termination and issued the EA and FONSI published on July 17, 2024.
ADP's application states that the June 2023 revised license termination plan included a “Supplement to the Environmental Report” that provided updated information to the November 2008 environmental report submitted to the NRC as part of a 2008 license renewal application for Crystal River Unit 3. The licensee's evaluation of the proposed site release does not identify any significant new environmental impacts or any significant changes from the environmental impacts previously assessed. ADP concludes that the environmental impacts associated with the proposed release of the subject property are bound by the NRC' s previous reviews and no increases in effects are anticipated.
The NRC staff reviewed ADP's application for the proposed partial site release of 250 ha (618 ac) of land and amending the license to reflect the description of the property released. The licensee notes that approximately 248 ha (614 ac) proposed for unrestricted release are considered non-impacted by a historical site assessment as supplemented by surveys provided in the license application request (LAR). Two of the parcels proposed for unrestricted release (North Shipping Yard and Seal and Container Storage Area) were conservatively deemed as impacted areas in a past site assessment but are now identified as indistinguishable from background based on final status surveys provided in this LAR. The NRC has determined that the licensee has no physical security or emergency preparedness need to retain the remaining 250 ha (618 ac). In addition, the licensee has performed surveys adequate to demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted use. The NRC staff concludes that the proposed action of amending the license does not include physical changes to the site and that the potential environmental impacts associated with this request remain bounded by the environmental impacts evaluated in the previous NRC environmental reviews, notably the NRC's 2024 EA, because the activities and geographic area that were evaluated in those previous NRC environmental reviews are consistent with the proposed partial site release. A Safety Evaluation Report is being prepared in parallel with this EA to assess the licensee's compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted use.
As an alternative to the proposed action, The NRC staff considered denial of the proposed release of the approximate 250 ha (618 ac) of land (
The NRC staff determined that the proposed action does not include physical changes to the site and is administrative in nature, and that the potential environmental impacts associated with this request remain bounded by the environmental impacts evaluated in the previous NRC environmental review, to include the 2024 EA, because the activities and geographic area that were evaluated in those previous NRC environmental reviews are consistent with the proposed partial site release. As such, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an EIS is not warranted.
A public meeting to obtain comments on the release approval request was announced on the NRC public meeting website at
The NRC contacted the Florida State officials on August 19, 2025 (ADAMS Accession No. ML25261A016) concerning this request. There were no comments, concerns or objections from the State officials.
The NRC staff has prepared this EA as part of its review of the proposed action.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a multi-site service provider license to DISA Technologies, Inc. (DISA) for the operation of 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 waste sites after additional site-specific safety and environmental information is provided to and approved by the NRC. The NRC staff is issuing a generic environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) associated with the proposed licensing action.
The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on September 29, 2025.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0084 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:
•
•
•
Christine Pineda, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6789; email:
The NRC is making available to the public the “Environmental Assessment for Proposed Issuance of Multi-Site License to DISA Technologies for Abandoned Uranium Mine Waste
The NRC's separate Safety Evaluation Report is available in ADAMS at Accession No. ML25226A192.
The NRC is considering issuance of a multi-site, service provider license to DISA for operation of its HPSA process at AUM waste sites located primarily in fourteen western states, namely Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and on the Navajo Nation. As required by section 51.21 of title 10 of the
A summary of the generic EA follows. Based on the results of the EA, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the license issuance and is issuing a FONSI.
DISA would use its HPSA technology in the form of mobile units to treat mine waste at AUM waste 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. If granted, the license would allow DISA to operate HPSA at AUM waste sites after the NRC has reviewed the site-specific characteristics in a premobilization notification (PMN) that DISA would submit 90 days before mobilizing to a site. The NRC staff plans to complete its safety and environmental review of each PMN within the 90-day premobilization period and will issue a determination that will be placed on the publicly available docket, as to whether DISA may proceed with site remediation.
In addition, DISA would not be able to operate at a given site unless it has obtained all necessary permits and authorizations, as needed, from other Federal agencies and State, Tribal, and local governments. The length of time DISA would be present at each site depends on the amount of material to be processed and could range from about 9 months for small sites to almost 18 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 remediation would generate two products: coarse material and fines concentrates. The coarse material would be a sand-like soil and would be reintegrated into the sites assuming the material meets NRC and all other applicable regulatory requirements. DISA would then seed the material with an appropriate grass seed mixture. 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 or a uranium recovery 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. DISA would submit a demobilization notification (DMN) that provides DISA's evaluation of how the site meets NRC requirements within 30 days after completing remediation at each site. If the NRC finds that the DMN is not acceptable, the licensee shall submit within 30 days after that determination a plan for resolving outstanding issues, including the timeframe for resolution.
The purpose of the proposed NRC action, issuance of the requested 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.” The proposed action is in response to DISA'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).
Approximately 15,000 AUM waste sites have been documented that 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 remediation at AUM waste 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 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 PMN, which the NRC staff would review to determine whether the generic EA's assumptions apply for that site. If any site conditions, proposed operations, or potential impacts are not consistent with the impacts and assumptions in the EA, the NRC staff would assess whether further analysis is needed. In all cases, the NRC staff will evaluate the potential impacts of depositing the coarse material back onto the site after HPSA operations conclude, and 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.
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 waste sites. A consequence of denying the license could be that DISA submits a revised application, or that AUM waste 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 waste 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 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. During its review of a site-specific PMN, the NRC staff would consult as needed with the State, agencies of interested American Indian Tribes, other Federal agencies, and others as needed.
The NRC received comments on the draft EA from members of the public, the EPA, State governments, advocacy organizations, and DISA. Commenters expressed opposition to the proposed HPSA operations; provided suggestions for improving or clarifying specific discussions in the EA, especially regarding potential impacts on water resources; expressed concerns about and requested clarification regarding the regulatory framework for the DISA licensing action; expressed concerns about the lack of site-specific information; and expressed concerns about the bounding assumptions in the EA. The NRC staff's responses to the comments are provided in appendix B of the final EA.
On the basis of the generic EA, the NRC concludes that the proposed licensing 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 generic EA, before DISA mobilizes to a site, the NRC staff would review DISA's PMN and the conditions at that site. The NRC staff would compare the site-specific information to the impacts and assumptions in the generic EA. If HPSA operations at a site would be consistent with the impacts and assumptions in the EA, the FONSI would apply for that site. If there are differences in site conditions, proposed operations, or potential impacts at a site, the NRC staff would determine whether these differences require further analysis. In all cases, the NRC will assess the site-specific impacts of depositing coarse material onto the site, and the NRC or its designee will conduct site-specific consultations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 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.
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
1.
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 is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend the Eighth Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement (the “Holdco LLC Agreement”) of MEMX Holdings LLC (“Holdco” or the “Company”), as further described below. Holdco is the parent company of the Exchange and directly or indirectly owns all of the limited liability company membership interests in the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5 and is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Holdco LLC Agreement
Section 9.1 of the Holdco LLC Agreement provides for a pre-emptive right of certain Members to purchase a pro rata portion of any New Securities
The definition of New Securities in the Holdco LLC Agreement describes the types of securities that are included in that term and therefore are subject to the Members’ pre-emptive right, and it also specifies certain types of securities that are excluded from that term and therefore are not subject to the Members’ pre-emptive right. The Holdco Board has resolved, and the Exchange therefore proposes, to amend the definition of New Securities to specifically exclude Units or other equity interests issued or sold by the Company or any Company Subsidiary in connection with a warrants or other equity rights program administered by a Regulated Securities Exchange Subsidiary
Thus, under the proposed rule change, issuances of Units or other equity interests under future Exchange Warrants Programs would not be subject to the Members’ pre-emptive right, and the Exchange believes this proposed change would facilitate the administration of future Exchange Warrants Programs on the Exchange, as it would limit participation in the equity issuances under such programs to the participants in such programs, consistent with the design of such programs. The Exchange notes that while this proposed change may have an impact on the proportional ownership of the Exchange or its parent company in connection with a future Exchange Warrants Program by disapplying the right of certain Members to participate in the equity issuance thereunder, any such Exchange Warrants Program must be effective pursuant to a rule filing that is filed with the Commission and any related equity issuance is subject to the ownership limitations of the Holdco LLC Agreement.
The Exchange is also proposing to make amendments to the Holdco LLC Agreement that are intended to update and/or clarify existing language in various provisions. The purpose of these amendments is to add clarity to the Holdco LLC Agreement by updating information that is outdated or otherwise clarifying the relevant provision consistent with its original intent. Each amendment was previously approved by the Holdco Board and is discussed below.
• The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of “MX2 LLC Agreement” in Section 1.1. Currently, Section 1.1 defines the term “MX2 LLC Agreement” as the First Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of MX2 LLC, a Subsidiary of the Company, effective as of September 17, 2024, as may be amended or restated from time to time. The MX2 LLC Agreement was initially adopted by its Managing Member, Holdco, on September 17, 2024, and then it was subsequently amended and restated and adopted by the Board of Directors of MX2 LLC on April 28, 2025. The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of MX2 LLC Agreement to update the referenced effective date to April 28, 2025, which is the date that it was adopted by the Board of Directors of MX2 LLC.
• The Exchange proposes to amend Sections 3.2(a) and (b) to clarify the voting rights of the Class A-1 Units and Class A-2 Units. Section 3.2 provides for the authorization and voting rights of the Class A-1 Units, Class A-2 Units, Nonvoting Class A-1 Units, Nonvoting Class A-2 Units, Class C-1 Units, Class C-2 Units, Class D-1 Units, Class D-2 Units, Voting Common Units and Nonvoting Common Units. Sections 3.2(a) and (b) relate to the Class A-1 Units and Class A-2 Units, respectively. The Exchange proposes to amend Sections 3.2(a) and (b) to specify that, with respect to the Class A-1 Units and Class A-2 Units, each such Unit shall have one vote per Unit on all matters on which such Units are entitled to vote. The Exchange notes that each type of Unit described in Section 3.2, including Class A-1 Units and Class A-2 Units, was originally intended to have one vote per Unit on all matters on which such type of Unit is entitled to vote, and Sections 3.2(c)-(g) include language that specifies this voting construct with respect to the other types of Units described in that section. Therefore, this proposed change is intended to clarify the number of votes corresponding to each Class A-1 Unit and Class A-2 Unit consistent with the original intent of the relevant provisions. The Exchange notes that the proposed language in Sections 3.2(a) and (b) mirrors the language used in Sections 3.2(c)-(g) to describe this voting construct with respect to the other types of Units described in Section 3.2.
• The Exchange proposes to amend Section 3.2(c) to correct an inadvertent drafting error relating to the voting construct applicable to the Nonvoting Class A-1 Units. Specifically, Section 3.2(c) contains an erroneous reference to “Nonvoting Class A Unit” that was originally intended to be a reference to “Nonvoting Class A-1 Unit” as that is the type of Unit to which this provision relates. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 3.2(c) to replace the erroneous reference to “Nonvoting Class A Unit” with an appropriate reference to “Nonvoting Class A-1 Unit” to clarify the provision consistent with its original intent.
• The Exchange proposes to amend Section 7.4(f) to update an outdated provision relating to a past tax election made by the Company. Currently, Section 7.4(f) provides that the Company shall make a specified tax election upon its filing of its 2020 U.S. federal income tax return. The Company did in fact make the specified tax election upon its filing of its 2020 U.S. federal income tax return, and as such, the Exchange proposes to update the language in Section 7.4(f) to reflect that this tax election was previously made by the Company.
• The Exchange proposes to amend Section 8.18(c)(i) to include “LLC” after the references to “MEMX” and “MX2” to reflect those entities' full legal names, which would clarify this provision consistent with its original intent.
• The Exchange proposes to amend Section 8.18(c)(vi)(A) to clarify a reference made to the Exchange Boards of MEMX LLC and MX2 LLC. Section 8.18(c)(vi) provides for certain actions in the event of a Combination of Exchange Director Nominating Members, and subparagraph (A) provides that following such Combination, the surviving Affiliated group of Exchange Director Nominating Members shall have the right to nominate one Exchange Director to an Exchange. The Exchange notes that the reference to “an Exchange” in this provision was originally intended to reference each applicable Exchange Board—namely, the Exchange Boards of MEMX LLC and/or MX2 LLC, as applicable. The Exchange proposes to amend Section 8.18(c)(vi)(A) to replace the reference to “an Exchange” with a reference to “each applicable Exchange Board” to clarify this provision consistent with its original intent.
• The Exchange proposes to amend Section 8.18(c)(vi)(D) to replace an erroneous reference to “Exchange Director Nomination Rotation” with an appropriate reference to each of the MEMX LLC Exchange Director Nomination Rotation and the MX2 LLC Exchange Director Nomination Rotation. The Exchange notes that the reference to “Exchange Director Nomination Rotation” in this provision was originally intended to refer to each applicable nomination rotation—namely, the MEMX LLC Exchange Director Nomination Rotation and the MX2 LLC Exchange Director Nomination Rotation—but the term “Exchange Director Nomination Rotation” is not a defined term in the Holdco LLC Agreement. Therefore, the proposed change to instead reference each of the MEMX LLC Exchange Director Nomination Rotation and the MX2 LLC Exchange Director Nomination Rotation is intended to clarify the provision consistent its original intent by referencing the appropriate defined terms.
• The Exchange proposes to amend Section 8.18(g)(iv) to replace four erroneous references to “Exchange” with appropriate references to “Exchange Board” as originally intended. The Exchange notes that the term “Exchange” is not defined in the Holdco LLC Agreement, so the proposed change is intended to clarity the provision consistent with its original intent by replacing references to an erroneous undefined term with the appropriate defined term.
• The Exchange proposes to amend Section 12.4(c) to remove a reference to a date that has passed and delete related language that is now outdated and obsolete. Section 12.4(c) provides that until February 19, 2023, no approval of the Holdco Board is required for a specified level of variance in the Company's Annual Budget, and that upon such date the Holdco Board shall determine by Supermajority Board Vote the level of variance in the Company's Annual Budget that does not require approval of the Holdco Board after such date. The Exchange notes that such date has passed, and the Holdco Board has determined by Supermajority Board Vote that the same level of variance in the Company's Annual Budget that applied before such date will continue to not require approval of the Holdco Board, consistent with the Company's existing practice. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to remove the outdated reference to February 19, 2023, and delete the final sentence of Section 12.4(c) regarding the Holdco Board's action to be taken upon such date, as such date has passed and such action was previously taken.
The Exchange proposes to update Exhibit A to remove a reference to a date that has passed. Exhibit A, which is a Form of Adherence Agreement, contains a field for a date to be filled in when completing the form, and that date field currently references 2023. As 2023 has passed, the Exchange proposes to update Exhibit A by deleting the reference to 2023 and replacing it with a reference to “2__” for the year to be filled in upon any future completion of the form.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the Holdco LLC Agreement are consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to exclude from the definition of New Securities, and, in turn, the Members' pre-emptive right, Units or other equity interests issued or sold by the Company or any Company Subsidiary in connection with an Exchange Warrants Program is consistent with the Act because, as described above, such change would facilitate the administration of future Exchange Warrants Programs on the Exchange, which are generally designed to incentivize Exchange participation and thereby enhance the Exchange's market quality. As such, this proposed change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
The Exchange notes that there was sufficient representation on the Holdco Board of Members impacted by this proposed change and that the approval of this proposed change by the Holdco Board was effectuated in accordance with Delaware law. Furthermore, while this proposed change may have an impact on the proportional ownership of the Exchange or its parent company in connection with a future Exchange Warrants Program, the Exchange notes that the proposed change requires that any such Exchange Warrants Program be effective pursuant to a rule filing that is filed with the Commission, so there would be Commission review of any potential ownership changes resulting from any such Exchange Warrants Program, which would also remain subject to the ownership limitations of the Holdco LLC Agreement. In this regard, the Exchange believes the proposed change is consistent with the Act, as it enables the Exchange and its parent company to be organized as to have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Act and to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange and does not impair the ability of the SEC to enforce the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to update and clarify various provisions in the Holdco LLC Agreement are consistent with the Act, as such amendments would update and clarify the Holdco LLC Agreement in a manner consistent with actions previously taken by the Holdco Board in accordance with the Holdco LLC Agreement, thereby increasing transparency and helping to avoid any potential confusion resulting from
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal is not intended to address competitive issues nor the operation of the Exchange. Rather, as described above, this proposal is concerned solely with the equity rights of Members of Holdco and the administration of Holdco's corporate documents. As such, the Exchange does not believe that this proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the Holdco LLC Agreement described above would not significantly affect the protection of investors and the public interest. In addition, the Exchange does not believe that this proposal imposes any significant burden on competition because the proposed amendments to the Holdco LLC Agreement do not address competitive issues but rather are concerned solely with the equity rights of Members of Holdco and the administration of Holdco's corporate documents, as discussed above.
Furthermore, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), however, permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay contained in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) so that the Exchange may amend the Holdco LLC Agreement as soon as possible. The Exchange states that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it would allow the Holdco LLC Agreement to reflect updated and clarified provisions that were previously approved by the Holdco Board in accordance with the Holdco LLC Agreement and Delaware law, each as discussed above, in a timely manner, thereby creating more transparent, consistent, and clear standards for the administration and governance of the parent company of the Exchange. The Exchange also states that the proposed changes to the Holdco LLC Agreement do not materially alter the existing governance framework of the Exchange or its parent company. The Commission believes the proposed rule change presents no novel legal or regulatory issues, and that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Under Section 30 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”), a registered investment company is required to transmit to its shareholders, at least semi-annually, reports containing financial statements and other financial information as the Commission may prescribe by rules and regulations. Rule 30e-3 under the Investment Company Act provides certain funds with an optional method to satisfy shareholder report transmission requirements by making such reports and certain other materials publicly accessible on a website, as long as they satisfy certain other conditions of the rule regarding (1) availability of the report and other materials; (2) notice to investors of the website availability of the report; and (3) delivery of paper copies of materials upon request.
Certain of the provisions of rule 30e-3 contain “collection of information” requirements within the meaning on the Paperwork Reduction Act. The collection of information is required pursuant to 17 CFR 270.30e-3. Reliance on the rule is voluntary. Responses to the disclosure requirements are not kept confidential.
We estimate that annually there are approximately 703 funds affected by rule 30e-3. We estimate that the total annual burden of complying with the information collection requirements in rule 30e-3 is approximately 1,406 burden hours. We estimate that there is an annual cost burden of approximately $5,129,008. These burden hour and cost estimates are based upon the Commission staff's experience and discussions with the fund industry. The estimates of average burden hours and costs are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. These estimates are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules.
Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the rule is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying on the rule. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the SEC, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the SEC's estimate of the burden imposed by the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated, electronic collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the fee schedule applicable to the options trading platform of MIAX Pearl (the “Fee Schedule”) regarding the Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”).
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 the Fee Schedule to: (i) temporarily decrease the ORF from $0.0018 per
The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of Members'
The Exchange assesses the per-contract ORF to each Member for all options transactions cleared or ultimately cleared by the Member, which are cleared by the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) in the “customer” range,
As a practical matter, when a transaction that is subject to the ORF is not executed on the Exchange, the Exchange lacks the information necessary to identify the order-entering member for that transaction. There are a multitude of order-entering market participants throughout the industry, and such participants can make changes to the market centers to which they connect, including dropping their connection to one market center and establishing themselves as participants on another. For these reasons, it is not possible for the Exchange to identify, and thus assess fees such as ORF, on order-entering participants on away markets on a given trading day. Clearing members, however, are distinguished from order-entering participants because they remain identified to the Exchange on information the Exchange receives from OCC regardless of the identity of the order-entering participant, their location, and the market center on which they execute transactions.
The Exchange monitors the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. In determining whether an expense is considered a regulatory cost, the Exchange reviews all costs and makes determinations if there is a nexus between the expense and a regulatory function. The Exchange notes that fines collected by the Exchange in connection with a disciplinary matter offset ORF.
The Exchange believes that its broad regulatory responsibilities with respect to a Member's activities supports applying the ORF to transactions cleared but not executed by a Member. The Exchange's regulatory responsibilities are the same regardless of whether a Member enters a transaction or clears a transaction executed on its behalf. The Exchange regularly reviews all such activities, including performing surveillance for position limit violations, manipulation, front-running, contrary exercise advice violations and insider trading. These activities span across multiple exchanges.
Revenue generated from ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a material portion of the regulatory costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of Members' customer options business including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. Regulatory costs include direct regulatory expenses and certain indirect expenses in support of the regulatory function. The direct expenses include in-house and third party service provider costs to support the day-to-day regulatory work such as surveillances, investigations and examinations.
The ORF revenue is based on options transactions volume, the amount of ORF collected is variable. For example, if options transactions reported to OCC in a given month increase, the ORF collected from Members will likely increase as well. Similarly, if options transactions reported to OCC in a given month decrease, the ORF collected from Members will likely decrease as well. Accordingly, the Exchange monitors the amount of ORF collected to ensure that it does not exceed a material portion of regulatory costs. If the Exchange determines the amount of ORF collected exceeds or may exceed a material portion of regulatory costs, the Exchange will, as appropriate, adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”).
