Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Copyright Royalty Board
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Transportation Statistics Bureau
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Final rule.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is adopting this final rule to amend certain regulatory thresholds in the FDIC's regulations to reflect inflation. Specifically, this final rule generally updates such thresholds to reflect inflation from the date of initial implementation or the most recent adjustment and provides for future adjustments pursuant to an indexing methodology. The changes set forth in this final rule preserve the level of certain thresholds set forth in the FDIC's regulations in real terms, thereby avoiding the undesirable and unintended outcome where the scope of applicability for a regulatory requirement changes due solely to inflation rather than actual changes in an institution's size, risk profile, or level of complexity.
Andrew Carayiannis, Chief, Policy & Risk Analytics Section; Bryan Jonasson, Deputy Chief Accountant; Kimberly Krizanovic, Senior Accounting Policy Analyst; Keith Bergstresser, Senior Policy Analyst; Lauren Brown, Senior Policy and Risk Analyst; Jim Yu, Senior Policy and Disclosure Analyst; Rachel Romm-Nisson, Risk Analytics Specialist, Capital Markets and Accounting Policy Branch, Division of Risk Management Supervision; Christopher Blickley, Counsel, Legal Division; Michelle Mire, Senior Attorney, Legal Division; Robert Meiers, Senior Attorney, Legal Division; Nathan Raygor, Senior Attorney, Legal Division; Ryan Tetrick, Deputy Director, Division of Complex Institution Supervision and Resolution; Alex Greenberg, Assistant Director, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships;
Various regulations promulgated by the FDIC use thresholds to determine their scope of applicability. The most common threshold is the amount of total on-balance sheet assets of an institution (measured in dollars), which has long served as a proxy for an institution's size.
Under the FDIC's regulations, most thresholds are static, with no mechanism for periodic adjustments over time. To change a static threshold, the FDIC must, in general, provide notice and seek comment on any such change before it can be implemented as final.
The FDIC has occasionally revised discretionary regulatory thresholds or established a mechanism within a regulation to allow for adjustments on a periodic basis. For example, 12 CFR part 345, which implements the Community Reinvestment Act,
As discussed above, the use of applicability thresholds allows the FDIC to differentiate and tailor regulatory requirements based on an institution's size, risk profile, and level of complexity. However, static dollar-based thresholds can lead to unintended policy consequences if threshold levels are not periodically updated or indexed to inflation. For example, smaller and mid-size institutions can become subject to asset-based requirements originally intended for relatively larger institutions solely as a result of growth in price levels, thereby increasing burden for reasons unrelated to changes in their inflation-adjusted size or risk profile.
Modifications to regulatory thresholds can be made in several ways in order to help preserve their intended application and policy objectives. A threshold may be periodically updated through ad-hoc review, for example, as a one-time update without pre-determining any additional, automatic future adjustments. Such an approach would help to preserve the threshold's intended application since it was first implemented or most recently amended but would not efficiently provide for preservation of the intended threshold level over time. Separately, a regulatory threshold may be automatically adjusted in future periods, for example, through periodic adjustments using a pre-determined indexing methodology based on a certain factor, such as inflation. Automatic adjustments in this way would more efficiently and transparently preserve a threshold's intended application and maintain alignment with intended policy objectives over time. However, if not properly structured for future periods, index-based adjustments can lead to unintended and undesirable outcomes. For example, adjusting regulatory thresholds too frequently and in the absence of meaningful changes in the chosen index can result in inefficiencies, as institutions may incur costs to frequently review their practices to reflect adjusted thresholds. By contrast, infrequent adjustments also result in larger, less gradual adjustments that can impair the certainty and predictability of a regulatory framework and create challenges for regulatory compliance and balance sheet management practices.
Properly structured, appropriately sequenced and predictable threshold adjustments promote consistent application of regulatory requirements over time and contribute to a more durable regulatory framework. In addition, such adjustments can enhance transparency and certainty by providing institutions with a pre-determined schedule for future regulatory changes and therefore allow for more enhanced balance sheet management practices.