Based on the Exchange's recent review of regulatory costs, ORF revenue, and options transaction volume, the Exchange proposes to temporarily decrease the ORF from $0.0018 per contract to $0.0014 per contract, between September 1, 2025 and December 31, 2025. This proposed decrease will help ensure that the amount collected from the ORF, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. On July 31, 2025, the Exchange notified Members of the proposed temporary decrease to the ORF via a Regulatory Circular to afford market participants sufficient opportunity to configure their systems to account properly for the modified ORF.
The proposed change to the ORF is based on the Exchange's analysis of recent options volumes and its regulatory costs. The Exchange believes that, if the ORF is not temporarily reduced for the remainder of 2025, the ORF revenue to the Exchange year over year could exceed a material portion of the Exchange's 2025 regulatory costs.
Over the past few years, the options industry has experienced high options trading volumes and volatility and the persisting increased options volumes have impacted the Exchange's ORF collection. The table below reflects industry data from OCC and illustrates that both total average daily volume and customer average daily volume in 2025 increased over the already elevated levels in 2023 and 2024.
In addition, as shown in the table below, during 2025, options trading volumes have remained elevated and volatility has persisted.
Because of the sustained impact of the trading volumes that have persisted through July 2025, along with the difficulty of predicting whether and when volumes may return to historical levels, the Exchange proposes to temporarily decrease the ORF from September 1 through December 31, 2025, to help ensure that ORF collection will not exceed the Exchange's 2025 regulatory costs. The Exchange cannot predict whether options volumes will remain at these levels going forward and projections for future regulatory costs are estimated. Particularly, based on the Exchange's estimated projections for its regulatory costs, the revenue generated by ORF using the temporarily reduced rate, would result in projected revenue that is insufficient to cover a material portion of its regulatory costs. Further, when combined with the Exchange's projected other non-ORF regulatory fees and fines, the revenue generated by ORF using the temporarily reduced rate is projected to result in a combined revenue that is less than the Exchange's estimated regulatory costs for the year. Because the projected revenue is projected to insufficiently cover a material portion of its regulatory costs, the Exchange proposes to increase the ORF starting January 1, 2026 from $0.0014 per contract to $0.0016 per contract. The Exchange will notify Members of the proposed change via a Regulatory Circular at least 30 calendar days prior to the effective date of the change.
The Exchange appreciates the evolving changes in the markets and regulatory environment and, in connection with industry and other feedback, has been evaluating the current methodologies and practices for the assessment and collection of ORF. The Exchange recognizes that an alternative model is being pursued among industry participants but that a consensus has not yet been reached. The Exchange is committed to switching to a new, modified model as soon as a consistent framework has been established with the Commission, adopted by all the options exchanges, and necessary regulatory filings submitted.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes the proposed fee changes are reasonable because customer transactions will be subject to a lower ORF fee than the current rate. Moreover, the proposed temporary reduction to $0.0014 per contract is reasonable because it would help ensure that collections from the ORF do not exceed a material portion of the Exchange's projected regulatory costs for 2025. As noted above, the ORF is designed to recover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's regulatory costs.
Although there can be no assurance that the Exchange's final costs for 2025 will not differ materially from its expectations and prior practice, nor can the Exchange predict with certainty whether options volume will remain at current or similar levels going forward, the Exchange believes that the amount collected based on the current ORF rate, when combined with regulatory fees and fines, may result in collections in excess of the projected regulatory costs for the year. Particularly, as noted above, the options market has continued to experience elevated volumes and volatility in 2025, thereby resulting in higher ORF collections than projected. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed temporary decrease to the ORF is reasonable because it would help ensure that ORF collection does not exceed the projected regulatory costs for 2025. Particularly, the Exchange believes that this temporary reduction in the ORF, taken together with the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, would allow the Exchange to continue covering a material portion of the projected regulatory costs, while lessening the potential for generating excess funds that may otherwise occur using the current rate.
The Exchange also believes that the increase of the ORF to $0.0016 per contract on January 1, 2026 is reasonable because it would permit the Exchange to collect an ORF that is designed to recover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's projected regulatory costs.
The Exchange's proposal to increase the ORF rate on January 1, 2026 is based on the Exchange's estimated projections
The Exchange also believes the proposed fee change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in that it is charged to all Members on all their transactions that clear in the customer range at the OCC.
The Exchange also believes that increasing the ORF rate on January 1, 2026, is equitable because the ORF would continue to apply equally to all Members on options transactions in the “customer” range, at a rate designed to recover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's projected regulatory costs, based on current projections that such costs will increase in 2026.
The Proposal Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes that the proposed temporary decrease to the ORF rate would not place certain market participants at an unfair disadvantage because it would apply to all Members subject to the ORF and would allow the Exchange to continue to monitor the amount collected from the ORF to help ensure that ORF collection, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. The Exchange also has provided all such Members with advance notice of the planned change to the ORF.
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 change would not impose an undue burden on intramarket competition because the ORF is charged to all Members on all their transactions that clear in the “customer” range at the OCC; thus, the amount of ORF imposed is based on the amount of customer volume transacted. The Exchange believes that the proposed temporary decrease of the ORF would not place certain market participants at an unfair disadvantage because all options transactions must clear via a clearing firm. Such clearing firms can then choose to pass through all, a portion, or none of the cost of the ORF to its customers,
The Exchange also believes that increasing ORF a on January 1, 2026 would not impose an undue burden on competition because it would permit the Exchange to resume assessing an ORF that is designed to recover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's projected regulatory costs, based on current projections that such costs will increase in 2026.
The proposed fee change is not designed to address any competitive issues. Rather, the proposed change is designed to help the Exchange adequately fund its regulatory activities while seeking to ensure that total collections from regulatory fees do not exceed total regulatory costs.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend various transaction fees in Options 7, Section 4, Multiply Listed Options Fees (Includes options overlying equities, ETFs, ETNs and indexes which are Multiply Listed) (Excludes SPY and broad-based index options symbols listed within Options 7, Section 5.A).
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.
Phlx proposes to amend pricing within Options 7, Section 4 to: (1) remove the current BD-Customer Facilitation waiver and replace it with a Broker-Dealer Transaction Cap; (2) amend the Floor Broker Incentive Program; and (3) amend the strategy caps for Floor Originated Strategy Executions. Each change will be described below.
Today, the Exchange waives the Broker-Dealer
In lieu of this waiver, the Exchange proposes a Broker-Dealer Transaction Cap whereby each Broker-Dealer Floor Options Transaction Charge will be capped at $15,000 per transaction (including FLEX and Cabinet Options Transaction Charges). The Exchange believes that this proposed new cap will incentivize Broker-Dealers to submit larger-sized orders for execution to Phlx. Other market participants will be able to interact with those larger-sized orders.
The Exchange also proposes to amend language in the existing text for Firm Facilitation to modify the rule text to refer to one waiver only.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Floor Transaction (Open Outcry) Floor Broker Incentive Program at Options 7, Section 4. This incentive program for Floor Brokers
Today, rebates are paid on qualifying volume at each threshold level based on the below schedule. Floor Qualified Contingent Cross (“QCC”) Orders, as defined in Options 8, Section 30(e), are considered qualifying volume but are not paid rebates based on the below schedule, rather Floor QCC Order are paid the QCC Rebates noted in Options 7, Section 4.
Today, the Exchange pays Floor Transaction (Open Outcry) Floor Broker Incentive Program rebates on qualifying volume based on four tiers.
First, the Exchange proposes to amend the Floor Transaction (Open Outcry) Floor Broker Incentive Program with respect to qualifying volume. The Exchange proposes to amend the current rule text in Options 7, Section 4, to also include electronic QCC Orders as qualifying volume. As amended, the rule text would state,
Rebates will be paid on qualifying volume at each threshold level based on the below schedule. Floor QCC Orders, as defined in Options 8, Section 30(e), and electronic QCC Orders, as defined in Options 3, Section 12, will be considered qualifying volume but would not be paid rebates based on the below schedule, rather Floor QCC Orders and electronic QCC Orders would be paid the QCC Rebates noted in Options 7, Section 4 above.
While electronic QCC Orders would count toward qualifying volume, electronic QCC Orders, similar to Floor QCC Orders, would not be paid rebates based on the rebate schedule, rather electronic QCC Order would continue to be paid the QCC Rebates noted in Options 7, Section 4. This proposed change would allow Phlx members and member organizations to count electronic QCC Orders toward their qualifying volume to achieve the Qualifying Contracts necessary to be paid a rebate.
The Exchange also proposes to amend the current rebate schedule at Tier 2 with respect to qualifying contracts between 500,001-5,000,000. Today, the Exchange pays a $0.12 per contract rebate when Non-Customers
The Exchange believes that the Floor Transaction (Open Outcry) Floor Broker Incentive Program will attract greater order flow to Phlx's trading floor as a result of the proposed changes.
Today, the Exchange permits the following of strategy executions: (1) dividend strategy,
At this time, the Exchange proposes to no longer apply a Strategy Cap to strategy executions and instead pay certain rebates. The Exchange proposes to re-title “Strategy Caps” within Options 7, Section 4 as “Strategy Fees and Rebates” and also amend the rule text beneath the title. The Exchange also proposes to amend the paragraph under the table and in Options 7, Section 6, B to change references to the “Strategy Cap” to “Strategy pricing.” Further, the Exchange proposes to add the following, “The below fees/rebates are in lieu of the Options Transactions Charges in Options 7, Section 4 for Penny and Non-Penny Symbols.”
The Exchange is proposing to amend the Strategy Cap table to re-title “Daily/Monthly Cap” to “Fee/Rebate Per Contract” and pay a $0.01 rebate per contract on any strategy execution that meet the qualifications noted in the table. Therefore, for a dividend strategy, a Lead Market Maker, Market Maker, Professional, Firm and Broker-Dealer that executed on the same trading day in the same class of options when such members are trading: (1) in their own proprietary accounts; or (2) on an agency basis, will be paid a $0.01 rebate per contract. For a merger, short stock interest and box spread strategy, a Lead Market Maker, Market Maker, Professional, Firm and Broker-Dealer that executed on the same trading day for all classes of options in the aggregate when such members are trading (1) in their own proprietary accounts; or (2) on an agency basis, they will be paid a $0.01 rebate per contract. Finally, for reversal and conversion and jelly roll strategies, a Lead Market Maker, Market Maker, Professional, Firm and Broker-Dealer that executed on the same trading day for all classes of options in the aggregate when such members are trading (1) in their own proprietary accounts; or (2) on an agency basis, will be paid a $0.01 rebate per contract. Finally, Customers would continue to pay no fees on strategy transactions with this proposal. The Exchange proposes the following be added to the end of the paragraph under the newly titled “Strategy Fees and Rebates” section, “Customers will not be assessed a fee
The Exchange believes that its proposal will incentivize Lead Market Makers, Market Makers, Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers to transact a greater number of strategies on Phlx.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
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, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, 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.”
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .”
The Exchange's proposal to remove the BD-Customer Facilitation waiver and instead offer a Broker-Dealer Transaction Cap is reasonable. The Exchange seeks to incentivize Broker-Dealers to direct additional orders to the Exchange. The current waiver seeks to accomplish this by requiring Customer Facilitation average daily volume of 10,000 contracts per day in a given month to receive the waiver for facilitation orders, while the new cap applies to each order submitted by a Broker-Dealer to limit cost. The current waiver sought to incentivize crossing orders to be sent to the Exchange while the proposed new cap incentivizes Broker-Dealers to send larger sized orders to benefit from the incentive. The Exchange believes that its current proposal has the potential to bring additional orders to the Exchange with which other market participants may interact, particularly given the potential for the orders being sized larger.
The Exchange's proposal to remove the BD-Customer Facilitation waiver and instead offer a Broker-Dealer Transaction Cap is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Today, Customers are not assessed Options Transaction Charges. Lead Market Makers and Market Makers are offered a Monthly Market Maker Cap of $500,000
The Exchange's proposal to amend its Floor Transaction (Open Outcry) Floor Broker Incentive Program to permit electronic QCC Orders, as defined in Options 3, Section 12, to be considered qualifying volume for purposes of the program and not pay rebates for transactions executed on electronic QCC Orders is reasonable because the addition of electronic QCC Orders as qualifying volumes may incentives additional electronic QCC Orders in an effort to earn higher rebates.
The Exchange's proposal to amend its Floor Transaction (Open Outcry) Floor Broker Incentive Program to permit electronic QCC Orders, as defined in Options 3, Section 12, to be considered qualifying volume for purposes of the program and not pay rebates for transactions executed on electronic QCC Orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as all Phlx Floor Broker electronic QCC Order flow entered on
The Exchange's proposal to increase Tier 2 of the rebate schedule with respect to qualifying contracts between 500,001-5,000,000, when Non-Customers are on both sides of the transaction, from $0.12 to $0.16 per contract rebate is reasonable because the higher rebate may attract additional order flow to Phlx's open outcry in an effort to earn the higher rebate. Other Phlx floor members may interact with the orders exposed in open outcry on the Exchange's trading floor.
The Exchange's proposal to increase Tier 2 of the rebate schedule with respect to qualifying contracts between 500,001-5,000,000, when Non-Customers are on both sides of the transaction, from $0.12 to $0.16 per contract rebate is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will uniformly pay qualifying Floor Brokers the increased rebate to all qualifying members. Further, the Exchange believes its proposed increased floor transaction rebates for a Non-Customer on both sides is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory when compared to the rebate for a Customer on one side with the same number of qualifying contracts because Customers are not assessed a Floor Options Transaction Charge for Penny and Non-Penny Symbols. In contrast, the Exchange notes that Non-Customers, except Professionals, are assessed Floor Options Transaction Charges in Penny and Non-Penny Symbols. The Exchange proposes to pay higher rebates where there is a Non-Customer on both sides of a trade because a Floor Broker attracting Customer order flow can more easily attract Customer orders which are not assessed a floor transaction fee as compared to attracting a Non-Customer order which would pay a transaction fee to execute on Phlx's trading floor.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to pay rebates on qualifying volume for transactions executed on the trading floor, because it is necessary from a competitive standpoint to offer this rebate to the executing Floor Broker to attract order flow to the trading floor. The rebate is meant to assist Floor Brokers to recruit business on an agency basis. The Floor Broker may use all or part of the rebate to offset its fees. The Exchange expects that the rebate offered to executing Floor Brokers will allow them to price their services at a level that will enable them to attract order flow from market participants who would otherwise enter these orders electronically from off the floor. To the extent that Floor Brokers are able to attract these qualifying volume, other floor participants may interact with this order flow in open outcry. The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to pay rebates on qualifying volume for transactions executed on the trading floor, because Floor Brokers would be uniformly paid the rebates based on qualifying volume and the parties to the transaction.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Strategy Cap pricing to pay a $0.01 per contract rebate on qualifying strategy executions is reasonable because the Exchange desires to attract qualifying strategy transactions to Phlx and this rebate will incentivize Lead Market Makers, Market Makers, Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers to transact a greater number of strategies on Phlx. Customers pay no Options Transaction Charges on strategy executions today and would continue to pay no fees.
The Exchange's proposal to pay a $0.01 per contract rebate on qualifying strategy executions is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would uniformly pay the rebate to all qualifying Non-Customers. Customers continue to not be assessed an Options Transaction Charge for strategy executions.
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 proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition. The Exchange believes its proposal remains competitive with other options markets and will offer market participants with another choice of where to transact options. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
The Exchange's proposal to remove the BD-Customer Facilitation waiver and instead offer a Broker-Dealer Transaction Cap does not impose an undue burden on competition. Today, Customers are not assessed Options Transaction Charges. Lead Market Makers and Market Makers are offered a Monthly Market Maker Cap of $500,000
The Exchange's proposal to amend its Floor Transaction (Open Outcry) Floor Broker Incentive Program to permit electronic QCC Orders, as defined in Options 3, Section 12, to be considered qualifying volume for purposes of the program and not pay rebates for transactions executed on electronic QCC Orders does not impose an undue burden on competition as all Phlx Floor Broker electronic QCC Order flow entered on Phlx will be counted as qualifying volume for the Floor Transaction (Open Outcry) Floor Broker Incentive Program and those electronic QCC Order will uniformly be paid rebates based on the schedule in Options 7, Section 4 for rebates.
The Exchange's proposal to increase Tier 2 of the rebate schedule with respect to qualifying contracts between 500,001-5,000,000, when Non-Customers are on both sides of the transaction, from $0.12 to $0.16 per contract rebate does not impose an undue burden on competition because the Exchange will uniformly pay qualifying Floor Brokers the increased rebate to all qualifying members. Further, the Exchange believes its proposed increased floor transaction rebates for a Non-Customer on both sides does not impose an undue burden on competition when compared to the rebate for a Customer on one side with the same number of qualifying contracts, because Customers are not assessed a Floor Options Transaction Charge for Penny and Non-Penny Symbols. In contrast, the Exchange notes that Non-Customers, except Professionals, are assessed Floor Options Transaction Charges in Penny and Non-Penny Symbols. The Exchange proposes to pay higher rebates where there is a Non-Customer on both sides of a trade because a Floor Broker attracting Customer order flow can more easily attract Customer orders which are not assessed a floor transaction fee as compared to attracting a Non-Customer order which would pay a transaction fee to execute on Phlx's trading floor.
The Exchange believes that it does not impose an undue burden on competition to pay rebates on qualifying volume for transactions executed on the trading floor, because Floor Brokers would be uniformly paid the rebates based on qualifying volume and the parties to the transaction.
The Exchange's proposal to pay a $0.01 per contract rebate on qualifying strategy executions is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would uniformly pay the rebate to all qualifying Non-Customers. Customers continue to not be assessed an Options Transaction Charge for strategy executions.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
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: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) 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 proposed rule change would (i) amend the DTC Settlement Guide,
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change would (i) amend the DTC Settlement Guide, Underwriting Guide, and the OA, to decommission the IPO Tracking System, an optional service used to track IPO share movement during the post-offering stabilization period, and, consequently, (ii) remove from the Fee Guide the IPO Tracked Issue associated with the IPO Tracking System.
DTC continually evaluates the efficiency and effectiveness of the services it provides. As part of these evaluations, and in furtherance of ongoing modernization efforts, DTC seeks to streamline and simplify services and processes, including through the decommissioning of underutilized services. DTC proposes to decommission the IPO Tracking System due to (i) changes in the market structure and the availability of external tracking systems, and (ii) the operational complexity required to maintain the service, especially given its limited usage.
The IPO Tracking System was established by DTC to support lead underwriters and syndicate managers in monitoring the book-entry movement of IPO shares during the post-offering stabilization period. The service was designed to enhance transparency by generating daily reports identifying Participant level deliveries and allocations of new issue securities for a limited tracking window following an offering. The IPO Tracking System requires the lead underwriter to initiate tracking eligibility by submitting instructions through DTC's underwriting portal (“UW SOURCE”) two business days prior to the scheduled closing date. Once activated, the IPO Tracking System provides automated reports, including data files made available to lead underwriters during the post-offering stabilization period.
Over time, usage of the IPO Tracking System has declined significantly due to changes in market structure, the availability of external tracking systems, and reduced reliance by underwriters on DTC's IPO Tracking System data. In turn, the operational effort required to maintain the IPO Tracking System has become disproportionate to the limited number of offerings utilizing the service. As such, DTC has decided to decommission the IPO Tracking System.
To effectuate the decommissioning of the IPO Tracking System, DTC proposes to make the below described rule changes.
The proposed changes would remove from the Settlement Guide all provisions relating to the IPO Tracking System, including deleting (i) the term “IPO” under the “memo segregation” definition in the “Important Terms” table, (ii) entry number nine under “Account Options,” and subsequent renumbering, (iii) the entire text of the section titled “Initial Public Offering (IPO) Tracking System,” which describes the goals of the IPO Tracking System and contact information,
Similarly, DTC proposes to amend the Underwriting Guide to remove all references in the “IPO Tracking System”
DTC proposes to eliminate the IPO Tracked Issue fee of $5,000 from the “Other Underwriting Services” section of the Fee Guide.
DTC proposes to update the OA to remove the eligibility requirements for IPO Tracking currently set forth in Exhibit B (Underwriting Standard Time Frames).
The final IPO issue eligible for tracking via the IPO Tracking System will be for tracking instructions submitted to DTC on or before October 2, 2025, after which DTC will update its rules, as described above, to remove references to the IPO Tracking System. Tracking for issues requested on or before October 2, 2025 will be tracked according to the period selected by the Participant (
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the rules of the clearing agency be designed,
As described above, the proposed rule change would (i) amend the Settlement Guide, Underwriting Guide and the OA to decommission the IPO Tracking system, an optional, underused service used to track IPO share movement during the post-offering stabilization period and, consequently, (ii) remove from Fee Guide the related fee for IPO Tracked Issue. Eliminating the IPO Tracking System will streamline DTC's service offerings by retiring an underutilized service allowing DTC to allocate operational resources more efficiently and ensure DTC's service offerings remain aligned with the current market usage and Participant needs. By allocating resources more efficiently and keeping aligned to Participant needs, DTC will be better positioned and able to focus on its core mission—clearance and settlement. Therefore, DTC believes that the proposed rule change would help promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, consistent with the requirements of the Act, in particular Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, cited above.
Rule 17ad-22(e)(21)
DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any impact or impose any burden on competition because, as described above, the proposed rule change simply decommissions an optional service that has experienced limited subscription and declining usage over time. DTC has performed direct outreach to Participants that do use the IPO Tracking System and announced its plans to decommission the service through Important Notice. There were no objections or concerns raised by Participants. Moreover, the IPO Tracking System is not essential to DTC's core clearance and settlement functions, its retirement would not impair any Participant's access to any other DTC services, and such tracking is available via external tracking systems. Therefore, DTC believes that the decommissioning of the IPO Tracking System would not favor or disadvantage any Participant.
DTC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to this proposal. If any written comments are received, they will be publicly filed as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by Form 19b-4 and the General Instructions thereto.
Persons submitting written comments are cautioned that, according to Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should submit only information that they wish to make available publicly, including their name, email address, and any other identifying information.
All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's instructions on
DTC reserves the right to not respond to any comments received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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.
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 establish fees for new functionality in connection with a technology migration.
While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the proposed amendments to be operative on November 1, 2025.
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 establish pricing related to new functionality that was adopted by the Exchange in connection with a technology migration. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to establish pricing related to its new: (1) electronic FLEX Options functionality;
FLEX Options are customized options contracts that allow investors to tailor contract terms for exchange-listed equity and index options. Today, the Exchange offers FLEX Options on its trading floor as described at Options 8, Section 34 which transactions are subject to the pricing described in Options 7, Section 6 B.
At this time, the Exchange proposes to establish pricing for electronic FLEX Options. By way of background, FLEX Options will be designed to meet the needs of market participants for greater flexibility in selecting the terms of options within the parameters of the Exchange's rules.
FLEX Options may be submitted through an electronic FLEX Auction, FLEX Price Improvement XL (“FLEX PIXL”), or a FLEX Solicited Order Mechanism (“FLEX SOM”).
The Exchange proposes to establish the following per contract pricing for
The Exchange also proposes at new note 1 of Options 7, Section 6.B that for all executions in FLEX NDX and FLEX XND orders, the applicable index options fees in Options 7, Section 5.A will apply.
An Exchange member may electronically submit a FLEX order into an electronic FLEX Auction pursuant to Options 3A, Section 11(b). For the FLEX Auction, the Exchange proposes assessing simple and complex orders a $0.10 per contract for Market Makers,
An Exchange member may electronically submit a FLEX order into a FLEX PIXL and FLEX SOM pursuant to Options 3A, Section 12 and Options 3A, Section 13, respectively.
For the FLEX PIXL and FLEX SOM, the Exchange proposes assessing simple and complex orders a $0.07 per contract for Market Makers, and Lead Market Makers, Broker-Dealers, Firms, and Professionals. The Exchange proposes assessing no fees to Customers. Pursuant to proposed note 2 of Options 7, Section 6.B, the fees will apply to the originating and contra order.
Any member other than an Initiating Member may submit responses to a FLEX PIXL and FLEX SOM pursuant to Options 3A, Section 12(c)(5) and Options 3A, Section 13(c)(5), respectively. For responses to a FLEX PIXL and FLEX SOM, the Exchange proposes assessing simple and complex orders a $0.50 per contract for Market Makers, and Lead Market Makers, Broker-Dealers, Firms, Professionals, and Customers. Fees apply to the originating and contra order.
For all executions in electronic FLEX NDX and electronic FLEX XND orders, the applicable index options fees in Options 7, Section 5, A will apply in a FLEX PIXL and FLEX SOM.
The Exchange believes that its proposed electronic FLEX pricing will attract electronic FLEX Orders to the Exchange.
With the addition of pricing for FLEX electronic transaction fees, the Exchange proposes to amend the pricing in Options 7, Section 6, B to retitle the
The Floor FLEX transaction fees for a Firm will be waived for members executing floor facilitation orders pursuant to Options 8, Section 30 when such members are trading in their own proprietary account. In addition, FLEX transaction fees for a Broker-Dealer will be waived for members executing floor facilitation orders pursuant to Options 8, Section 30 when such members would otherwise incur this charge for trading in their own proprietary account contra to a Customer (“BD-Customer Facilitation”), if the member's BD-Customer Facilitation average daily volume (including both Floor FLEX and non-Floor FLEX transactions) exceeds 10,000 contracts per day in a given month.
The Exchange proposes to create a new Options 7, Section 6.F titled “Crossing Orders.” The Exchange proposes to define a “Crossing Order” in Options 7, Section 1(c) as an order executed in the Exchange's Facilitation Mechanism pursuant to Options 3, Section 11(b) or (c) or Solicited Order Mechanism pursuant to Options 3, Section 11(d) or (e). For purposes of this Pricing Schedule, orders executed in the Block Order Mechanism pursuant to Options 3, Section 11(a) are also considered Crossing Orders. The Exchange proposes to state in new Options 7, Section 6.F that, “The below transaction fees apply to Crossing Orders.
The Exchange proposes to adopt Penny Symbol and Non-Penny Symbol Fees for Crossing Orders of $0.17 per contract for Non-Customers. No Penny Symbol or Non-Penny Symbol Fee for Crossing Orders would be assessed to a Customer. These fees would apply to the originating and contra order.
The Exchange believes that these proposed fees will attract simple Crossing Orders to the Exchange with a potential for price improving orders.
Next, the Exchange proposes to add a title of “Complex Order Fees and Rebates” to Options 7, Section 6.F, and adopt Crossing Order Penny Symbol and Non-Penny Symbols pricing as follows:
The Exchange proposes to adopt Penny Symbol and Non-Penny Symbol Complex Order Fees for Crossing Orders of $0.17 per contract for Non-Customers. No Penny Symbol or Non-Penny Symbol Complex Order Fees for Crossing Orders would be assessed to a Customer. These fees would apply to the originating and contra order
The Exchange believes that its proposed pricing for Crossing Orders will attract orders to Phlx's new auction mechanisms.
The Exchange proposes to amend a technical error in Options 7, Section 1, General Provisions by capitalizing the word “exchange.” The Exchange also proposes to add three new defined terms in Options 7, Section 1. First, the Exchange proposes to define a “Complex Order” and a “Simple Order” to clarify the Exchange's Pricing Schedule with respect to these terms. A “Complex Order” would be defined as an order involving the simultaneous purchase and/or sale of two or more different options series in the same underlying security, as provided in Options 3, Section 14, as well as Stock-Option Orders.
The Exchange proposes a change to Options 7, Section 3 to the bullet that currently states, “A non-Complex electronic auction includes the Quote Exhaust
Further, with respect to an Exposure Complex Auction pursuant to Supplementary Material .01 to Options 3, Section 14, the Exchange proposes to note in Options 7, Section 3, Part B that “During an Exposure Complex Auction pursuant to Supplementary Material .01 to Options 3, Section 14, the originating side of the auction order will be assessed the applicable Fee for Adding Liquidity or rebate, and the contra side will be assessed the applicable Fee for Removing Liquidity or rebate.” Also, the Exchange proposes to note with respect to the Marketing Fee, that additionally, no Marketing Fees will be assessed on the contra side order that executed against the originating order in a Exposure Complex Auction pursuant to Supplementary Material .01 to Options 3, Section 14. An Exposure Auction is automatically initiated when a member submits an eligible complex order that is marked for price improvement.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
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, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, 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.”
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .”
Indeed, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for options transaction services. The Exchange is only one of eighteen options exchanges to which market participants may direct their order flow. Within this environment, market participants can freely and often do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. Within the foregoing context, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to attract additional order flow to the Exchange and increase its market share relative to its competitors.
The Exchange believes that the proposed electronic FLEX Options pricing is reasonable because the fees remain competitive with fees of other options exchanges and will attract electronic FLEX order flow to Phlx. The Exchange's proposed fees for the FLEX Auction, FLEX PIXL, and FLEX SOM are comparable with those of ISE's electronic FLEX Auction, FLEX PIXL and FLEX SOM.
Further, the Exchange believes that the fees are an equitable allocation and are not unfairly discriminatory. The fees for the FLEX Auction, FLEX PIXL and FLEX SOM, and the responses to the FLEX PIXL and FLEX SOM will apply in a like manner to all similarly situated members except for Customers, who will be assessed no fees in the FLEX Auction and FLEX PIXL and FLEX SOM. The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess more favorable pricing for Customers as this order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which in turn attracts Market Makers and other market participants who may interact with this order flow. The Exchange believes that the differential between the proposed Fees for FLEX PIXL and SOM of $0.07 per contract for Non-Customers and $0.00 for Customers in both Penny and Non-Penny Symbols for simple and complex orders as compared to the proposed Fees for Reponses to FLEX PIXL and SOM Orders of $0.50 per contract for all participants for Penny and Non-Penny Symbols for simple and complex orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The lower proposed Fees for FLEX PIXL and SOM should encourage members to initiate these auctions in Penny and Non-Penny Symbols in simple and complex orders. Members responding to these auctions would be assessed the same or higher proposed Fees for Responses to FLEX PIXL and SOM Orders as compared to the fees to remove liquidity from the order book for simple and complex orders.
As it relates to the FLEX NDX and FLEX XND pricing described above, the Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonable because it will assess the same fees for FLEX NDX and FLEX XND orders as it does today for non-FLEX NDX and non-FLEX XND orders. Similar to non-FLEX NDX and non-FLEX XND, the Exchange seeks to recoup the operational costs for listing proprietary products.
The Exchange believes that the proposed FLEX NDX and FLEX XND fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Non-Customers will be assessed the same level of pricing across the board whereas Customers will be assessed lower fees or no fees. The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess lower fees for Customers because Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which in turn attracts Market Makers and other market participants who may interact with this order flow.
The Exchange's proposed pricing for Simple and Complex Crossing Orders is reasonable in several respects. The Exchange's proposed Fees for Crossing Orders of $0.17 per contract for Non-Customers are competitive and will attract orders to these new mechanisms on Phlx. ISE has comparable pricing for the same auctions.
The Exchange's proposed pricing for Simple and Complex Fees for Crossing Orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess Customers no Fees for Crossing Orders, thereby offering Customers more favorable pricing, because Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which in turn attracts Market Makers and other market participants who may interact with this order flow. Assessing uniform Simple and Complex Order Fees for Crossing Orders to Non-Customers is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange's proposal to assess all market participants uniform Simple and Complex Order Fees for Responding to Crossing Orders in Penny Symbols of $0.50 per contract and in Non-Penny Symbols of $1.10 per contract is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes that the differential between the proposed Fees for Crossing Order (the fees that apply to the originating and contra-side orders) of $0.17 per contract for Non-Customers and $0.00 for Customers in both Penny and Non-Penny Symbols for simple orders as compared to the proposed Fees for Reponses to Crossing Orders of $0.50 per contract for all participants in Penny Symbols and $1.10 per contract for Non-Penny Symbols for simple orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the differential between the proposed Fees for Crossing Orders (the fees that apply to the originating and contra-side orders) of $0.17 per contract for Non-Customers and $0.00 for Customers in both Penny and Non-Penny Symbols for complex orders as compared to the proposed Fees for Reponses to Crossing Orders of $0.50 per contract for all participants in Penny Symbols and $1.10 per contract
The Exchange's proposal to amend a technical error in Options 7, Section 1, General Provisions by capitalizing the word “exchange” is non-substantive. The Exchange's proposal to add three new defined terms in Options 7, Section 1 for “Complex Order,” “Simple Order,” and “order exposure alert” is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will add more context to the current Pricing Schedule but it will not amend how the current pricing is assessed or paid.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 7, Sections 3 and 4 to change the rule text to remove functionality that no longer exists
Finally, for purposes of Options 7, Section 3, Part B, treating the originating side of the Exposure Complex Orders as the maker and the contra side as the taker is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because in this scenario the Market Maker is removing liquidity from the order book and the Exchange would handle all orders in the same manner. Also, not applying the Marketing Fee to the contra side order of an Exposure Complex Order that executed against the originating order is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange assesses the Marketing Fee when the contra-party to the execution is a Customer and where the Market Maker is adding liquidity. The Exchange would not assess the Marketing Fee uniformly in this manner. Today, Marketing Fees are not assessed on transactions that execute against an order for which the Exchange broadcasts an order exposure alert in Penny Symbols.
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 proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition. The Exchange believes its proposal remains competitive with other options markets and will offer market participants with another choice of where to transact options. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. The Exchange will apply the same fees to all similarly situated members except for Customers in the FLEX Auction and FLEX PIXL and FLEX SOM considering that Customers are historically assessed the lowest fees compared to other market participants. Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which in turn attracts Market Makers and other market participants who may interact with this order flow. The Exchange believes that the differential between the proposed Fees for FLEX PIXL and SOM of $0.07 per contract for Non-Customers and $0.00 for Customers in both Penny and Non-Penny Symbols for simple and complex auctions as compared to the proposed Fees for Reponses to FLEX PIXL and SOM Orders of $0.50 per contract for Penny and Non-Penny Symbols for simple and complex orders does not impose an undue burden on competition. The
The Exchange's proposed pricing for Simple and Complex Fees for Crossing Orders does not impose an undue burden on competition. Customers will be assessed no Fees for Crossing Orders, thereby offering Customers more favorable pricing, because Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which in turn attracts Market Makers and other market participants who may interact with this order flow. Assessing uniform Simple and Complex Order Fees for Crossing Orders to Non-Customers does not impose an undue burden on competition. The Exchange's proposal to assess all market participants uniform Simple and Complex Order Fees for Responding to Crossing Orders in Penny Symbols of $0.50 per contract and in Non-Penny Symbols of $1.10 per contract does not impose an undue burden on competition.
The Exchange believes that the differential between the proposed Fees for Crossing Order (the fees that apply to the originating and contra-side orders) of $0.17 per contract for Non-Customers and $0.00 for Customers in both Penny and Non-Penny Symbols for simple orders as compared to the proposed Fees for Reponses to Crossing Orders of $0.50 per contract for all participants in Penny Symbols and $1.10 per contract for all participants in Non-Penny Symbols for simple orders does not impose an undue burden on competition. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the differential between the proposed Fees for Crossing Order (the fees that apply to the originating and contra-side orders) of $0.17 per contract for Non-Customers and $0.00 for Customers in both Penny and Non-Penny Symbols for complex orders as compared to the proposed Fees for Reponses to Crossing Orders of $0.50 per contract for all participants in Penny Symbols and $1.10 per contract for all participants in Non-Penny Symbols for complex orders does not impose an undue burden on competition. The lower Fees for Crossing Orders described above should encourage members to initiate Facilitation Mechanisms, Complex Facilitation Mechanisms, Solicitation Mechanisms, Complex Solicitation Mechanisms and Block Orders in Penny and Non-Penny Symbols in simple and complex orders. Members responding to these auctions would be assessed the same or higher proposed Fees for Reponses to Crossing Orders as compared to the fees to remove liquidity from the order book for simple and complex orders.
The Exchange's proposal to add three new defined terms in Options 7, Section 1 for “Complex Order,” “Simple Order,” and “order exposure alert” does not impose an undue burden on competition, rather it will add more context to the current Pricing Schedule but it will not amend how the current pricing is assessed or paid. The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 7, Sections 3 and 4 to change the rule text to remove functionality that no longer exists
For purposes of Options 7, Section 3, Part B, treating the originating side of the Exposure Complex Orders as the maker and the contra side as the taker does not impose an undue burden on competition because the Exchange would handle all orders in the same manner. Also, not applying the Marketing Fee to the contra side order of an Exposure Complex Order that executed against the originating order does not impose an undue burden on
No written comments were either solicited or received.
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: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) 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.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-Phlx-2025-48 and should be submitted on or before October 20, 2025.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) a proposal to amend Rule 11.23 to introduce an option for an exchange-traded product (“ETP”) eligible to participate in an initial public offering (“IPO”) auction to elect to commence trading in the BZX Early Trading Session.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission'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 11.23 to provide an option for an ETP IPO Security
The Exchange proposes to introduce the defined term “ETP IPO Security” as Rule 11.23(a)(24), which means a Derivative Security
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 11.23(d)(2)(E) to delineate the IPO Auction from the Halt Auction with no substantive change. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to bifurcate Rule 11.23(d)(2)(E) by creating subsections (i) and (ii), which clarifies the separate determination of each of the IPO Auction price and the Halt Auction price, respectively. Rule 11.23(d)(2)(E)(i) provides that “[f]or IPO Auctions, orders will be executed at the price level within the Collar Price Range that maximizes the number of shares executed in the auction. In the event of a volume based tie at multiple price levels, the price level that results in the minimum total imbalance will be used. In the event of a volume based tie and a tie in minimum total imbalance at multiple price levels, the price level closest to the issuing price will be used for IPO Auctions. The IPO Auction price will be the BZX Official IPO Opening Price unless otherwise provided under this Rule 11.23.” The proposed new language under Rule 11.23(d)(2)(E)(i) is identical to existing language under Rule 11.23(d)(2)(E). Rule 11.23(d)(2)(E)(ii) provides that “[f]or Halt Auctions following a Regulatory Halt, orders will be executed at the price level within the Halt Auction Collars that maximizes the number of shares executed in the auction. In the event of a volume based tie at multiple price levels, the price level that results in the minimum total imbalance will be used. In the event of a volume based tie and a tie in minimum total imbalance at multiple price levels, the price level closest to the Final Last Sale Eligible Trade will be used for Halt Auctions.” The Exchange is only proposing to delete text from proposed Rule 11.23(d)(2)(E)(ii) that is not applicable to Halt Auctions under existing Rule 11.23(d)(2)(E).
The Exchange also proposes to adopt new Rule 11.23(a)(2)(E)(i)(a) to provide that ETP IPO Securities may commence trading in the Early Trading Session as an alternative to the IPO Auction. Specifically, proposed Rule 11.23(a)(2)(E)(i)(a) states that “[a]n ETP IPO Security may elect to commence trading in the Early Trading Session described in Rule 11.1(a). If an ETP IPO Security elects to commence trading during the Early Trading Session, the BZX Official IPO Opening Price
Today, ETP IPO Securities commence trading at the start of Regular Trading Hours
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 proposed rule changes will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system and will benefit investors by providing market participants with additional opportunities to source and access liquidity for their orders in new issue ETPs on the Exchange. The proposed option to permit issuers to begin trading an ETP IPO Security during the Early Trading Session is a response to feedback from ETP issuers that such an option is desirable, as it would provide for earlier trading opportunities in highly anticipated new issue ETPs. Further, the Exchange believes that the issuer is best situated to make the decision whether to commence trading in its ETP IPO Security during the Early Trading Session or pursuant to the IPO Auction. The proposed amendments will have no impact on the operation of trading in the Early Trading Session and would simply allow for an ETP IPO Security to begin trading on the Exchange at 4 a.m. in the same manner that that an ETP transferred from another securities exchange begins trading on BZX. The Exchange believes that amending its rules to extend trading hours for ETP IPO Securities will benefit investors in that they will now be able to trade ETP IPO Securities earlier in the day, providing additional access to liquidity in securities that an ETP issuer deems appropriate for trading in the Early Trading Session. The Exchange also believes that offering the IPO Auction as a default for ETP IPO Securities with the option to participate in the Early Trading Session will allow issuers an alternative option if such issuer is concerned about unexpected volatility in ETP pricing during the Early Trading Session.
The Exchange believes that proposed rule changes raise no novel issues as the proposed rules are consistent with early trading for ETPs already in place under
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. Particularly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of purposes of the Act because all ETP IPO Securities may commence trading in the BZX Early Trading Session if requested by the issuer. The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition but instead may promote competition because the proposed early trading hours for ETP IPO Securities are identical to those on Nasdaq.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 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.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-CboeBZX-2025-130 and should be submitted on or before October 20, 2025.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to introduce a new supplemental credit for displayed quotes/orders under Equity 7, Section 118(a)(1) (Fees for Execution and Routing of Orders). 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's schedule of credits, at Equity 7, Section 118(a)(1).
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposed change to its schedule of credits is reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for equity securities transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
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, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, 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.”
Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market. For
Within this environment, market participants can freely and often do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. As such, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase its liquidity and market share relative to its competitors.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to establish a new $0.0001 per share executed transaction credit, at Equity 7, Section 118(a)(1), for a member that, through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs, (i) increases its volume of liquidity added in all securities by at least 20% as a percentage of Consolidated Volume relative to the member's liquidity during the month of July 2025 and (ii) has volume from Limit on Close Orders entered between 3:55 p.m. ET and immediately prior to 3:58 p.m. ET that represent more than 0.10% of Consolidated Volume during the month. Unless otherwise extended, this credit will expire no later than January 2026. The new credit will encourage additional activity on the Exchange, specifically, increased liquidity from late LOC orders, which will improve the market quality overall, and more specifically in the Nasdaq Closing Cross, to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes that if the new credit is effective, then liquidity adding activity on the Exchange will increase and market quality will improve for the benefit of all participants. The Exchange notes that those market participants that are dissatisfied with the proposal are free to shift their order flow to competing venues that offer more generous pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria. Establishing a 6-month sunset for the comparative baseline ensures that the baseline being used for the tier does not become outdated. The Exchange will extend the July 2025 baseline if the baseline remains current.