On July 28, 2025, the FDIC published a notice of proposed rulemaking (the proposal) in the
The FDIC noted in the proposal that the proposal was the first of a multi-phase effort to reevaluate thresholds within the FDIC's regulations, and that the FDIC expects to solicit comment on one or more future proposals to update and adjust additional thresholds.
As discussed in the sections that follow, the FDIC proposed to initially update and thereafter periodically adjust certain thresholds in the following FDIC regulations:
The FDIC received over 100 comment letters on the proposal for updating and indexing certain regulatory thresholds,
The comments received generally expressed support for the proposal, in particular comments received from community banking institutions. Commenters generally supported the proposed updates to certain regulatory thresholds, with many indicating such updates would provide a meaningful benefit through reduced regulatory burden. In addition, many commenters supported the proposed indexing methodology to adjust thresholds according to changes in inflation in future periods. While some commenters advocated for changes to specific aspects of the proposed indexing methodology, many were supportive of a mechanism to adjust thresholds in future periods generally.
The majority of the comments pertained to part 363 thresholds with most commenters generally supportive of the proposed updates to those thresholds, indicating the proposed changes would result in material cost savings to their institutions and allow for more efficient use of bank resources. A summary of comments related to part 363 thresholds is provided in section III.A.5 of this
Commenters also expressed a view that the proposed updates would not come at the expense of safety and soundness, as increases in asset size have primarily been a result of factors such as inflation, industry changes, and a pandemic-related surge in deposits, rather than material changes in risk profile and complexity of activities. Several commenters requested that considerations be made regarding timing, including the effective date and retroactive application.
In general, many commenters indicated the proposal would positively affect their institutions or the banking industry broadly. Many commenters indicated that cost savings from reduced 12 CFR part 363 compliance costs would be reinvested into innovation, technology, lending to the local community, and customer experience. Some commenters stated that failing to index thresholds would constrain intuitions' strategic growth decisions and would allow regulatory requirements to extend far beyond their original policy scope. One commenter asserted that updating and indexing thresholds reduces regulatory burden on smaller institutions while allowing supervisory focus to remain on larger, systemically significant entities. Commenters also expressed the view that thresholds included in the proposal are no longer reflective of economic conditions and providing for updates and indexing would ensure thresholds evolve with economic growth. One commenter noted that adjustments to various thresholds, when viewed in aggregate, can have a deregulatory effect on the banking industry by loosening reporting requirements and protections that control risk.
Many commenters supported the proposed indexing methodology and expressed support for subsequent, periodic threshold adjustments that occur automatically. However, some commenters stated that automatic adjustments to thresholds would be complex and unpredictable and could create burden on banks when designing, implementing, and maintaining internal control frameworks. One commenter stated that automatically indexing thresholds erodes transparency and makes it difficult to predict in advance whether an IDI will cross the threshold in the following year.
Comments were mixed as to whether to use CPI-W as the reference index under the proposed indexing methodology. A few commenters supported the FDIC applying the same methodology when updating and adjusting thresholds across its regulations, while others suggested alternatives to CPI-W, including nominal GDP, banking industry assets, or an approach that would tailor the reference index by threshold type. These commenters suggested using CPI-W for consumer-facing monetary thresholds, and nominal GDP for asset-based thresholds. Many of these commenters also noted that the proposed updated thresholds are lower than they would otherwise be if adjusted using growth in GDP as a basis for adjustments. One commenter suggested that thresholds should be raised beyond the rate of inflation, as the number of banks has declined and new bank formations have been low. Additionally, one commenter suggested that thresholds should be adjusted for periods of deflation.
Comments related to an alternative approach discussed in the proposal that allowed for future adjustments only at pre-determined levels (
Under the proposal, initial updates would become effective, consistent with applicable law, at the beginning of the first calendar quarter following adoption of the final rule. Several commenters generally requested more time to comply with the proposed threshold changes, while others more specifically recommended a transitional process. Additionally, some commenters requested clarity regarding transition timelines.