It is also reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory for the Exchange to establish a new supplemental credit because the proposal will encourage members to increase the extent to which they add liquidity to the Exchange. To the extent that the Exchange succeeds in increasing the levels of liquidity and activity on the Exchange, then the Exchange will experience improvements in its market quality, which stands to benefit all market participants. The Exchange notes that the proposed credit is voluntary. The Exchange further believes that the credit is not unfairly discriminatory because it will be applied uniformly to all members that meet the specified criteria.
Those participants that are dissatisfied with the amendment to the Exchange's schedule of credits are free to shift their order flow to competing venues that provide more generous incentives or less stringent qualifying criteria.
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 does not believe that its proposal will place any category of Exchange participant at a competitive disadvantage. The Exchange intends for its proposals to incentivize liquidity adding activity. The Exchange notes that its members are free to trade on other venues to the extent they believe that the proposal is not attractive. As one can observe by looking at any market share chart, price competition between exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely between exchanges in reaction to fee and credit changes.
In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its credits to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own credits in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which adding a supplemental credit in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
In this instance, the introduction of a new credit Section 118(a)(1) is intended to incentivize liquidity adding activity on the Exchange and does not impose a burden on competition. By offering a new credit to market participants that meet certain criteria the Exchange is enhancing its appeal as a trading venue and encouraging increased participation in its order execution and routing processes while maintaining a competitive pricing structure. As discussed above, the proposed credit does not disadvantage any specific group or market participants. Instead, it provides equitable incentives that are available to all members that meet the applicable criteria.
In sum, if the change proposed herein is unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
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: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) 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 is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend the Eighth Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement (the “Holdco LLC Agreement”) of MEMX Holdings LLC (“Holdco” or the “Company”), as further described below. Holdco is the parent company of the Exchange and directly or indirectly owns all of the limited liability company membership interests in the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5 and is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Holdco LLC Agreement
Section 9.1 of the Holdco LLC Agreement provides for a pre-emptive right of certain Members to purchase a pro rata portion of any New Securities
The definition of New Securities in the Holdco LLC Agreement describes the types of securities that are included in that term and therefore are subject to the Members' pre-emptive right, and it also specifies certain types of securities that are excluded from that term and therefore are not subject to the Members' pre-emptive right. The Holdco Board has resolved, and the Exchange therefore proposes, to amend the definition of New Securities to specifically exclude Units or other equity interests issued or sold by the Company or any Company Subsidiary in connection with a warrants or other equity rights program administered by a Regulated Securities Exchange Subsidiary
Thus, under the proposed rule change, issuances of Units or other equity interests under future Exchange Warrants Programs would not be subject to the Members' pre-emptive right, and the Exchange believes this proposed change would facilitate the administration of future Exchange Warrants Programs on the Exchange, as it would limit participation in the equity issuances under such programs to the participants in such programs, consistent with the design of such programs. The Exchange notes that while this proposed change may have an impact on the proportional ownership of the Exchange or its parent company in connection with a future Exchange Warrants Program by disapplying the right of certain Members to participate in the equity issuance thereunder, any such Exchange Warrants Program must be effective pursuant to a rule filing that is filed with the Commission and any related equity issuance is subject to the ownership limitations of the Holdco LLC Agreement.
The Exchange is also proposing to make amendments to the Holdco LLC Agreement that are intended to update and/or clarify existing language in various provisions. The purpose of these amendments is to add clarity to the Holdco LLC Agreement by updating information that is outdated or otherwise clarifying the relevant provision consistent with its original intent. Each amendment was previously approved by the Holdco Board and is discussed below.
• The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of “MX2 LLC Agreement” in Section 1.1. Currently, Section 1.1 defines the term “MX2 LLC Agreement” as the First Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of MX2 LLC, a Subsidiary of the Company, effective as of September 17, 2024, as may be amended or restated from time to time. The MX2 LLC Agreement was initially adopted by its Managing Member, Holdco, on September 17, 2024, and then it was subsequently amended and restated and adopted by the Board of Directors of MX2 LLC on April 28, 2025. The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of MX2 LLC Agreement to update the referenced effective date to April 28, 2025, which is the date that it was adopted by the Board of Directors of MX2 LLC.
• The Exchange proposes to amend Sections 3.2(a) and (b) to clarify the voting rights of the Class A-1 Units and Class A-2 Units. Section 3.2 provides for the authorization and voting rights of the Class A-1 Units, Class A-2 Units, Nonvoting Class A-1 Units, Nonvoting Class A-2 Units, Class C-1 Units, Class C-2 Units, Class D-1 Units, Class D-2 Units, Voting Common Units and Nonvoting Common Units. Sections 3.2(a) and (b) relate to the Class A-1 Units and Class A-2 Units, respectively. The Exchange proposes to amend Sections 3.2(a) and (b) to specify that, with respect to the Class A-1 Units and Class A-2 Units, each such Unit shall have one vote per Unit on all matters on which such Units are entitled to vote. The Exchange notes that each type of Unit described in Section 3.2, including Class A-1 Units and Class A-2 Units, was originally intended to have one vote per Unit on all matters on which such type of Unit is entitled to vote, and Sections 3.2(c)-(g) include language that specifies this voting construct with respect to the other types of Units described in that section. Therefore, this proposed change is intended to clarify the number of votes corresponding to each Class A-1 Unit and Class A-2 Unit consistent with the original intent of the relevant provisions. The Exchange notes that the proposed language in Sections 3.2(a) and (b) mirrors the language used in Sections 3.2(c)-(g) to describe this voting construct with respect to the other types of Units described in Section 3.2.
• The Exchange proposes to amend Section 3.2(c) to correct an inadvertent drafting error relating to the voting construct applicable to the Nonvoting Class A-1 Units. Specifically, Section 3.2(c) contains an erroneous reference to “Nonvoting Class A Unit” that was originally intended to be a reference to “Nonvoting Class A-1 Unit” as that is the type of Unit to which this provision relates. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 3.2(c) to replace the erroneous reference to “Nonvoting Class A Unit” with an appropriate reference to “Nonvoting Class A-1 Unit” to clarify the provision consistent with its original intent.
• The Exchange proposes to amend Section 7.4(f) to update an outdated provision relating to a past tax election made by the Company. Currently, Section 7.4(f) provides that the Company shall make a specified tax election upon its filing of its 2020 U.S. federal income tax return. The Company did in fact make the specified tax election upon its filing of its 2020 U.S. federal income tax return, and as such, the Exchange proposes to update the language in Section 7.4(f) to reflect that this tax election was previously made by the Company.
• The Exchange proposes to amend Section 8.18(c)(i) to include “LLC” after the references to “MEMX” and “MX2” to reflect those entities' full legal names,
• The Exchange proposes to amend Section 8.18(c)(vi)(A) to clarify a reference made to the Exchange Boards of MEMX LLC and MX2 LLC. Section 8.18(c)(vi) provides for certain actions in the event of a Combination of Exchange Director Nominating Members, and subparagraph (A) provides that following such Combination, the surviving Affiliated group of Exchange Director Nominating Members shall have the right to nominate one Exchange Director to an Exchange. The Exchange notes that the reference to “an Exchange” in this provision was originally intended to reference each applicable Exchange Board—namely, the Exchange Boards of MEMX LLC and/or MX2 LLC, as applicable. The Exchange proposes to amend Section 8.18(c)(vi)(A) to replace the reference to “an Exchange” with a reference to “each applicable Exchange Board” to clarify this provision consistent with its original intent.
• The Exchange proposes to amend Section 8.18(c)(vi)(D) to replace an erroneous reference to “Exchange Director Nomination Rotation” with an appropriate reference to each of the MEMX LLC Exchange Director Nomination Rotation and the MX2 LLC Exchange Director Nomination Rotation. The Exchange notes that the reference to “Exchange Director Nomination Rotation” in this provision was originally intended to refer to each applicable nomination rotation—namely, the MEMX LLC Exchange Director Nomination Rotation and the MX2 LLC Exchange Director Nomination Rotation—but the term “Exchange Director Nomination Rotation” is not a defined term in the Holdco LLC Agreement. Therefore, the proposed change to instead reference each of the MEMX LLC Exchange Director Nomination Rotation and the MX2 LLC Exchange Director Nomination Rotation is intended to clarify the provision consistent its original intent by referencing the appropriate defined terms.
• The Exchange proposes to amend Section 8.18(g)(iv) to replace four erroneous references to “Exchange” with appropriate references to “Exchange Board” as originally intended. The Exchange notes that the term “Exchange” is not defined in the Holdco LLC Agreement, so the proposed change is intended to clarity the provision consistent with its original intent by replacing references to an erroneous undefined term with the appropriate defined term.
• The Exchange proposes to amend Section 12.4(c) to remove a reference to a date that has passed and delete related language that is now outdated and obsolete. Section 12.4(c) provides that until February 19, 2023, no approval of the Holdco Board is required for a specified level of variance in the Company's Annual Budget, and that upon such date the Holdco Board shall determine by Supermajority Board Vote the level of variance in the Company's Annual Budget that does not require approval of the Holdco Board after such date. The Exchange notes that such date has passed, and the Holdco Board has determined by Supermajority Board Vote that the same level of variance in the Company's Annual Budget that applied before such date will continue to not require approval of the Holdco Board, consistent with the Company's existing practice. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to remove the outdated reference to February 19, 2023, and delete the final sentence of Section 12.4(c) regarding the Holdco Board's action to be taken upon such date, as such date has passed and such action was previously taken.
The Exchange proposes to update Exhibit A to remove a reference to a date that has passed. Exhibit A, which is a Form of Adherence Agreement, contains a field for a date to be filled in when completing the form, and that date field currently references 2023. As 2023 has passed, the Exchange proposes to update Exhibit A by deleting the reference to 2023 and replacing it with a reference to “2__” for the year to be filled in upon any future completion of the form.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the Holdco LLC Agreement are consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to exclude from the definition of New Securities, and, in turn, the Members' pre-emptive right, Units or other equity interests issued or sold by the Company or any Company Subsidiary in connection with an Exchange Warrants Program is consistent with the Act because, as described above, such change would facilitate the administration of future Exchange Warrants Programs on the Exchange, which are generally designed to incentivize Exchange participation and thereby enhance the Exchange's market quality. As such, this proposed change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
The Exchange notes that there was sufficient representation on the Holdco Board of Members impacted by this proposed change and that the approval of this proposed change by the Holdco Board was effectuated in accordance with Delaware law. Furthermore, while this proposed change may have an impact on the proportional ownership of the Exchange or its parent company in connection with a future Exchange Warrants Program, the Exchange notes that the proposed change requires that any such Exchange Warrants Program be effective pursuant to a rule filing that is filed with the Commission, so there would be Commission review of any potential ownership changes resulting from any such Exchange Warrants Program, which would also remain subject to the ownership limitations of the Holdco LLC Agreement. In this regard, the Exchange believes the proposed change is consistent with the Act, as it enables the Exchange and its parent company to be organized as to have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Act and to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange and does not impair the ability of the SEC to enforce the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to update and clarify various provisions in the Holdco LLC Agreement are consistent with the Act, as such amendments would update and clarify the Holdco LLC Agreement in a manner consistent with actions previously taken by the Holdco Board in accordance with the Holdco LLC Agreement, thereby increasing transparency and helping to avoid any
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal is not intended to address competitive issues nor the operation of the Exchange. Rather, as described above, this proposal is concerned solely with the equity rights of Members of Holdco and the administration of Holdco's corporate documents. As such, the Exchange does not believe that this proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the Holdco LLC Agreement described above would not significantly affect the protection of investors and the public interest. In addition, the Exchange does not believe that this proposal imposes any significant burden on competition because the proposed amendments to the Holdco LLC Agreement do not address competitive issues but rather are concerned solely with the equity rights of Members of Holdco and the administration of Holdco's corporate documents, as discussed above.
Furthermore, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), however, permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay contained in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) so that the Exchange may amend the Holdco LLC Agreement as soon as possible. The Exchange states that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it would allow the Holdco LLC Agreement to reflect updated and clarified provisions that were previously approved by the Holdco Board in accordance with the Holdco LLC Agreement and Delaware law, each as discussed above, in a timely manner, thereby creating more transparent, consistent, and clear standards for the administration and governance of the parent company of the Exchange. The Exchange also states that the proposed changes to the Holdco LLC Agreement do not materially alter the existing governance framework of the Exchange or its parent company. The Commission believes the proposed rule change presents no novel legal or regulatory issues, and that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form S-3 (17 CFR 239.13) is a short form registration statement used by domestic issuers to register a public offering of their securities under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Hashdex Nasdaq Crypto Index US ETF (the “Trust”), shares (“Shares”) of which have been approved by the Commission to list and trade on the Exchange pursuant to Nasdaq Rule 5711(d), to permit the Trust to come under the generic listing standards of that rule. The Exchange requests that the Commission waive the five business day prior notice period under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
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 Commission approved the listing and trading of the Shares of the Trust under Nasdaq Rule 5711(d)
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that its proposal to permit the Trust to operate in reliance on the Generic Listing Standards instead of the terms of the Hashdex Original Filing is consistent with the Act. In particular, the Shares would be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the Generic Listing Standards in Rule 5711(d), which the Commission found are reasonably designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and protects investors and the public interest.
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. As discussed above, the Trust is converting its listing under the terms of the Hashdex Original Filing to the Generic Listing Standards. The Trust will meet the requirements of the Generic Listing Standards under Rule 5711(d) and will be required to comply with the continued listing standards on an ongoing basis, as required by the rule. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its proposal would impose any undue burden on competition.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 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 will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
There are approximately 3,298 active, registered broker-dealers. The staff estimates that the average amount of time necessary to preserve the books and records as required by Rule 17a-4 is 254 hours per broker-dealer per year. Additionally, the Commission estimates that paragraph (b)(11) of Rule 17a-4 imposes an annual burden of 3 hours per year to maintain the requisite records. The Commission estimates that there are approximately 200 internal broker-dealer systems, resulting in an annual recordkeeping burden of 600 hours.
The Commission also estimates that there are approximately 2,424 broker-dealers with retail customers resulting in an annual ongoing burden of approximately 3,934,152 to comply with Rule 17a-4(e)(5). Moreover the Commission estimates that these broker-dealers will incur 242 hours in annual burden to comply with Rule 17a-4(e)(10).
Therefore, the Commission estimates that compliance with Rule 17a-4 requires 4,772,698 hours each year ((3,298 broker-dealers × 254 hours) + (200 broker-dealers × 3 hours) + 3,934,152 hours + 242 hours)). These burdens are recordkeeping burdens. The total burden hour decrease of 4,527,481 hours is due to a decrease in the number of respondents from 3,508 to 3,298, as well as the removal of the initial burden association with the recordkeeping requirements for broker-dealers with retail customers.
In addition, the Commission estimates that the telephonic recording retention provision of paragraph (b)(4) of Rule 17a-4 imposes an initial burden on broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs of 13 hours per firm in the first year and an ongoing burden of 6 hours per year (including the first year). The Commission estimates that there will be three new broker-dealer SBSDs that register with the Commission in the next three years and that there are currently eight broker-dealer SBSDs registered with the Commission resulting in an estimated industry-wide initial burden of 39 hours
The Commission estimates that the provisions of paragraphs (b)(1), and (b)(8)(v)-(viii) relating to security-based swap activities and paragraphs (b)(8)(xvi) and (b)(14) of Rule 17a-4 impose an initial burden of 65 hours per firm in the first year and an ongoing burden of 30 hours per year (including the first year). The Commission estimates that there will be three new respondents in the next three years, resulting in an estimated industry-wide initial burden of 195 hours
The Commission estimates that the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) applicable to broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs and paragraphs (b)(15) and (b)(16) of Rule 17a-4 impose an initial burden of 65 hours per firm in the first year and an ongoing burden of 30 hours per year (including the first year). The Commission estimates that there will be three new respondents over the next three years, resulting in an estimated initial industry-wide initial burden of 185 hours
The Commission estimates that provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 17a-4 that apply only to broker-dealer SBSDs imposes an initial burden of 13 hours per firm in the first year and an ongoing burden of 6 hours per year (including the first year). The Commission estimates that there will be three new broker-dealer SBSDs registered in the next three years, resulting in an estimated industry-wide initial burden of 39 hours
In 2019, the Commission amended Rule 17a-4(b)(1), (e)(11), and (e)(12) to account for the security-based swap risk mitigation activities of broker-dealers, including Broker-Dealer SBSDs and Broker-Dealer MSBSPs (collectively, “SBS Entities”), by, among other things, requiring the preserving of any required records regarding portfolio reconciliation (Rule 15Fi-3(a) and (b)), bilateral offsets (Rule 15Fi-4(a)(1)), bilateral or multilateral portfolio
In 2022, the Commission amendments to Rule 17a-4(f) that added an audit-trail alternative to the current broker-dealer recordkeeping requirement.
The Commission estimates that 100 firms will register as broker-dealers over the next three years. The Commission estimates that replacing the third-party access and undertakings requirements with a requirement that either a designated executive officer or a third party have the access and provide the necessary undertakings will result in a one-time burden for those firms of 100 hours,
The Commission believes that requirements resulting from Rule 17a-4 are performed by individuals in a broker-dealer's compliance department. A Compliance Clerk earns an average of $78 per hour,
Based on conversations with members of the securities industry and the Commission's experience in the area, the staff estimates that the average broker-dealer spends approximately $5,000 each year to store documents required to be retained under Rule 17a-4. Costs include the cost of physical space, computer hardware and software, etc., which vary widely depending on the size of the broker-dealer and the type of storage media employed. The Commission estimates that the annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden is $16,490,000. This cost is calculated by the number of active, registered broker-dealers multiplied by the reporting and recordkeeping cost for each respondent (3,298 registered broker-dealers × $5,000).
The Commission estimates that each applicable firm incurs an ongoing annual cost of approximately $2,000 per firm for server, equipment, and systems development costs associated with the telephonic recording retention requirement, which applicable to broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs. The Commission estimates that there are 8 respondents, resulting in an estimated industry-wide ongoing annual cost of $16,000 for compliance with the telephonic recording retention provision of Rule 17a-4(b)(4).
The Commission estimates that provisions of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(8)(v)-(viii) relating to security-based swap activities and paragraphs (b)(8)(xvi) and (b)(14) of Rule 17a-4 impose an ongoing annual cost of approximately $600 per firm. The Commission estimates that there are 33 respondents, resulting in an estimated industry-wide ongoing annual cost of $19,800.
The Commission estimates that the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) applicable to broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs and paragraphs (b)(15) and (b)(16) of Rule 17a-4 impose ongoing annual cost of approximately $600 per firm. The Commission estimates that there are 8 respondents, resulting in an estimated industry-wide ongoing annual cost of $4,800.
The Commission estimates that the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 17a-4 that apply only to broker-dealer SBSDs imposes an additional ongoing annual cost of approximately $120 per firm to broker-dealer SBSDs. The Commission estimates that there are 8 broker-dealer SBSDs, resulting in an estimated industry-wide ongoing annual cost of $960.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Exchange Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) regarding the Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”).
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 the Fee Schedule to: (i) temporarily decrease the ORF from $0.0019 per contract to $0.0015 per contract between September 1, 2025 and December 31, 2025;
The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of Members'
The Exchange assesses the per-contract ORF to each Member for all options transactions cleared or ultimately cleared by the Member, which are cleared by the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) in the “customer” range,
As a practical matter, when a transaction that is subject to the ORF is not executed on the Exchange, the Exchange lacks the information necessary to identify the order-entering member for that transaction. There are a multitude of order-entering market participants throughout the industry, and such participants can make changes to the market centers to which they connect, including dropping their connection to one market center and establishing themselves as participants on another. For these reasons, it is not possible for the Exchange to identify, and thus assess fees such as ORF, on order-entering participants on away markets on a given trading day. Clearing members, however, are distinguished from order-entering participants because they remain identified to the Exchange on information the Exchange receives from OCC regardless of the identity of the order-entering participant, their location, and the market center on which they execute transactions.
The Exchange monitors the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. In determining whether an expense is considered a regulatory cost, the Exchange reviews all costs and makes determinations if there is a nexus between the expense and a regulatory function. The Exchange notes that fines collected by the Exchange in connection with a disciplinary matter offset ORF.
The Exchange believes that its broad regulatory responsibilities with respect to a Member's activities supports applying the ORF to transactions cleared but not executed by a Member. The Exchange's regulatory responsibilities are the same regardless of whether a Member enters a transaction or clears a transaction executed on its behalf. The Exchange regularly reviews all such activities, including performing surveillance for position limit violations, manipulation, front-running, contrary exercise advice violations and insider trading. These activities span across multiple exchanges.
Revenue generated from ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to cover a material portion of the regulatory costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of Members' customer options business including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. Regulatory costs include direct regulatory expenses and certain indirect expenses in support of the regulatory function. The direct expenses include in-house and third party service provider costs to support the day-to-day regulatory work such as surveillances, investigations and examinations.
The ORF revenue is based on options transactions volume, thus the amount of ORF collected is variable. For example, if options transactions reported to OCC in a given month increase, the ORF collected from Members will likely increase as well. Similarly, if options transactions reported to OCC in a given month decrease, the ORF collected from Members will likely decrease as well. Accordingly, the Exchange monitors the amount of ORF collected to ensure that it does not exceed a material portion of regulatory costs. If the Exchange determines the amount of ORF collected exceeds or may exceed a material portion of regulatory costs, the Exchange will, as appropriate, adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”).
Based on the Exchange's recent review of regulatory costs, ORF revenue, and options transaction volume, the Exchange proposes to temporarily decrease the ORF from $0.0019 per contract to $0.0015 per contract, between September 1, 2025 and December 31, 2025. This proposed decrease will help ensure that the amount collected from the ORF, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. On July 31, 2025, the Exchange notified Members of the proposed temporary decrease to the ORF via a Regulatory Circular to afford market participants sufficient opportunity to configure their systems to account properly for the modified ORF.
The proposed change to the ORF is based on the Exchange's analysis of recent options volumes and its regulatory costs. The Exchange believes that, if the ORF is not temporarily reduced for the remainder of 2025, the ORF revenue to the Exchange could exceed a material portion of the Exchange's 2025 regulatory costs.
Over the past few years, the options industry has experienced high options trading volumes and volatility and the persisting increased options volumes have impacted the Exchange's ORF collection. The table below reflects industry data from OCC and illustrates that both total average daily volume and customer average daily volume in 2025 increased over the already elevated levels in 2023 and 2024.
In addition, as shown in the table below, during 2025, options trading volumes have remained elevated and volatility has persisted.
Because of the sustained impact of the trading volumes that have persisted through July 2025, along with the difficulty of predicting whether and when volumes may return to historical levels, the Exchange proposes to temporarily decrease the ORF from September 1 through December 31, 2025, to help ensure that ORF collection will not exceed the Exchange's 2025 regulatory costs.
The Exchange cannot predict whether options volumes will remain at these levels going forward and projections for future regulatory costs are estimated. Particularly, based on the Exchange's estimated projections for its regulatory costs, the revenue generated by ORF using the temporarily reduced rate, would result in projected revenue that is insufficient to cover a material portion of its regulatory costs. Further, when combined with the Exchange's projected other non-ORF regulatory fees and fines, the revenue generated by ORF using the temporarily reduced rate is projected to result in a combined revenue that is less than the Exchange's estimated regulatory costs for the year. Because the projected revenue is projected to insufficiently cover a material portion of its regulatory costs, the Exchange proposes to increase the ORF starting January 1, 2026 from $0.0015 per contract to $0.0017 per contract. The Exchange will notify Members of the proposed change via a Regulatory Circular at least 30 calendar days prior to the effective date of the change.
The Exchange appreciates the evolving changes in the markets and regulatory environment and, in connection with industry and other feedback, has been evaluating the current methodologies and practices for the assessment and collection of ORF. The Exchange recognizes that an alternative model is being pursued among industry participants but that a consensus has not yet been reached. The Exchange is committed to switching to a new, modified model as soon as a consistent framework has been established with the Commission, adopted by all the options exchanges, and necessary regulatory filings submitted.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes the proposed fee changes are reasonable because customer transactions will be subject to a lower ORF fee than the current rate. Moreover, the proposed temporary reduction to $0.0015 per contract is reasonable because it would help ensure that collections from the ORF do not exceed a material portion of the Exchange's projected regulatory costs for 2025. As noted above, the ORF is designed to recover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's regulatory costs.
Although there can be no assurance that the Exchange's final costs for 2025 will not differ materially from its expectations and prior practice, nor can the Exchange predict with certainty whether options volume will remain at current or similar levels going forward, the Exchange believes that the amount collected based on the current ORF rate, when combined with regulatory fees and fines, may result in collections in excess of the projected regulatory costs for the year. Particularly, as noted above, the options market has continued to experience elevated volumes and volatility in 2025, thereby resulting in higher ORF collections than projected. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed temporary decrease to the ORF is reasonable because it would help ensure that ORF collection does not exceed the projected regulatory costs for 2025. Particularly, the Exchange believes that this temporary reduction in the ORF, taken together with the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, would allow the Exchange to continue covering a material portion of the projected regulatory costs, while lessening the potential for generating excess funds that may otherwise occur using the current rate.
The Exchange also believes that the increase of the ORF to $0.0017 per contract on January 1, 2026 is reasonable because it would permit the Exchange to collect an ORF that is designed to recover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's projected regulatory costs.
The Exchange's proposal to increase the ORF rate on January 1, 2026 is based on the Exchange's estimated projections for its regulatory costs, which are currently projected to increase in 2026, balanced with the increase in options volumes that has persisted into 2025 and that may continue into 2026. When taking into account the recent options volume, outlined above, coupled with the anticipated regulatory fees and anticipated reductions in other regulatory fees, the Exchange believes it's reasonable to increase the ORF. Particularly, the proposed change is reasonable as it would offset the anticipated increased regulatory costs. Moreover, the proposed increase is still lower than the Exchange is assessing currently and has assessed previously.
The Exchange also believes the proposed fee change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in that it is charged to all Members on all their transactions that clear in the customer range at the OCC.
The Exchange also believes that increasing the ORF rate on January 1,
The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes that the proposed temporary decrease to the ORF rate would not place certain market participants at an unfair disadvantage because it would apply to all Members subject to the ORF and would allow the Exchange to continue to monitor the amount collected from the ORF to help ensure that ORF collection, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. The Exchange also has provided all such Members with advance notice of the planned change to the ORF.
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 change would not impose an undue burden on intramarket competition because the ORF is charged to all Members on all their transactions that clear in the “customer” range at the OCC; thus, the amount of ORF imposed is based on the amount of customer volume transacted. The Exchange believes that the proposed temporary decrease of the ORF would not place certain market participants at an unfair disadvantage because all options transactions must clear via a clearing firm. Such clearing firms can then choose to pass through all, a portion, or none of the cost of the ORF to its customers,
The Exchange also believes that increasing ORF on January 1, 2026 would not impose an undue burden on competition because it would permit the Exchange to assess an ORF that is designed to recover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's projected regulatory costs, based on current projections that such costs will increase in 2026.
The proposed fee change is not designed to address any competitive issues. Rather, the proposed change is designed to help the Exchange adequately fund its regulatory activities while seeking to ensure that total collections from regulatory fees do not exceed total regulatory costs.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to list and trade Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options, a new index that reflects the price of Bitcoin.
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 introduce a new index options product, Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options. This index would enable retail and institutional investors to obtain a precise price for Bitcoin.
Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options, as proposed, shall have a ticker symbol “XBTX” and will be based on the underlying index, CME CF Bitcoin Real Time Index (“BRTI”)
Options on this new index will be cash-settled, with a European-style exercise.
The BRTI
The BRTI is designed based on the IOSCO Principles for Financial Benchmarks.
A trading venue is eligible as a Constituent Exchange in any of the CME CF Cryptocurrency Pricing Products
When calculated, the Relevant Order Book of each Constituent Exchange is added to a joint list of order books,
Using the above notation, the ask price-volume curve is defined as
At a high level, the mid-price volume curve represents the average of the marginal price at which a certain amount of Bitcoins can be sold and at which that same amount can be bought. By averaging across the mid-price volume curve, the BRTI represents a blend of such (hypothetical) transactions at various transaction sizes.
The utilized depth is calculated as the maximum cumulative volume for which the mid spread-volume curve does not exceed a certain percentage deviation from the mid-price.
At a high level, the BRTI is calculated from the section of the mid-price volume curve for which ask limit orders at a certain depth diverge by no more than 0.5% from the mid-price at that depth. It therefore reflects a significant portion of the top of the consolidated order book (as opposed to, for instance, the best bid and ask prices only) but discards limit orders that are less likely to be matched. This makes it a meaningful representation of true Bitcoin liquidity and robust to local changes in order books. Note that utilized depth will always include crossed orders for any of the consolidated order books of the Constituent Exchanges, along with limit orders on the order books of Constituent Exchanges up to 0.5% away of the mid-price volume curve. If zero size resides in both these sections, utilized depth is set to one. The BRTI is then effectively equal to the mid-price of the consolidated order book.
The mid-price volume curve is weighted by the normalized probability density of the exponential distribution up to the utilized depth. The BRTI is then given by the sum of the weighted mid-price volume curve obtained in the previous step.
The order size cap is calculated from the uncapped consolidated order book. Using the above notation, the dynamic order size cap is derived as follows:
The order size cap as of the effective time
If the Retrieval Time of the Relevant Order Book of a Constituent Exchange is at least 30 seconds older than the Calculation Time, the Constituent Exchange is disregarded in the calculation of the BRTI for that Calculation Time. If the Retrieval Times of the Relevant Order Books of all Constituent Exchanges are at least 30 seconds older each than the Calculation Time, the BRTI calculation failure occurs for that Calculation Time. All Relevant Order Books are subject to an automated screening for erroneous data.
At a high level, the mid-price volume curve is weighted such that prices near the current market prices (at the mid-point) are weighted higher than prices that are far away from where trading is occurring (at the bid or offer).
Bitcoin is a digital asset that is created and transmitted through the operations of the peer-to-peer Bitcoin network, a decentralized network of computers that operates on cryptographic protocols (the “Bitcoin network”). No single entity owns or operates the Bitcoin network, the infrastructure of which is collectively maintained by its user base. The Bitcoin network allows people to exchange tokens of value, called Bitcoin, which are recorded on a public transaction ledger known as the Bitcoin blockchain (the “Bitcoin blockchain”). Bitcoin can be used to pay for goods and services, or it can be converted to fiat currencies, such as the U.S. dollar, at rates determined on Bitcoin platforms that enable trading in Bitcoin or in individual end-user-to-end-user transactions under a barter system.
The Bitcoin network is commonly understood to be decentralized and does not require governmental authorities or financial institution intermediaries to create, transmit or determine the value of Bitcoin. Rather, Bitcoin is created and allocated by the Bitcoin network protocol through a “mining” process. The value of Bitcoin is determined by the supply of and demand for Bitcoin-on-Bitcoin platforms or in private end-user-to-end-user transactions.
New Bitcoins are created and rewarded to the miners of a block in the Bitcoin blockchain for verifying transactions. The Bitcoin blockchain is a shared database that includes all blocks that have been solved by miners and it is updated to include new blocks as they are solved. Each Bitcoin transaction is broadcast to the Bitcoin network and, when included in a block, recorded in the Bitcoin blockchain. As each new block records outstanding Bitcoin transactions, and outstanding transactions are settled and validated through such recording, the Bitcoin blockchain represents a complete,
The Bitcoin network was initially contemplated in a whitepaper that also described Bitcoin and the operating software to govern the Bitcoin network. The whitepaper was purportedly authored by Satoshi Nakamoto. However, no individual with that name has been reliably identified as Bitcoin's creator, and the general consensus is that the name is likely a pseudonym for the actual inventor or inventors. The first Bitcoins were created in 2009 after Nakamoto released the Bitcoin network source code (the software and protocol that created and launched the Bitcoin network). The Bitcoin network has been under active development since that time by a loose group of software developers who have come to be known as core developers.
In order to own, transfer or use Bitcoin directly on the Bitcoin network (as opposed to through an intermediary, such as an exchange), a person generally must have internet access to connect to the Bitcoin network. Bitcoin transactions may be made directly between end-users without the need for a third-party intermediary. To prevent the possibility of double-spending Bitcoin, a user must notify the Bitcoin network of the transaction by broadcasting the transaction data to its network peers. The Bitcoin network provides confirmation against double-spending by memorializing every transaction in the Bitcoin blockchain, which is publicly accessible and transparent. This memorialization and verification against double-spending is accomplished through the Bitcoin network mining process, which adds “blocks” of data, including recent transaction information, to the Bitcoin blockchain.
Prior to engaging in Bitcoin transactions directly on the Bitcoin network, a user generally must first install on its computer or mobile device a Bitcoin network software program that will allow the user to generate a private and public key pair associated with a Bitcoin address commonly referred to as a “wallet.” The Bitcoin network software program and the Bitcoin address also enable the user to connect to the Bitcoin network and transfer Bitcoin to, and receive Bitcoin from, other users.
Each Bitcoin network address, or wallet, is associated with a unique “public key” and “private key” pair. To receive Bitcoin, the Bitcoin recipient must provide its public key to the party initiating the transfer. This activity is analogous to a recipient for a transaction in U.S. dollars providing a routing address in wire instructions to the payor so that cash may be wired to the recipient's account. The payor approves the transfer to the address provided by the recipient by “signing” a transaction that consists of the recipient's public key with the private key of the address from where the payor is transferring the Bitcoin. The recipient, however, does not make public or provide to the sender its related private key.
Neither the recipient nor the sender reveals their private keys in a transaction because the private key authorizes transfer of the funds in that address to other users. Therefore, if a user loses his or her private key, the user may permanently lose access to the Bitcoin contained in the associated address. Likewise, Bitcoin is irretrievably lost if the private key associated with them is deleted and no backup has been made. When sending Bitcoin, a user's Bitcoin network software program must validate the transaction with the associated private key. The resulting digitally validated transaction is sent by the user's Bitcoin network software program to the Bitcoin network to allow transaction confirmation.
Some Bitcoin transactions are conducted “off-blockchain” and are therefore not recorded in the Bitcoin blockchain. Some “off-blockchain transactions” involve the transfer of control over, or ownership of, a specific digital wallet holding Bitcoin or the reallocation of ownership of certain Bitcoin in a digital wallet containing assets owned by multiple persons, such as a digital wallet maintained by a digital assets platform. In contrast to on-blockchain transactions, which are publicly recorded on the Bitcoin blockchain, information and data regarding off-blockchain transactions are generally not publicly available. Therefore, off-blockchain transactions are not truly Bitcoin transactions in that they do not involve the transfer of transaction data on the Bitcoin network and do not reflect a movement of Bitcoin between addresses recorded in the Bitcoin blockchain. For these reasons, off-blockchain transactions are subject to risks as any such transfer of Bitcoin ownership is not protected by the protocol behind the Bitcoin network or recorded in, and validated through, the blockchain mechanism.
In a Bitcoin transaction directly on the Bitcoin network between two parties (as opposed to through an intermediary, such as a custodian), the following circumstances must initially be in place: (i) the party seeking to send Bitcoin must have a Bitcoin network public key, and the Bitcoin network must recognize that public key as having sufficient Bitcoin for the transaction; (ii) the receiving party must have a Bitcoin network public key; and (iii) the spending party must have internet access with which to send its spending transaction.
The receiving party must provide the spending party with its public key and allow the Bitcoin blockchain to record the sending of Bitcoin to that public key. After the provision of a recipient's Bitcoin network public key, the spending party must enter the address into its Bitcoin network software program along with the number of Bitcoin to be sent. The number of Bitcoin to be sent will typically be agreed upon between the two parties based on a set number of Bitcoin or an agreed upon conversion of the value of fiat currency to Bitcoin. Since every computation on the Bitcoin network requires the payment of Bitcoin, including verification and memorialization of Bitcoin transfers, there is a transaction fee involved with the transfer, which is based on computation complexity and not on the value of the transfer and is paid by the payor with a fractional number of Bitcoin.
After the entry of the Bitcoin network address, the number of Bitcoin to be sent and the transaction fees, if any, to be paid, will be transmitted by the spending party. The transmission of the spending transaction results in the creation of a data packet by the spending party's Bitcoin network software program, which is transmitted onto the decentralized Bitcoin network, resulting in the distribution of the information among the software programs of users across the Bitcoin network for eventual inclusion in the Bitcoin blockchain.
As discussed in greater detail below, Bitcoin network miners record transactions when they solve for and add blocks of information to the Bitcoin blockchain. When a miner solves for a block, it creates that block, which includes data relating to (i) the solution to the block, (ii) a reference to the prior block in the Bitcoin blockchain to which the new block is being added and (iii) transactions that have occurred but have not yet been added to the Bitcoin
Upon the addition of a block included in the Bitcoin blockchain, the Bitcoin network software program of both the spending party and the receiving party will show confirmation of the transaction on the Bitcoin blockchain and reflect an adjustment to the Bitcoin balance in each party's Bitcoin network public key, completing the Bitcoin transaction. Once a transaction is confirmed on the Bitcoin blockchain, it is irreversible.
New Bitcoins are created through the mining process. The process by which Bitcoin is “mined” results in new blocks being added to the Bitcoin blockchain and new Bitcoin tokens being issued to the miners. Computers on the Bitcoin network engage in a set of prescribed complex mathematical calculations in order to add a block to the Bitcoin blockchain and thereby confirm Bitcoin transactions included in that block's data. The Bitcoin network is designed in such a way that the reward for adding new blocks to the Bitcoin blockchain decreases over time. In the future, once new Bitcoin tokens are no longer awarded for adding a new block, miners will only have transaction fees to incentivize them, and as a result, it is expected that miners will need to be better compensated with higher transaction fees to ensure that there is adequate incentive for them to continue mining.
Under the source code that governs the Bitcoin network, the supply of new Bitcoin is mathematically controlled so that the number of Bitcoin grows at a limited rate pursuant to a pre-set schedule. The number of Bitcoin awarded for solving a new block is automatically halved after every 210,000 blocks are added to the Bitcoin blockchain, approximately every 4 years. The fixed reward for solving a new Bitcoin block is currently 3.125 BTC per block. This amount is the result of the most recent Bitcoin halving event, which occurred in April 2024. The next Bitcoin halving is anticipated in 2028 when Bitcoin will halve to 1.5625. This deliberately controlled rate of Bitcoin creation means that the number of Bitcoin in existence will increase at a controlled rate until the number of Bitcoin in existence reaches the pre-determined 21 million Bitcoin. However, the 21 million supply cap could be changed in a hard fork. A hard fork could change the source code to the Bitcoin network, including the 21 million Bitcoin supply cap.
The term “final settlement value” as defined at proposed Options 4D, Section 2(a)(9) shall be calculated as described at Options 4D, Section 8. The Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options final settlement value is the BRRNY on the expiration date (usually a Friday). BRRNY will be divided by a factor of one hundred (100) and published as BRRNY—NOS (Nasdaq Options Settlement). The BRRNY is calculated daily based on the Relevant Transactions
The BRRNY is methodologically identical to the regulated CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate (BRR), the most widely used benchmark price for Bitcoin, that settles the Bitcoin-USD derivatives complex listed by CME Group, and which serves as the NAV for exchange listed investment products from WisdomTree Europe, Evolve ETFs (CAN) and QR Asset Management (BRZ). The only difference between the BRRNY and the BRR is that the BRRNY references the price of Bitcoin at the closing time of U.S. markets, 16:00 New York Time, rather than the price at 16:00 London Time, referenced by the BRR.
The purpose of the BRRNY is to provide a replicable, manipulation-resistant and representative Bitcoin benchmark that synchronizes with the traditional U.S. market close. The BRRNY is a regulated Benchmark under the UK Benchmarks Regulation (BMR) regime. The BRRNY calculation methodology aggregates transactions of Bitcoins in U.S. dollars that are only conducted on the most liquid markets for which data is publicly available and operated by exchanges that meet the CME CF Constituent Exchange Criteria.
The BRRNY is a valid and robust benchmark that is calculated from input data of sufficient volume so that it is representative of the market it seeks to measure. Additionally, the BRRNY has volume sufficiency which permits it to be replicated by institutional market participants and product providers that need to warehouse price risk. The table below summarizes the total number of transactions and average number of transactions per day observed each month for the BRRNY.
This trading activity exhibits volatility that is not substantially different from that shown in traditional asset markets. The volume observed and the reliability of that volume are clearly evident to be sufficient for the calculation of a robust and reliable benchmark.
Phlx believes that Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options will be utilized for a wide range of activities such as asset valuation, settlement of financial risk, risk management, NAV calculation, unit creation and unit redemption. To that end, the index design is fair and transparent. CF Benchmarks exclusively sources input data from Constituent Exchanges that meet published criteria as set out in its CME CF Constituent Exchange Criteria and CF Benchmarks conducts a thorough review of any exchange under consideration for inclusion as a Constituent Exchange.
The BRRNY methodology incorporates a procedure for potentially erroneous data. In the event of an instance of index calculation in which a Constituent Exchange's volume-weighted median transaction price exhibits an absolute percentage deviation from the volume-weighted median price of other Constituent Exchange transactions greater than the Potentially Erroneous Data Parameter
CF Benchmarks has implemented a benchmark surveillance program for the investigation of alerts. Instances of suspected benchmark manipulation are escalated through appropriate regulatory channels in accordance with CF Benchmarks' obligations under the UK Benchmarks Regulation (UK BMR). As a regulated Benchmark Administrator, CF Benchmarks is subject to supervision by the UK FCA.
In terms of this correlation of prices among Constituent Exchanges as shown in the table above, an analysis was undertaken of the pair-wise correlation of prices from Constituent Exchanges on a per-minute basis (the price difference between transactions for each minute at each exchange) during the observation period. The results are shown in the table below.
With respect to replicability, a simple replication simulation was thereby conducted of BRRNY to demonstrate the extent of slippage
Trades are executed on
One trade is executed every second and the price achieved is assumed to be the last execution price observed in that second. Its associated volume is assumed to be the volume executed during that second.
If no trade is completed in any single-second period, then the price achieved is assumed to be the price achieved in the previous second, but the associated volume from the previous second is not added to the volume executed in the latest second.