Several commenters recommended a specific effective date of January 1, 2025, for the proposed changes, to allow for retroactive application of the updated thresholds. Some commenters suggested that the rule be effective immediately, while one commenter proposed the rule be delayed until January 1, 2027. A number of commenters also suggested that the FDIC determine whether institutions have crossed thresholds by evaluating an institution's assets over a period of time, such as over several quarters or over several years.
Some commenters recommended application of the proposal to additional thresholds. For example, commenters recommended updates and adjustments to thresholds such as the qualifying equity interest of national bank directors threshold, appraisal thresholds for real estate properties, the Community Reinvestment Act intermediate-small bank threshold, bank holding company thresholds, currency transaction reporting thresholds, Dodd-Frank Act's Durbin Amendment threshold, and thresholds used to determine applicability of regulatory capital and liquidity requirements. These commenters requested the FDIC coordinate with the other Federal banking agencies to update additional thresholds that do not appear only within FDIC regulations, as well as coordinate with Congress to update statutory thresholds.
Comments regarding 12 CFR part 363 thresholds were also received as part of the regulatory review being conducted pursuant to the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (EGRPRA).
The FDIC carefully considered all comments received and is finalizing the threshold updates and indexing methodology for future adjustments generally as proposed. Except as otherwise provided,
While many commenters were supportive of the policy objectives of the proposal, some expressed reservations related to updating thresholds without reassessing their original policy designs. While these commenters supported updating thresholds included in the proposal generally, they expressed concern that the proposed updates would inadvertently perpetuate outdated or arbitrary policy design choices without reassessing their basis. As explained in the proposal, the FDIC sought to update thresholds according to changes in inflation since their implementation or most recent adjustment, while also considering policy objectives and intended application. For example, the proposed updates to certain thresholds under 12 CFR part 363 reflected other considerations to help ensure sound financial management of the institutions posing the greatest potential risk to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF). As discussed below, the final rule adopts the initial update approach set forth in the proposal.
Section 19 of the FDI Act (section 19) prohibits, without the prior written consent of the FDIC, a person convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty, breach of trust, or money laundering, or who has entered into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with a prosecution for such an offense (collectively, covered offenses), from becoming or continuing to serve as an institution-affiliated party.
Specifically, under 12 CFR 303.227, the requirements of section 19 do not apply to covered offenses where the individual could have been sentenced to a term of confinement in a correctional facility of three years or less and/or a fine of $2,500 or less, and that meet the additional criteria set forth in that section. In addition, the requirements of section 19 do not apply to “small dollar, simple theft,” which includes, among other requirements, the simple theft of goods, services, or currency (or other monetary instrument) if the value of the currency, goods, or services involved has a value of $1,000 or less.
For purposes of implementing section 19, an ongoing, significant objective of the FDIC has been to establish criteria for the
The FDIC received several comments related to these proposed changes. One commenter supported adjusting the part 303 threshold as described in the proposal because consumer-facing thresholds are more appropriately tied to consumer inflation and CPI-W indexes (in contrast to other thresholds for which the commenter argued that a different methodology would be more appropriate).
After considering the comments received, the FDIC is finalizing the proposed updates to the
Part 335 of the FDIC's regulations provides securities registration, recordkeeping, and disclosure requirements for State nonmember banks and State savings associations with one or more classes of securities required to be registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), as amended.
The FDIC received one comment related to this proposed change. This commenter stated that loosening standards, including the threshold for having to report to the FDIC loans made by banks to insiders, can increase aggregate risk. The commenter recommended that the FDIC monitor and report on the actual impact that comes from adjusting regulatory thresholds so that additional changes can be made if needed.
The final rule adopts the $10 million threshold for 12 CFR 335.801, as proposed. The final rule preserves the level of this threshold in real terms and helps avoid increases in the number of credit extensions that must be reported to the FDIC due solely to inflation rather than actual changes in the level of risk associated with such transactions.