The results of this simulation are displayed below.
Summary data for the above simulation is provided below.
As evidenced above, the BRRNY can be replicated with a high degree of confidence and usually with slippage of no more than 1 basis point (0.01%). On only 6.76% of days would slippage have been greater than 5 basis points (0.05%). Indeed, even on the most volatile day, slippage was approximately one half of one percent, 51.6 basis points (0.516%). Furthermore, in the 24-month period under observation slippage would have been in double-digit basis points only 10 times.
As evidenced by the foregoing data, the BRTI is representative of the underlying market, resistant to manipulation, and replicable by market participants.
The proposed product is a cash-settled index option that permits holders to receive U.S. dollars representing the difference between the current Bitcoin spot markets as represented by the BRRNY and the exercise price of the option. Like the Spot Bitcoin ETPs,
Since January 2024, shares of Spot Bitcoin ETPs based on Bitcoin have been listed and traded on national securities exchanges.
Section 2(a)(1)(A) of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “CEA”)
With respect to any agreement, contract, or transaction (or class thereof) that is exempted by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission pursuant to section 4(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6(c)(1)) with the condition that the Commission exercise concurrent jurisdiction over such agreement, contract, or transaction (or class thereof), references in the securities laws to the `purchase' or `sale' of a security shall be deemed to include the execution, termination (prior to its scheduled maturity date), assignment, exchange, or similar transfer or conveyance of, or extinguishing of rights or obligations under such agreement, contract, or transaction, as the context may require.
The Exchange believes that the index options are a novel derivative product that should be permitted to trade on a national securities exchange pursuant to the Section 717 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Exchange believes that the provisions of the Dodd-Franck Act covering novel derivative products provides the SEC and the CFTC with extensive freedom to craft solutions to allow products such as Phlx's index options to come to market.
Pursuant to Section 717(b) of Dodd-Frank, the proposed Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options would be deemed a security permitted to trade on Phlx, a self-regulatory organization regulated by the SEC.
As proposed, Phlx's index option would transact on an SEC-regulated exchange, therefore, the SEC's jurisdiction would not be superseded or limited with respect to prosecuting fraud and manipulation relating to the proposed index options which would be transacted on Phlx. If the proposed Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options were exempted pursuant to Section 4(c)(1) of the CEA, the CFTC would retain enforcement jurisdiction relating to the sale of the commodity, which jurisdiction would be concurrent with the SEC's enforcement jurisdiction.
Phlx will not list the Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options until such time as it obtains an exemption from the CFTC pursuant to Section 4(c)(1) of the CEA
The proposal is designed to ensure that Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options are listed and traded under the same terms that apply to other index options that are currently traded on the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to create a new Options 4D, titled “Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options,” with rules that would apply specifically to the listing and trading of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options.
The proposed Options 4D Rules would be applicable to Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options. All Options Rules shall apply to Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options, in addition to the Options 4D Rules, however where the Options 4D Rules disagree with another Options Rule not within Options 4D, a conflict shall be resolved in favor of the Options 4D Rule as it applies to Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options.
The Exchange proposes to define certain terms for the trading of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options in proposed Options 4D, Section 2, titled “Definitions.” The Exchange proposes to define “aggregate exercise price,” “CME CF Bitcoin Real Time Index (“BRTI”),” “CME CF Cryptocurrency Reference Rate—New York Variant (“BRRNY”),” “CME CF Cryptocurrency Pricing Products Oversight Committee,” “Constituent Exchange,” “current index value,” “exercise price,” “European-style index option,” “final settlement value,” “index multiplier,” “Nasdaq Bitcoin Index,” “P.M-settled Index Options,” “reporting authority,” and “underlying.” The proposed definitions are as follows:
The term “aggregate exercise price” shall mean the exercise price of the option contract times the index multiplier.
The term “CME CF Bitcoin Real Time Index (“BRTI”)” shall mean a once a second benchmark index price for Bitcoin that aggregates order data from Bitcoin-USD markets operated by Constituent Exchanges.
The term “CME CF Cryptocurrency Reference Rate—New York Variant (“BRRNY”)” shall mean the once a day benchmark index price for Bitcoin that aggregates trade data from Constituent Exchanges.
The term “CME CF Cryptocurrency Pricing Products Oversight Committee” or “Oversight Committee” shall mean the committee established jointly by Crypto Facilities Ltd. or “CF” and Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. or “CME” to protect the integrity of the methodology and calculation process of the BRTI and the BRRNY and to address potential conflicts of interest. The role of the Oversight Committee is to provide an oversight function to review and provide challenge on all aspects of the methodology and calculation process and provide effective oversight of CF as the administrator of the BRTI and BRRNY.
The term “Constituent Exchange” shall mean the cryptocurrency trading venues approved by the CME CF Cryptocurrency Pricing Products Oversight Committee to serve as pricing source for the calculation of the BRTI and BRRNY.
The term “current index value” shall mean the aggregated last reported sale price of each Constituent Exchange comprising the BRTI divided by a factor of one hundred (100).
The term “exercise price” shall mean the specific price at which the current index value may be purchased in the case of a call or sold in the case of a put upon the exercise of the option.
The term “European-style index option” shall mean an option on an industry or market index that can be exercised only on the business day of expiration, or, in the case of an option contract expiring on a day that is not a business day, on the last business day prior to the day it expires.
The term “final settlement value” shall be calculated as described at Options 4D, Section 8.
The term “index multiplier” shall mean the amount by which the current index value is to be multiplied to arrive at the value required to be delivered to the holder of a call or by the holder of a put upon valid exercise of the contract. The index multiplier shall be $100.
The term “Nasdaq Bitcoin Index” for purposes of the Options 4D rules shall mean the BRTI divided by a factor of one hundred. The settlement value will be based on the BRRNY divided by a factor of one hundred.
The term “P.M-settled Index Options” shall mean an index options where the last day of trading shall be the business day of expiration, or, in the case of an option contract expiring on a day that is not a business day, on the last business day before its expiration date.
The term “reporting authority” shall mean the institution or reporting service designated by the Exchange as the official source for (1) calculating the level of the index and (2) reporting such level. The “reporting authority” for the BRTI, BRRNY, and the BRRNY—NOS “Nasdaq Options Settlement” is CF Benchmarks.
The term “underlying” shall mean the Nasdaq Bitcoin Index.
Proposed Options 4D, Section 3, titled “Trading Sessions,” notes that Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options may be effected on the Exchange between the hours of 9:30 a.m. (Eastern time) and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern time), except that on the last trading day, transactions in expiring in Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options may be effected on the Exchange between the hours of 9:30 a.m. (Eastern time) and 4:00 p.m. (Eastern time). As is the case for all index options, General 3, Rule 1030 governs the days the Exchange will be open for business.
Unlike other index options, Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options need not meet the requirements of Options 4, Section 3 or Options 4A, Section 3.
As proposed, Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options would have a minimum increment of $0.01 for all series.
The Exchange proposes to state at proposed Options 4D, Section 6(a) that the Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options shall be subject to a position limit of 24,000 contracts. Today, options on the Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe”) Bitcoin U.S. ETF Index (“CBTX”) and the Mini-Cboe Bitcoin U.S. ETF Index (“MBTX”) have position limits of 24,000 contracts. Today, CBTX is trading 2,660.00 as of September 23, 2025. CBTX notional is $266,000 (index price * $100) as of September 23, 2025. The Nasdaq Bitcoin Index has a notional value of $112,444.28 as of September 23, 2025. Therefore, the proposed 24,000 position and exercise limits for Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options are appropriate because the limits represent less than half of the notional value of CBTX.
With respect to aggregation, the Exchange proposes at Options 4D, Section 6(c) that Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options contracts shall not be aggregated with any other options contracts. Positions in Short Term Option Series, Monthly Options Series, and Quarterly Options Series shall be aggregated with positions in options contracts in Nasdaq Bitcoin Index and
The Exchange proposes reporting requirements at proposed Options 4D, Section 6(d) which provide that each member or member organization that maintains a position on the same side of the market in excess of 100,000 contracts for its own account or for the account of a customer in excess of 100,000 contracts for its own account or for the account of a customer in Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options, would be required to file a report with the Exchange that includes, but is not limited to, data related to the option positions, whether such positions are hedged and if applicable, a description of the hedge and information concerning collateral used to carry the positions. Market Makers would be exempt from this reporting requirement. These reporting requirements are applicable to all other index options.
Finally, as noted in proposed Options 4D, Section 6(e), exercise limits for Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options shall be equivalent to the position limits described in Options 4D, Section 6.
Pursuant to proposed Options 4D, Section 7(a)(1), bids and offers shall be expressed in terms of dollars and cents per unit of the underlying index which is the Nasdaq Bitcoin Index.
Pursuant to proposed Options 4D, Section 7(a)(2), the Exchange shall determine fixed-point intervals of exercise prices for call and put options.
As proposed in Options 4D, Section 7(a)(3), strike price intervals of no less than $2.50 are generally permitted for Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options if the strike price is less than $200. This is consistent with how other index options trade on Phlx. Further, the Exchange may also determine to list strike prices at $1 or greater, subject to certain conditions. The Exchange may list series at $1 or greater strike price intervals for Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options and will list at least two strike prices above and two strike prices below the current value of the Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options at about the time a series is opened for trading on the Exchange. The Exchange shall list strike prices for Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options that are within 5 points from the closing value of the Nasdaq Bitcoin Index on the preceding day.
Additional series of the same class of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options may be opened for trading on the Exchange when deemed necessary to maintain an orderly market, to meet customer demand or when the Nasdaq Bitcoin Index moves substantially from the initial exercise price or prices. To the extent that any additional strike prices are listed by the Exchange, such additional strike prices shall be within thirty percent (30%) above or below the closing value of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options. The Exchange may also open additional strike prices that are more than 30% above or below the current Nasdaq Bitcoin Index value divided by a factor of one hundred (100) provided that demonstrated customer interest exists for such series, as expressed by institutional, corporate or individual customers or their brokers. Market-Makers trading for their own account shall not be considered when determining customer interest under this provision. In addition to the initial listed series, the Exchange may list up to sixty (60) additional series per expiration month for each series in Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options.
The Exchange shall not list LEAPS on Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options at intervals less than $5.
With respect to delisting, Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options added pursuant Options 4D, Section 7(a)(3)(A) and (B) will be reviewed by the Exchange on a monthly basis. The Exchange will review series that are outside a range of five (5) strikes above and five (5) strikes below the current value of the Nasdaq Bitcoin Index divided by a factor of one hundred (100) and delist series with no open interest in both the put and the call series having a: (i) strike higher than the highest strike price with open interest in the put and/or call series for a given expiration month; and (ii) strike lower than the lowest strike price with open interest in the put and/or call series for a given expiration month.
Notwithstanding this delisting policy, customer requests to add strikes and/or maintain strikes in Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options series eligible for delisting shall be granted.
Notwithstanding any other provision regarding strike prices in Options 4D, Section 6, non-Short Term Options that are on Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options that have been selected to participate in the Short Term Option Series Program (referred to as a “Related non-Short Term Option series”) shall be opened during the month prior to expiration of such Related non-Short Term Option series in the same manner as permitted in Supplementary .01 of Options 4D, Section 7 and in the same strike price intervals that are permitted in Supplementary .01 of Options 4D, Section 7.
The Exchange proposes to state that Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options contracts may expire at three (3) month intervals, in consecutive weeks or in consecutive months. The Exchange may list: (i) up to six (6) standard monthly expirations at any one time in a class of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options, but will not list Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options that expire more than twelve (12) months out.
Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options would be European-style index options
The Exchange believes that market participants, and in particular, retail investors, prefer P.M.-settled index options. P.M.-settlement is preferred by retail investors as it allows market participants to hedge their exposure for the full week. A.M.-settled options by contrast are based on opening prices on the day of expiration and therefore stop trading on the day prior, leaving residual risk on the day of expiration. P.M.-settlement is needed to garner retail investor support for this product.
After a particular class of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options has been approved for listing and trading on the Exchange, the Exchange shall from time to time open for trading series of options therein. Within each approved class of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options, the Exchange shall open for trading a minimum of one expiration month and series and may also open for trading series of options having not less than twelve and up to 60 months to
Prior to the opening of trading in any series of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options, the Exchange shall fix the expiration month and exercise price of option contracts included in each such series.
Additional series of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options of the same class may be opened for trading on the Exchange when the Exchange deems it necessary to maintain an orderly market, to meet customer demand or when the market price of the Nasdaq Bitcoin Index moves more than five strike prices from the initial exercise price or prices. The opening of a new series of options shall not affect the series of options of the same class previously opened. New series of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options may be added until the beginning of the month, in which the options contract will expire. Due to unusual market conditions, the Exchange, in its discretion, may add a new series of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options until the fourth business day prior to the business day of expiration, or, in the case of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options contract expiring on a day that is not a business day, up to the fifth business day prior to expiration.
The Exchange would also list Long-Term Option Series or “LEAPs.” Similar to index options at Options 4A, Section 12(b)(2), the Exchange proposes that it may list LEAPs on Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options that expire from twelve (12) to sixty (60) months from the date of issuance. There may be up to ten (10) expiration months, none further out than sixty (60) months. Strike price intervals and continuity Rules shall not apply to such options series until the time to expiration is less than twelve (12) months. Bid/ask differentials for LEAPs are specified within Options 2, Section 4(b)(4)(i)(A).
Similar to index options at Options 4A, Section 12(d), the reported level of the Nasdaq Bitcoin Index that is calculated by the reporting authority, CF Benchmarks, for purposes of determining the current index value at the expiration will be disseminated as the Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options.
The Exchange proposes to note in Supplementary .01 to Options 4D, Section 7 that the Short Term Options Series Program listing rules at Options 4A, Section 12(b)(4) shall be applicable to Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options. The Monthly Options Series Program at Options 4A, Section 12(b)(5) shall be applicable to Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options. Finally, the Quarterly Options Series Program at Options 4A, Section 12(b)(3) shall be applicable to Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options.
The Exchange proposes to describe the final settlement value of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options in proposed Options 4D, Section 8. Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options would be settled in U.S. dollars on the business day following expiration. Cash settlement would be equal to the difference between the final settlement value and the strike price of the contract multiplied by an index multiplier of $100.
The Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options final settlement value would be the BRRNY on the expiration date (usually a Friday). BRRNY is calculated based on the Relevant Transactions. BRRNY will be divided by a factor of one hundred (100) and published as BRRNY—NOS (Nasdaq Options Settlement). BRRNY is calculated daily based on the Relevant Transactions and is calculated on the expiration date for purposes of final settlement. Relevant Transactions include those that trade Bitcoin versus U.S. Dollars on a Constituent Exchange that occur from 15:00 to 16:00 New York Time that is calculated and reported by the reporting authority. The final settlement value is determined by the aggregated last reported sale price of each Constituent Exchange. Specifically, the final settlement is calculated by combining all Relevant Transactions from each Constituent Exchange on a joint list and recording the trade price and size for each transaction. That list is partitioned into a number of equally-sized time intervals, of 5 minutes. For each partition separately, the volume-weighted median trade price is calculated from the trade prices and sizes of all Relevant Transactions across all Constituent Exchanges. The BRRNY is the equally weighted average of the volume-weighted medians of all partitions. In the event that the underlying BRTI is not open for trading on the expiration date, the value of the Nasdaq Bitcoin Index shall be the last reported sale price prior to the expiration date.
Settlement is calculated by combining all Relevant Transactions on a joint list and recording the trade price and size for each transaction. That list is partitioned into a number of equally-sized time intervals, of 5 minutes. For each partition
The BRRNY is then given by the equally weighted average of the volume-weighted medians of all partitions.
Delayed data and missing data are subject to certain rules. Any Relevant Transaction for a given Calculation Day that is not available from a Constituent Exchange's API by the Retrieval Time is disregarded in the calculation of the CME CF Cryptocurrency Reference Rate for that Calculation Day. If no Relevant Transaction occurs on a Constituent Exchange on a given Calculation Day or one or more Relevant Transactions occur but for any reason cannot be retrieved by the Calculation Agent, the Constituent Exchange is disregarded in the calculation of the CME CF Cryptocurrency Reference Rate for that Calculation Day. If, for any of the K partitions of the TWAP Period in the above Eq. 2, no Relevant Transaction occurs on any Constituent Exchange or one or more Relevant Transactions occur but for any reason cannot be retrieved by the Calculation Agent, the partition remains empty and will be disregarded in the calculation of the CME CF Cryptocurrency Reference Rate for that Calculation Day. The denominator in Eq. 2 above will then be decremented by the number of empty partitions. If one or more Relevant Transactions occur but for any reason no Relevant Transaction can be retrieved from any Constituent Exchange API by the Calculation Agent, a CME CF Cryptocurrency Reference Rate calculation failure occurs for that Calculation Day. All Relevant Transactions retrieved by CF Benchmarks for a given calculation day are subject to an automated screening for erroneous data.
Similar to other index options,
Today, Phlx limits its liability at Options 4A, Section 19. The Exchange proposes to expand this limitation of the Exchange's liability in connection with its administration of Phlx proprietary indices that currently exists for other indexes
The Exchange proposes to adopt “Disclaimers” at proposed Options 4D, Section 9. As noted herein, CF Benchmarks shall be the reporting authority for Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options.
The Exchange proposes to provide at proposed Options 4D, Section 9(a) that the disclaimers in paragraph (b) of Options 4D, Section 9 shall apply to the reporting authority, CF Benchmarks, as
Further, proposed Options 4D, Section (b) provides that neither CF Benchmarks nor any of its affiliates make any warranty, express or implied, as to the results to be obtained by any person or entity from the use of an index it publishes, any opening, intra-day or closing value therefor, or any data included therein or relating thereto, in connection with the trading of any options contract based thereon or for any other purpose. CF Benchmarks shall obtain information for inclusion in, or for use in the calculation of, such index from sources it believes to be reliable, but CF Benchmarks does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of such index, any opening, intra-day or closing value therefor, or any date included therein or related thereto. CF Benchmarks hereby disclaims all warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or use with respect to such index, any opening, intra-day, or closing value therefor, any data included therein or relating thereto, or any options contract based thereon. CF Benchmarks shall have no liability for any damages, claims, losses (including any indirect or consequential losses), expenses, or delays, whether direct or indirect, foreseen or unforeseen, suffered by any person arising out of any circumstance or occurrence relating to the person's use of such index, any opening, intra-day or closing value therefor, any data included therein or relating thereto, or any options contract based thereon, or arising out of any errors or delays in calculating or disseminating such index.
The Exchange proposes to apply margin requirements for the purchase and sale of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options that are identical to those applied for its narrow-based index options. Therefore, purchases of puts or calls with 9 months or less until expiration must be paid for in full. Writers of uncovered puts or calls must deposit/maintain 100% of the option proceeds plus 20% of the underlying index value less out-of-the-money amount, if any, to a minimum of option proceeds plus 10% of underlying index value for calls; 10% of the put exercise price for puts.
The trading of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options would be subject to the same rules that presently govern the trading of index options on Phlx, including sales practice rules and trading rules. Options 10, Section 6, “Opening of Accounts,” is designed to protect public customer trading and shall apply to trading in Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options. Specifically, Options 10, Section 6(a) prohibits members and member organizations from accepting a customer order to purchase or write an option, including Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options, unless such customer's account has been approved in writing by an Options Principal. Additionally, Phlx Options 10, Section 8, “Suitability of Recommendations,” is designed to ensure that options, including Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options, are only sold to customers capable of evaluating and bearing the risks associated with trading in this instrument. Further, Phlx Options 10, Section 9, “Discretionary Accounts,” permits members and member organizations to exercise discretionary power with respect to trading options, including Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options, in a customer's account only if the customer has given prior written authorization and the account has been accepted in writing by a Registered Options Principal. Phlx Options 10, Section 9 also requires a record to be made of every option transaction for an account in respect to which a member or member organization or a partner, officer or employee of a member organization is vested with any discretionary authority, such record to include the name of the customer, the designation, number of contracts and premium of the option contracts, the date and time when such transaction took place and clearly reflecting the fact that discretionary authority was exercised. Finally, Phlx Options 10, Section 7, “Supervision of Accounts,” Phlx Options 10, Section 10, “Confirmations to Customers,” and Phlx Options 10, Section 13, “Delivery of Options Disclosure Documents and Prospectus,” will also apply to trading in Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options.
The trading of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options will be subject to the trading halt procedures applicable to other index options traded on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that all Phlx and OCC members will be able to accommodate trading, clearance and settlement of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options because these index options will trade similar to all other index options.
In 2024, the Commission approved various rule changes to list and trade Spot Bitcoin ETPs.
[B]ased on the record before the Commission and the improved quality of the correlation analysis in the record, including the Commission's own analysis, the Commission is able to conclude that fraud or manipulation that impacts prices in spot Bitcoin markets would likely similarly impact CME Bitcoin futures prices. And because the CME's surveillance can assist in detecting those impacts on CME Bitcoin futures prices, the Exchanges' comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with the CME—a U.S. regulated market whose Bitcoin futures market is consistently highly correlated to spot Bitcoin, albeit not of “significant size” related to spot Bitcoin—can be reasonably expected to assist in surveilling for fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in the specific context of the [Spot Bitcoin ETPs].
As described in the Spot Bitcoin ETPs Approval Order, there is currently a regulated U.S. market with respect to spot Bitcoin, the CME Bitcoin futures (“Bitcoin Futures”) market.
Specifically, the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with the CME via its common membership in ISG, which facilitates the sharing of information that is available to the CME through its surveillance of its markets, including its surveillance of the Bitcoin Futures market. Similar to the Spot Bitcoin ETPs previously approved by the SEC, Phlx's ability to obtain information regarding trading in the Bitcoin Futures market from other markets that are members of the ISG (specifically the CME) would assist Phlx in detecting and deterring misconduct.
Further, the exchanges that list Spot Bitcoin ETPs comprehensively surveil market conditions and price movements on a real time and ongoing basis in order to detect and prevent price distortions, including price distortions caused by manipulative efforts. Thus, the CME's surveillance as well as Phlx's surveillance and other equity markets that list Spot Bitcoin ETPs can reasonably be relied upon to capture the effects on the Bitcoin Futures market and Spot Bitcoin ETPs, as applicable, that are caused by a person attempting to manipulate the futures ETP or Spot Bitcoin ETPs by manipulating the price of Bitcoin futures contracts or Spot Bitcoin ETPs, whether that attempt is made by directly trading on the Bitcoin Futures market or Spot Bitcoin ETPs, or indirectly by trading outside of the Bitcoin Futures market or Spot Bitcoin ETPs.
The Exchange would have an adequate surveillance program in place for Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options as it intends to apply the same program procedures that apply to the Exchange's other index options products.
The Exchange, in its normal course of surveillance, will monitor for any potential manipulation of the Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options settlement value according to the Exchange's current procedures. The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures currently in place will allow it to adequately surveil for any potential manipulation in the trading of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options.
The Exchange represents that it has the necessary system capacity to support additional quotations and messages that will result from the listing and trading Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options. Finally, the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) has the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the listing of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options. The proposal is limited to one new class and the additional traffic that would be generated from the introduction of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options would be manageable and well within any systems capacity capabilities.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
Since January 2024, Spot Commodity ETF shares based on Bitcoin have been listed and traded on national securities exchanges.
Section 2(a)(1)(A) of the CEA
With respect to any agreement, contract, or transaction (or class thereof) that is exempted by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission pursuant to section 4(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6(c)(1)) with the condition that the Commission exercise concurrent jurisdiction over such agreement, contract, or transaction (or class thereof), references in the securities laws to the `purchase' or `sale' of a security shall be deemed to include the execution, termination (prior to its scheduled maturity date), assignment, exchange, or similar transfer or conveyance of, or extinguishing of rights or obligations under such agreement, contract, or transaction, as the context may require.
Phlx's proposal is a novel derivative product that should be permitted to trade on a national securities exchange pursuant to the Section 717 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Exchange believes that the provisions of the Dodd-Franck Act covering novel derivative products provides the SEC and the CFTC with extensive freedom to craft solutions to allow products such as Phlx's index options to come to market.
The Exchange acknowledges that it will not be permitted to list and trade the proposed Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options unless and until the CFTC grants all necessary exemptive relief pursuant to Section 4(c)(1) of the CEA
Pursuant to Section 717(b) of Dodd-Frank, the proposed Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options would be deemed a security permitted to trade on Phlx, a self-regulatory organization regulated by the SEC.
In light of evolving market structures in digital asset developing markets, Phlx's proposal will foster responsible innovation and competition, while ensuring that appropriate regulatory protections are in place. The proposed Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options are in the public interest and promote responsible innovation and fair competition.
Phlx will not list the Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options until such time as it obtains an exemption from the CFTC pursuant to Section 4(c)(1) of the CEA
The Exchange believes that with the commencement of trading of Bitcoin as an ETF on a national securities exchange, Phlx's proposal would serve important economic functions by providing investors, speculators and multinational corporations with an important risk-shifting mechanism by allowing them to hedge the price of Bitcoin. Phlx's proposal is an innovative response to the demands of various market participants who require greater flexibility to tailor their Bitcoin positions and portfolios to satisfy their investment objections by creating a “precise” hedge for approved Spot Bitcoin ETPs.
The introduction of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options will provide investors with an additional tool to manage their portfolio, whether by hedging or through diversification and 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 this new product will provide investors with a greater opportunity to realize the benefits of utilizing index options based on spot Bitcoin, including cost efficiencies and increased hedging strategies. In particular, the Exchange believes that offering Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options will benefit investors by providing them with an additional, relatively lower cost risk management tool allowing them to manage, more easily, their positions and associated
For the reasons which follow, the Exchange believes that Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and promote just and equitable principles of trade. Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options are representative of the underlying market, resistant to manipulation, and replicable by market participants, to be able to foster further institutional participation in the underlying market that is being measured. The final settlement value for Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options would be the BRRNY on the expiration date (usually a Friday). BRRNY will be divided by a factor of one hundred (100) to create a new settlement value to arrive at the settlement value for Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options and will be published as BRRNY—NOS (Nasdaq Options Settlement). BRRNY is a once-a-day benchmark index price for Bitcoin that aggregates trade data from multiple Bitcoin-USD markets operated by major cryptocurrency exchanges that conform to the CME CF Constituent Exchange Criteria. It is synchronized to the traditional U.S. financial market close of 1600 New York Time and is calculated every single day of the year. The index is a Registered Benchmark under UK BMR and as such is a Third Country benchmark under the EU BMR Regime.
The BRRNY index is methodologically identical to the regulated CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate (BRR), the most widely used benchmark price for Bitcoin, that settles the Bitcoin-USD derivatives complex listed by CME Group, and which serves as the NAV for exchange listed investment products from WisdomTree Europe, Evolve ETFs (CAN) and QR Asset Management (BRZ). The only difference between the CME CF BRRNY and the CME CF BRR, is that BRRNY references the price of Bitcoin at the closing time of U.S. markets, 16:00 New York Time, rather than the price at 16:00 London Time, referenced by the BRR.
The purpose of BRRNY is to provide a replicable, manipulation-resistant and representative Bitcoin benchmark that synchronizes with the traditional U.S. market close. The CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate—New York Variant is a regulated Benchmark under the UK Benchmarks Regulation (BMR) regime. The BRRNY calculation methodology aggregates transactions of Bitcoins in U.S. dollars that are only conducted on the most liquid markets for which data is publicly available and operated by exchanges that meet the CME CF Constituent Exchange Criteria.
BRRNY is a valid and robust benchmark that is calculated from input data of sufficient volume so that it is representative of the market it seeks to measure. Additionally, BRRNY has volume sufficiency which permits it to be replicated by institutional market participants and product providers that need to warehouse price risk. The table below summarizes the total number of transactions and average number of transactions per day observed each month for BRRNY.
This trading activity exhibits volatility that is not substantially different from that shown in traditional asset markets. The volume observed and the reliability of that volume are clearly evident to be sufficient for the calculation of a robust and reliable benchmark.
Phlx believes that Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options will be utilized for a wide range of activities such as asset valuation, settlement of financial risk, risk management, NAV calculation, unit creation and unit redemption. To that end, the index design is fair and transparent. CF Benchmarks exclusively sources input data from Constituent Exchanges that meet published criteria as set out in its Constituent Exchanges Criteria and conducts a thorough review of any exchange under consideration for inclusion as a Constituent Exchange.
BRRNY's methodology incorporates a procedure for potentially erroneous data. Although volume-weighted medians of transaction prices from individual data sources are not part of the benchmark determination process, they are calculated as a means of quality control and manipulation resistance. In the event of an instance of index calculation in which a Constituent Exchange's volume-weighted median transaction price exhibits an absolute percentage deviation from the volume-weighted median price of other Constituent Exchange transactions greater than the Potentially Erroneous Data Parameter (10%), then transactions from that Constituent Exchange are deemed potentially erroneous and excluded from the index calculation. All instances of data excluded from a calculation trigger a Benchmark Surveillance Alert that is investigated. By way of example, between February 28, 2022, and January 31, 2024, the Potentially Erroneous Data Parameter of the methodology for the CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate—New York Variant has never been triggered. Analysis of the max volume-weighted median per exchange during the observation period produced the results in the table below. The results illustrate that during the observation period, no Constituent Exchange's input data needed to be excluded due to exhibiting potential manipulation and indeed no individual cryptocurrency exchange exhibits a deviation percentage above 2.41% during this period.
CF Benchmarks has implemented a benchmark surveillance program for the investigation of alerts. Instances of suspected benchmark manipulation are escalated through appropriate regulatory channels in accordance with CF Benchmarks' obligations under the UK Benchmarks Regulation (UK BMR). As a regulated Benchmark Administrator, CF Benchmarks is subject to supervision by the UK FCA.
In terms of correlation, an analysis was undertaken of the pair-wise correlation of prices from Constituent Exchanges on a per-minute basis (the price difference between transactions for each minute at each exchange) during the observation period. The results are shown in the table below.
With respect to replicability, a simple replication simulation was thereby conducted of BRRNY to demonstrate the extent of slippage that implementation of the BRR would probably encounter. The methodology was as follows for weekdays only.
Trades are executed on
One trade is executed every second and the price achieved is assumed to be the last execution price observed in that second. Its associated volume is assumed to be the volume executed during that second.
If no trade is completed in any single-second period, then the price achieved is assumed to be the price achieved in the previous second, but the associated volume from the previous second is not added to the volume executed in the latest second.
The results of this simulation are displayed below.
Summary data for the above simulation is provided below.
As evidenced above, the BRRNY can be replicated with a high degree of confidence and usually with slippage of no more than 1 basis point (0.01%). On only 6.76% of days would slippage have been greater than 5 basis points (0.05%). Indeed, even on the most volatile day, slippage was approximately one half of one percent, 51.6 basis points (0.516%). Furthermore, in the 24-month period under observation slippage would have been in double-digit basis points only 10 times.
In 2024, the Commission approved various rule changes to list and trade Spot Bitcoin ETPs.
[B]ased on the record before the Commission and the improved quality of the correlation analysis in the record, including the Commission's own analysis, the Commission is able to conclude that fraud or manipulation that impacts prices in spot Bitcoin markets would likely similarly impact CME Bitcoin futures prices. And because the CME's surveillance can assist in detecting those impacts on CME Bitcoin futures prices, the Exchanges' comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with the CME—a U.S. regulated market whose Bitcoin futures market is consistently highly correlated to spot Bitcoin, albeit not of “significant size” related to spot Bitcoin—can be reasonably expected to assist in surveilling for fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in the specific context of the [Spot Bitcoin ETPs].
As described in the Spot Bitcoin ETPs Approval Order, there is currently a regulated U.S. market with respect to spot Bitcoin, the CME Bitcoin futures (“Bitcoin Futures”) market.
Specifically, the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with the CME via its common membership in ISG, which facilitates the sharing of information that is available to the CME through its surveillance of its markets, including its surveillance of the Bitcoin Futures market. Similar to the Spot Bitcoin ETPs previously approved by the SEC, Phlx's ability to obtain information regarding trading in the Bitcoin Futures market from other markets that are members of the ISG (specifically the CME) would assist Phlx in detecting and deterring misconduct.
Further, the exchanges that list Spot Bitcoin ETPs comprehensively surveil market conditions and price movements on a real time and ongoing basis in order to detect and prevent price distortions, including price distortions caused by manipulative efforts. Thus, the CME's surveillance as well as Nasdaq's surveillance and other equity markets that list Spot Bitcoin ETPs can reasonably be relied upon to capture the effects on the Bitcoin Futures market and Spot Bitcoin ETPs, as applicable, that are caused by a person attempting to manipulate the futures ETP or Spot Bitcoin ETPs by manipulating the price of Bitcoin futures contracts or Spot Bitcoin ETPs, whether that attempt is made by directly trading on the Bitcoin Futures market or Spot Bitcoin ETPs, or indirectly by trading outside of the Bitcoin Futures market or Spot Bitcoin ETPs.
The Exchange would have an adequate surveillance program in place for Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options as it intends to apply the same program procedures that apply to the Exchange's other index options products.
The Exchange, in its normal course of surveillance, will monitor for any potential manipulation of the Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options settlement value according to the Exchange's current procedures. The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures currently in place will allow it to adequately surveil for any potential manipulation in the trading of Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options.
The Exchange believes that the proposed contract specifications will be attractive to market participants, and will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. The proposal is designed to ensure that Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options are listed and traded under the same terms that apply to other index options that are currently traded on the Exchange. Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options will be subject to the same rules that presently govern the trading of index options, including sales practice rules, margin requirements, trading rules, and position and exercise limits. The proposed product is a cash-settled index option that permit holders to receive U.S. dollars representing the difference between the current Bitcoin spot market and the exercise price of the option and would not involve holding physical Bitcoin similar to the Spot Bitcoin ETPs, which entailed the custody of Bitcoin assets. The Exchange's proposal to have a minimum increment of $0.01 for all series will enable traders to make the most effective use of the product for trading and hedging purposes. The Exchange believes that the rules applicable to trading in Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options are consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Permitting Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options to be P.M.-settled whereby the exercise settlement value would be derived from closing prices on the day of expiration is consistent with the Act. The proposed rule change will provide investors with greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility. The size of the spot bitcoin market,
The Exchange believes the permitting Weekly expirations and EOMs should create greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility, and provide customers with the ability to tailor their investment objectives more closely. This is comparable to the manner in which all index options trade on Phlx.
Additionally, a position and exercise limit for Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options of 24,000 contracts is consistent with the Act because the limits are in line with options on the Cboe CBTX and MBTX that have position limits of 24,000 contracts. Today, CBTX is trading 2,660.00 as of September 23, 2025. CBTX notional is $266,000 (index price * $100) as of September 23, 2025. The Nasdaq Bitcoin Index has a notional value of $112,444.28 as of September 23, 2025. The proposed 24,000 position and exercise limits for Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options represent less than half of the notional value of CBTX. The Exchange believes that the proposed position and exercise limits will prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices.
Finally, the Exchange represents that it and OPRA have the necessary system capacity to support additional quotations and messages that will result from the listing and trading Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options.
This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an index option product with a novel structure that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
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 Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options would be subject to Exchange rules that currently govern the listing and trading of index options, including permissible expirations, strike prices, minimum increments, position and exercise limits, and margin requirements. Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options will be equally available to all market participants who wish to trade such options.
The Exchange does not believe the proposal 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 permitting Nasdaq Bitcoin Index Options to trade on the Exchange may make Phlx a more attractive marketplace to market participants, such market participants are free to elect to become market participants on the Exchange. Additionally, other options exchanges are free to amend their rules, as applicable, to permit them to list and trade index options that track the value of Bitcoin. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change may relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition, as it is designed to increase competition for order flow on the Exchange in a manner that is beneficial to investors by providing them with a relatively low-cost means to hedge their portfolios and meet their investment needs in connection with spot Bitcoin prices and Bitcoin-related products and positions, in a cash-settled product. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues that offer similar products.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Kansas (FEMA-4891-DR), dated September 11, 2025.
Issued on September 11, 2025.
Sharon Henderson, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on September 11, 2025, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 213116 and for economic injury is 213120.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of California dated September 24, 2025.
Issued on September 24, 2025.
Jennifer Talarico, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 213205 and for economic injury is 213210.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration is California.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
As part of its regular business meeting held on September 24, 2025 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the Commission approved the applications of certain water resources projects and took additional actions, as set forth in the
September 25, 2025.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 N Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel and Secretary, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312, fax: (717) 238-2436; email:
The Commission took the following actions at its September 24, 2025 business meeting: (1) adopted the preliminary Fiscal Year 2027 budget; (2) unanimously adopted the member jurisdiction allocation requests for Fiscal Year 2027; (3) approved a grant amendment with the PA Department of Environmental Protection; (4) approved two settlements of regulatory violations; and (5) approved 21 regulatory program projects and tabled one project as listed below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Notice of Order Extending and Modifying Scheduling Limits at Newark Liberty International Airport.
The FAA is amending the June 10, 2025, order limiting the number of scheduled aircraft operations at Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR). The amendment extends the June 2025 order by approximately one year, or two IATA scheduling seasons, through October 24, 2026. Further, the amendment increases the operating limitation from 68 to 72 hourly operations.
This action is effective October 26, 2025.
If you wish to review the background documents or comments received in this proceeding, you may go to
Al Meilus, Slot Administration and Capacity Analysis, FAA ATO System Operations Services, AJR-G5, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-2822; email
On June 10, 2025, the FAA issued a final order limiting operations at EWR (the June 2025 order).
Now, the FAA issues this one-year extension of the June 2025 order to address staffing shortfalls and provide additional time for controller onboarding and training. The FAA received written submissions on the proposal from ten commenters. The commenters include eight scheduled carriers, the airport operator, and an anonymous commenter.
The U.S. Government has exclusive sovereignty over the airspace of the United States.
The FAA's statutory authority to manage “the efficient use of airspace” encompasses its management of the nationwide system of air commerce and air traffic control. Ensuring the efficient use of the airspace means that the FAA must take all necessary steps to prevent extreme congestion at an airport from disrupting or adversely affecting the overall air traffic system for which the FAA is responsible. Further, delays at EWR frustrate the efficient operations of air carriers transporting passengers to and from this important region. The impacts of delays at EWR spread throughout the national airspace system (NAS), resulting in substantial economic loss and inconvenience for the traveling public, air carriers, shippers, and others.
On April 6, 2016, the FAA designated EWR as a Level 2 schedule-facilitated airport under the International Air Transportation Association (IATA) Worldwide Slot Guidelines (WSG), effective October 30, 2016.
The FAA does not allocate slots or impose minimum usage requirements at EWR. Level 2 schedule facilitation depends upon close and continuous discussions and voluntary agreement between carriers and the FAA to reduce congestion. At Level 2 airports, the FAA provides priority consideration for flights approved by the FAA and operated by the carrier in those approved times in the prior scheduling season when the FAA reviews proposed flights for facilitation in the next corresponding scheduling season. Only those flights that were actually operated
Although the FAA redesignated EWR from a Level 3 to Level 2 airport in 2016, the FAA has continuously monitored the airport's performance due to its prominence in the NAS and impact on the system overall. As such, the FAA implemented targeted scheduling limits at EWR in an effort to minimize delay and congestion. The current nominal targeted scheduling limit for EWR is 77 operations per hour.
On March 27, 2023, the FAA announced a limited policy for prioritizing up to ten percent of a carrier's operations at EWR, if returned due to post-pandemic effects on ATC staffing at New York Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) (N90), for purposes of establishing a carrier's operational baseline in the next corresponding season.
On November 20, 2024, the FAA announced a limited, conditional policy for prioritizing returned operations at EWR due to a construction-related runway closure at EWR for purposes of establishing a carrier's operational baseline in the next corresponding scheduling seasons.
The FAA worked with carriers prior to issuing the policy to address the impact this runway closure has on scheduled operations for the Summer 2025 and Winter 2025/2026 scheduling seasons. The FAA requested that carriers reduce operations from April 15, 2025, through June 15, 2025, to no more than 35 arrivals per hour from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., Eastern Time and no more than 31 arrivals per hour from 3:00 p.m. to the end of the day, Eastern Time. The FAA also requested that carriers reduce operations to no more than 35 departures per hour through 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, and no more than 31 departures per hour from 5:00 p.m. through the end of the day, Eastern Time. The FAA stated that no new requested timings would be approved during the runway closure period.
In July 2024, the FAA transferred ATC oversight for the Newark area, known as Area C, to the Philadelphia TRACON (PHL). Presently, PHL's targeted staffing number remains 114 Certified Professional Controllers (CPCs); the current onboard number at PHL is 82, representing 71.9 percent of the staffing target. Within PHL, Area C's targeted staffing number is 46 CPCs, with its current staff of 22 CPCs representing 48 percent of the staffing target. Under an arrangement by the previous administration, by the end of July 2026, 14 CPCs currently assigned to Area C will return to the New York Terminal Radar Approach Control facility (N90), which had overseen the Newark area. ATO is taking action to replace those 14 CPCs. PHL now has a total of 31 trainees, with 26 assigned to Area C.
The FAA, on behalf of the Department of Transportation (DOT), convened a delay reduction meeting with U.S. air carrier participants with a minimum of 10 scheduled arrivals at EWR and representatives from PANYNJ on May 14, 2025, and the meeting continued until its recess on May 16, 2025. The FAA held individual sessions over the three days with seven air carriers and PANYNJ. In these sessions, the FAA and carriers discussed voluntary modifications to schedules during the construction period and through the rest of the Summer 2025 scheduling season. Representatives of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division and the DOT monitored the joint and individual meeting sessions of the delay reduction meeting. In addition, the in-person sessions were transcribed.
The June 2025 order resulted from the schedule reductions achieved by the delay reduction meetings. The June 2025 order reduced hourly operations through the end of the Summer 2025 scheduling season, October 25, 2025, and Saturdays from September 1, 2025, to December 31, 2025. This order took effect on June 10, 2025, and without the extension provided here, would have expired in part on October 25, 2025, and in full on December 31, 2025. The FAA established the order's December 31, 2025, expiration date to encompass the remainder of the Summer 2025 scheduling season and the completion of runway construction planned for EWR's Runway 4L-22R.
The June 2025 order limited operations at two separate rates depending on the date of the operation. During the construction period, the targeted limit is no more than 28 arrivals and 28 departures per hour. Outside of the construction period, until the close of the Summer 2025 scheduling season, October 25, 2025, the limit is no more than 34 arrivals and 34 departures per hour.
On August 12, 2025, the FAA published a Notice of Request for comment.
Option Two included a reverse weighted lottery to withdraw operations, using the approved Winter 2025/2026 baseline schedule with the objective of achieving an operational capacity of 72 operations per hour for the Winter 2025/2026 schedule. For the Summer 2026 schedule, the FAA would use the Summer 2025 schedule under the June order as the baseline and a weighted lottery to allocate the additional four operations per hour. The FAA asked for comments from carriers on how to structure such a lottery, including what baseline schedule should be used.
The final Option Three included convening a new round of delay reduction meetings pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41722 to negotiate reductions. The FAA proposed either starting negotiations from the approved Winter 2025/2026 baseline schedule or rolling over the agreed-upon hourly reductions from the Summer 2025 season to the Winter 2025/2026 approved baseline schedule and utilizing the delay reduction meeting to reverse some of the negotiated reductions to achieve the new 72 operations per hour target.
By the close of the public comment period on August 15, 2025, the FAA received ten comments on the proposed extension and amendment to the order as well as the allocation methods. Commenters included United Airlines (United), Delta Air Lines (Delta), DHL, Alaska Airlines (Alaska), Air Canada, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), Volaris Airlines, El Al Israel Airlines, Air Premia and one anonymous commenter. The comments generally indicated support for extending the operating limitations as a means to address congestion at EWR. Commenters requested transparency from the FAA irrespective of what allocation method is used to achieve the rate of 72 hourly operations.
United commended the Department for acknowledging and attempting to remediate the adverse effects of EWR controller staffing shortages, ATC relocation, and outdated and unreliable technology. United further pledged to work with the FAA and industry to improve operations and efficiency at EWR. United asked the FAA to consider limiting operations by 30-minute intervals instead of 60-minute intervals. United contends that this would make operations at EWR more precise, predictable, and efficient.
United also encouraged the FAA to publish the approved movements by carrier for the order to provide transparency to the reduction process. The airline further called on the FAA to retain the enforcement provisions found in the June 2025 order to prevent the backfilling of returned operations by other carriers, thereby eliminating reduction efforts.
Additionally, United suggested that the FAA consider setting operations for Summer 2026 at the targeted scheduling rate under normal conditions, 77 hourly operations, and establish criteria or improvement checkpoints that would allow for the FAA to increase the limit from 72 to 77 hourly operations by the start of Summer 2026. United also requested that the FAA re-include EWR under the Staffing-Related Relief waiver recently extended at JFK and LGA.
With respect to the allocation method for the order extension, United supports the proportionality method proposed by the FAA. United believes this to be the simplest and fairest method and recognizes good citizenship on the part of the carriers who participated in the delay reduction meetings in May. According to United, the schedule from Summer 2025 can easily be used as a reduced baseline for the Summer 2026 allocation as it reflects approved operations after the delay reduction meetings. To that end, United requested that the FAA publish the final approvals for Summer 2025, by carrier, by hour. Since the Winter 2025/2026 baseline is not finalized, United recommends using the schedules submitted by air carriers in early May 2025 and approved by the FAA by the Seasonal Allocation Deadline in June 2025. United suggests that the FAA could then work with carriers, including cargo and foreign air carriers, one-on-one to identify the operational adjustments needed per carrier. United contends that the weighted lottery option is “needlessly complicated” and that another round of delay reduction meetings is overly burdensome and could undermine the progress made during the May sessions.
Lastly, United reiterated their support for transitioning EWR from a Level 2 to a Level 3 airport. United believes that this will improve the passenger experience at EWR through long-term, comprehensive, predictable, and transparent slot controls with equitable rules across EWR and JFK.
In light of the comments filed, the FAA has determined that it will extend a voluntary offer of up to ten percent relief at EWR through the end of Summer 2026 in addition to extending these operating limitations. The FAA welcomes voluntary returns by carriers beyond this effort to further the goal of efficiency and on-time performance at the airport. The terms of this relief are expanded upon in Section X of this document. Consistent with both the Level 2 schedule facilitation process and the delay reduction proceedings earlier this year, the FAA notified carriers individually of their approved movements.
Consideration of a return to Level 3 slot controls at EWR is beyond the scope of this final Order.
The FAA has determined that operating limitations by 30-minute intervals provides an appropriate level of detail to identify and assign schedule reduction targets to specific carriers.
Delta also supports the FAA's decision to extend the order through October 24, 2026, and amend the operating limitations to 72 hourly operations from 68 hourly operations currently established. Delta is not in favor of a weighted lottery and instead supports a proportional return of approved runway authorizations voluntarily relinquished as part of the June 2025 order. Delta also supports publication of the approved timings upon the finalization of the order.
The FAA acknowledges Delta's comments and participation in this process to establish new temporary scheduling limits. As discussed, FAA notified carriers individually of their approved movements, consistent with both the Level 2 schedule facilitation process and the delay reduction proceedings earlier this year.
Alaska also supports an increase in the number of hourly operations at EWR moving forward. Alaska expressed a preference for another round of delay reduction meetings on the basis of the statutory framework established by 49 U.S.C. 41722 and the collaborative nature of the proceedings. Additionally,
Upon consideration of all of the comments and available options, the FAA has determined that moving forward with a proportional reduction based on the reductions received during the delay reduction proceedings is the appropriate path forward at this time.
PANYNJ stated that it remains committed to partnering with the FAA in returning to full operational capacity. PANYNJ detailed the circumstances leading up to the FAA calling a delay reduction meeting and the subsequent telecommunications improvements made to ensure reliability and redundancy. Additionally, PANYNJ asked for more information from the FAA on the staffing pipeline for Area C. PANYNJ also outlined the improvements undertaken at EWR to enhance the airfield and improve efficiency throughout the airport's facilities. As such, PANYNJ emphasizes that capacity reductions hinder the ability of PANYNJ to maximize the utilization of the improvements made at EWR. With respect to the allocation method, PANYNJ requests that the FAA use a method that considers competition over proportionality. PANYNJ also expressed a commitment to participation in any additional delay reduction proceedings.
The FAA shares PANYNJ's goal of returning EWR to full capacity in the future and, in doing so, to address safety, efficiency, and other concerns as warranted.
Air Canada requested that the staffing waiver be put in place once again at EWR. As discussed in the response to United, the FAA will extend the staffing waiver to EWR through the end of the Summer 2026 scheduling season.
DHL asked that their only operation at EWR, CVG-EWR-CVG operated by 21Air, not be impacted by this reduction effort. At this time, the FAA is not seeking reductions from carriers with fewer than ten daily round trips at EWR.
Volaris Airlines asked that the FAA not reduce any of their approved operations at EWR. As with the original order, the FAA is not mandating reductions from foreign carriers as part of these proceedings.
El Al Israel Airlines (El Al) also supports a proportional reduction and suggested criteria for the FAA to consider under a weighted lottery allocation. El Al provided a number of suggestions for how the FAA could improve its collaboration with carriers including: increased communication with carriers such as convening meetings in advance of major events like the FIFA World Cup, implementing performance-based adjustments if conditions at EWR improve, and providing increased lead time on decisions to allow carriers to inform customers of itinerary changes well in advance, particularly where religious observance is impacted by a schedule change.
Air Premia requested to return to seven daily frequencies consistent with their pre-construction period schedule. Further, they cited an arrangement with the U.S. Department of Justice to operate seven frequencies due to anti-trust concerns raised by the Korean Air-Asiana Airlines merger. Air Premia stated that in December 2024, the Korean Air-Asiana Airlines merger was approved on the condition that Air Premia receive specific U.S. routes, which included New York. Air Premia stated that its expanded role helps prevent monopolistic control over transpacific routes and ensures continued consumer choice and competitive pricing, especially for the Incheon-New York route.
As previously mentioned, the FAA will not reduce operations on foreign carriers as part of these proceedings. The FAA will work with Air Premia to confirm their baseline operations outside of these proceedings.
An anonymous commenter supports the extension of the operating limitations to prevent potential airport congestion and delays for passengers traveling through EWR. The commenter further stated that the previous staffing shortages due to the pandemic are no longer an issue and the Newark airport should be able to maintain the operating limitations by extending the timeframe through 2026 to continue to ease flight delays.
The FAA acknowledges that staffing shortages remain an issue, but the FAA aims to make significant improvements in the staffing pipeline in 2026 which will allow EWR to increase operations. The FAA appreciates the comments received and has taken them under consideration.
After consideration of the comments received on the options, the FAA selects Option One to issue the allocations. As described above, allocations will be made proportionally based on carriers' operations at EWR.
In the Summer 2025 reductions achieved at the delay reduction meeting, the FAA focused on reducing arrivals and departures to no more than 34 operations of each per hour. Correspondingly, for Winter 2025/2026 and Summer 2026, the FAA will focus on reducing arrivals and departures to no more than 36 operations of each per hour.
The FAA will begin by carrying each carrier's reductions per hour from the Summer schedule, to the extent practicable, to the currently approved Winter schedules at EWR for Winter 2025/2026, and the approved Summer schedules at EWR in Summer 2026.
The FAA will work to ensure the targeted schedule for each carrier each hour will be proportional to their approved schedules for each individual season, taking into account that schedules may be different from one season to the next.
The FAA does not believe that a weighted lottery, Option Two, is the best path to achieve the necessary reductions at this time. The FAA appreciates those carriers who provided suggestions on criteria for this approach if this option would have been selected. Similarly, the FAA determined that another round of delay reduction meetings, Option Three, is overly burdensome and will likely achieve a similar result as the first round. The proportional allocation method will be based on the reductions achieved through the 49 U.S.C. 41722 process. These reductions were recently agreed upon by the carriers. As such, the FAA does not believe that another round of delay reduction meetings would be an efficient use of public resources when the FAA can leverage the results of the May meetings. The FAA believes that applying a proportional reduction to the Winter 2025/2026 and Summer 2026 schedules based on the delay reduction meetings in May is a reasonable and rational approach to effectuate this order extension and amendment. Further, Option One is a timely means to issue a decision in light of the comments
Under this order, outside of the construction period from October 26, 2025, through December 31, 2025, the
The FAA will continue to work with carriers to ensure more balanced operations within each 30-minute interval of each schedule-facilitated hour.
Prior to the issuance of this Order, the FAA notified all stakeholders, including foreign carriers, of proposed extension and amendment of the June 2025 order. The FAA will accept any returns from foreign carriers through the IATA process consistent with the delay reduction proceedings and the June 2025 order. The FAA will also work with all carriers, including foreign air carriers, as usual in responding to requests and confirming times that are available subject to the limits described above.
The FAA will not accommodate new scheduled operations at EWR. Permitting new scheduled operations could exacerbate the existing conditions and undo the purpose of the delay reduction meeting and these operating limitations, which is to achieve operational stability at EWR.
The FAA will continue to accommodate other unscheduled operations, such as cargo, charter, or nonscheduled foreign carrier operations, on a “first come, first serve” basis to the extent such operators can be accommodated at EWR. All requests must be submitted to and approved by the FAA Slot Administration at
Based on the FAA's experience with capacity-constrained airports, the FAA anticipates that carriers may occasionally need to modify their schedules for operational or other reasons while this Order is in effect. Accordingly, this Order provides a mechanism through which such carriers can modify their schedules.
Carriers operating at EWR must obtain the Administrator's written approval before making a schedule change to outside the hourly window associated with an authorized timing.
The FAA also recognizes that the Winter 2025/2026 schedule submission date was May 15, 2025. The FAA will continue to work with carriers to address schedules on Saturdays in the construction period in the Winter 2025/2026 Scheduling Season.
The FAA recognizes that there may be unexpected disruptions due to operation issues, weather, or other circumstances beyond the carriers' control. Since EWR is a Level 2 airport, the FAA will work with the carriers on any additional relief needed to prioritize impacted operations for the purposes of establishing operational baselines for the next corresponding season.
On June 4, 2025, the FAA prepared a categorical exclusion (CATEX) document applicable to the original order that is herein being extended. The CATEX relied upon FAA Order 1050.1F,
Accordingly, with respect to flight operations at EWR, under the authority provided to the Secretary of Transportation and the FAA Administrator by 49 U.S.C. 40101, 40103, 40113, and 41722, it is hereby ordered that:
1. This Order modifies the targeted scheduling limit for arrivals and departures at EWR during the affected hours for the U.S. air carriers who operate at EWR as reflected by authorized scheduled timings. The FAA will not accommodate authorized scheduled timings under this Order to any person or entity other than a certificated U.S. air carrier with appropriate economic authority and the FAA operating authority under 14 CFR part 121, 129, or 135 (`revised allocations based upon proportionality to air carriers that contributed timings during delay reduction meetings'). This Order further affirms that the FAA will not accommodate new requests or re-timings into schedule-facilitated hours with 36 arrivals and 36 departures if such a request will result in exceeding the hourly limit (`no backfills'). Finally, the FAA will accommodate foreign air carrier requests and unscheduled operations in certain hours with availability throughout the schedule-facilitated day, on a “first come, first serve” basis. All requests must be submitted to and approved by the FAA Slot Administration at
a. All U.S. air carriers conducting scheduled operations at EWR as of the date of this Order, any U.S. air carrier that operates under the same designator code as such carrier, and any air carrier that has or enters into a codeshare agreement with such carrier.
b. All U.S. air carriers operating scheduled or regularly conducted commercial service to EWR while this Order is in effect.
2. This Order establishes daily targeted scheduled arrivals and departures at EWR from 6 a.m. through 10:59 p.m., Eastern Time, until October 24, 2026, and on weekends from October 26, 2025, through December 31, 2025, from Friday at 11 p.m. through 5 a.m. on Sunday.
3. This Order takes effect on October 26, 2025, and expires on October 24, 2026.
4. The following procedures apply to authorized scheduled timings at EWR:
a. Scheduled air carrier arrivals and departures should not exceed 28 per hour on weekends from September 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025, from Friday at 11 p.m. through 5 a.m. on Sunday, Eastern Time. Outside of that period, from October 26, 2025, through
b. The Administrator may change the operating limits if he determines that capacity exists to accommodate additional operations without a significant increase in delays. If delays substantially increase due to circumstances adversely impacting operations, the Administrator may further reduce the operating limitations.
5. Carriers will retain historic priority for the next corresponding season for authorized scheduled timings reduced or re-timed under the delay reduction proceedings.
6. A carrier operating an authorized scheduled timing may request the Administrator's approval to move any arrival or departure scheduled from 6 a.m. through 10:59 p.m. to another half hour within that period. Except as provided in paragraph seven, the carrier must receive the written approval of the Administrator, or his delegate, prior to conducting any scheduled arrival or departure. All requests to move an authorized scheduled timing must be submitted to the FAA Slot Administration Office at
7. Notice of a swap must be submitted in writing to the FAA Slot Administration Office at
8. Any authorized scheduled timing not used during the Winter 2025/2026 or Summer 2026 scheduling seasons will not be prioritized for the purposes of establishing an operational baseline for the next corresponding season unless the carrier notifies the FAA of a request for prioritization. The FAA will review these requests. The FAA will respond to the carrier with an acknowledgement of the request and a determination.
9. If the FAA determines that a further reduction in targeted scheduled operations is needed, the FAA may call an additional scheduling reduction meeting pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41722.
10. Carriers may voluntarily return up to ten percent of their operations for the Winter 2025/2026 and the Summer 2026 scheduling seasons in addition to the reductions assigned under the Order. This relief includes operations between EWR and DCA. Carriers requesting this relief must submit returned operations to the FAA Slot Administration Office at
11. The FAA may enforce this Order through an enforcement action seeking a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. 46301(a). A carrier that is not a small business as defined in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632, will be liable for a civil penalty of up to $75,000 for every flight it operates above the limits set forth in this Order. A carrier that is a small business as defined in the Small Business Act will be liable for a civil penalty of up to $16,630 for every flight it operates above the limits set forth in this Order. The FAA also could file a civil action in U.S. District Court, under 49 U.S.C. 46106, 46107, seeking to enjoin any air carrier from violating the terms of this Order.
12. The FAA may modify or withdraw any provision in this Order on its own or on application by any carrier for good cause shown.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion nor omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before October 20, 2025.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2025-2694 using any of the following method.
•
•
•
•
Kara White, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, at 202-267-9677.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Reopening of comment period.
NHTSA published a request for public comment on November 8, 2024, announcing receipt of and seeking comment on an application for temporary exemption from HOLON U.S. Inc (HOLON). HOLON's application seeks a temporary exemption from various requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for a vehicle equipped with an automated driving system (ADS).
The comment period for the Part 555 receipt notice published on November 8, 2024 will be open until October 29, 2025.
You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
On November 8, 2024, in accordance with statutory and administrative provisions, NHTSA published a notice (89 FR 88856) announcing receipt of an application from HOLON seeking exemption under 49 U.S.C. 30113 (implemented at 49 CFR part 555) from portions of seven FMVSS. HOLON's application sought exemption from portions of FMVSS No. 101,
NHTSA has decided to reopen the public comment period for 30 days. Following the close of the initial comment period, NHTSA requested and received additional information from HOLON necessary to continue evaluating the application. NHTSA finds it in the public interest to reopen the comment period to allow review and comment on the complete set of materials that HOLON has submitted to NHTSA.
NHTSA recently developed process improvements to evaluate Part 555 applications more efficiently, as outlined in a June 13, 2025 letter.
As noted above, NHTSA has received additional information from HOLON, and the docket now includes the following materials:
• HOLON's final application, received August 28, 2024;
• HOLON's responses to NHTSA's first set of follow-up questions, also received August 28, 2024; and
• HOLON's responses to NHTSA's second set of questions, received July 15, 2025.
Reopening the comment period will provide the public with an opportunity to review and comment on all relevant materials while allowing NHTSA to move toward a final decision on HOLON's application. NHTSA is seeking public comment regarding the merits of HOLON's application and on potential terms and conditions that should be applied to the temporary exemption if granted.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Performance Review Board (PRB) appointments.
DOT published the names of the persons selected to serve on Departmental PRBs.
Anne Audet, Director, Departmental Office of Human Resource Management (202) 366-2478.
The persons named below may be selected to serve on one or more Departmental PRBs.
Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service.
Notice of a new matching program.
Pursuant to section 552a(e)(12) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Comments on this matching notice must be received no later than 30 days after date of publication in the
Comments may be sent by email to
John Davis, Management and Program Analyst, IRS Privacy, Governmental Liaison and Disclosure, 303-603-4733 (not a toll-free number).
The InRM program involves a computer matching program, including a computer matching agreement (CMA), established to assist the IRS in furthering the purposes of the InRM program.
Department of the Treasury, IRS, and The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.
Executive Order 13587, “Structural Reforms to Improve the Security of Classified 2 Networks and the Responsible Sharing and Safeguarding of Classified Information, and its implementing policies and standards such as National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs” requires agencies to ensure responsible sharing and safeguarding of classified information on computer networks that shall be consistent with appropriate protections for privacy and civil liberties as required by the Internal Revenue Code, the Privacy Act of 1974, the Bank Secrecy Act, Title 18 of the United States Code, the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA), and other applicable laws that require safeguarding of information.
This matching program will assist the IRS in deterring, detecting, and mitigating insider threats to the IRS's information, resources, and personnel.
The purpose of this program is to detect, deter and mitigate breaches of security policy by IRS employees, contractors, or other individuals who wittingly or unwittingly engage in activities that threaten harm to the security of the United States. These threats can include damage to the United States through espionage, terrorism, unauthorized disclosure of national security information, or through the loss or degradation of departmental resources or capabilities.
Current and former employees, contractors, interns, visitors. Individuals who are, or have been, temporarily authorized to perform, provide, or use services in IRS facilities (either on an ongoing or occasional basis), including, but not limited to, security personnel, custodial staff, maintenance workers, food service workers, employee assistance program staff, and other non-IRS employees with access to IRS assets; witnesses and other individuals who provide statements or information to the IRS related to an insider inquiry.
Information relevant, or potentially relevant, to identifying, preventing, or mitigating insider risk to IRS resources, including potential risk indicators (PRIs) about or related to individuals reported to exhibit behaviors requiring analysis and consideration by Holistic Insider Risk Management's Hub Operations Team as a result of exceeding risk tolerance, including records of the results of the analysis and explanations of any responsive actions; IRS security investigations, including authorized IT Security, Physical Security, and Personnel Security risk scoring; information systems security analysis and logs; and determinations derived from information obtained in other systems. Data used in this match from the listed systems of records includes, but is not limited to, employee name, Social Security Number (SSN), employee number, address, email addresses; employee spouse's name, SSN, address; taxpayer name, Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), address, tax return/account information, credit card or bank account information, taxpayer entity information, including prior and current name; electronic transmission specifics, including sender's email address, recipients' email addresses, recipients' internet service providers, transmission date and time, internet protocol (IP) address, computer machine name, and terminal identification.
The following systems of records maintained by the IRS and the Department of the Treasury Offices may be utilized:
In notice document 2025-17980, appearing on pages 44906-44907 in the issue of Wednesday, September 17, 2025, make the following correction:
On page 44907, in the first column, in the