Part 340 of the FDIC's regulations sets forth restrictions on the FDIC's sale of failed IDI assets to individuals or entities that improperly profited from, or engaged in, wrongdoing at the expense of a failed IDI or, that seriously mismanaged a failed IDI.
The FDIC is adopting the approach taken in the proposed rule, without change. Updating the threshold for “substantial loss” to reflect inflation preserves the level of the threshold in real terms, while allowing more prospective purchasers to make offers to buy failed IDI assets. The FDIC expects this update to improve competition for the prices paid for failed IDI assets.
The FDIC issued a final rule in 1998 amending its international banking regulations and consolidating them into part 347.
Under subpart A of part 347, a State nonmember bank may hold an equity interest in one or more foreign organizations that underwrite, deal, or distribute equity securities outside of the United States, subject to certain limitations. Two of those limitations include dollar-based thresholds. First, 12 CFR 347.111(a) provides that the aggregate underwriting commitments by foreign organizations for the securities of a single entity, taken together with underwriting commitments by any affiliate of the State nonmember bank under the authority of 12 CFR 211.10(b), may not exceed the lesser of $60 million or 25 percent of the State nonmember bank's Tier 1 capital. Second, 12 CFR 347.111(b) provides that the equity securities of any single entity held for distribution or dealing by the foreign organizations, taken together with equity securities held for distribution or dealing by any affiliate of the insured State nonmember bank under the authority of 12 CFR 211.10, must not exceed the lesser of $30 million or 5 percent of the insured State nonmember bank's Tier 1 capital, subject to certain other requirements.
The dollar-based thresholds under subpart A of part 347 were established in 1998 and have not since been updated. To preserve the level of these thresholds in real terms, the proposal would revise these dollar limits on aggregate underwriting commitments and on equity securities held for distribution or dealing to $120 million and $60 million, respectively, to approximate inflation adjustments since 1998.
The FDIC received several comments related to the proposed changes. One commenter expressed support for
After considering comments received, the FDIC is adopting the proposed changes to part 347 without change. By updating these thresholds, the final rule preserves their levels in real terms and supports the ability of insured State nonmember banks to compete internationally, consistent with policy objectives of part 347.
Section 112 of the FDICIA added section 36, “Early Identification of Needed Improvements in Financial Management,” to the FDI Act.
Part 363 of the FDIC's regulations implements section 36 and requires any IDI with total consolidated assets of $500 million or more at the beginning of its fiscal year to submit to the FDIC and other appropriate Federal and State supervisory agencies an annual report (Part 363 Annual Report) comprised of audited comparative financial statements, the independent public accountant's report thereon, a management report containing a statement of management's responsibilities, and an assessment by management of compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
When the FDIC initially implemented part 363 in 1993, use of a $500 million asset threshold captured approximately 1,000 IDIs (out of approximately 14,000) holding 75 percent of U.S. banking assets, while exempting approximately two-thirds of IDIs that would have been subject to part 363 under a $150 million threshold.
Many of the dollar-based thresholds in part 363 have been in place for more than 30 years. The proposal would increase the applicability asset threshold from $500 million to $1 billion and the ICFR asset threshold from $1 billion to $5 billion. Additionally, the FDIC proposed to increase the threshold related to minimum audit committee requirements for IDIs from the range of $500 million to less than $1 billion in total assets to the range of $1 billion to less than $5 billion in total assets, as well as the threshold of $1 billion or more in total assets to $5 billion or more. The FDIC also proposed to increase the threshold related to additional audit committee requirements from $3 billion to $5 billion.
The FDIC also proposed an increase to the $100,000 compensation threshold under part 363 related to the determination of whether a director is considered “independent of management.”
The FDIC implemented the $100,000 threshold under part 363 in 2009. Since that time, the parallel threshold under the listing standards of national securities exchanges has been raised to $120,000.
In contrast to the other part 363 thresholds in the proposed rule that are subject to automatic adjustments in the future, the $120,000 compensation threshold would not be subject to the proposed indexing methodology described in section III.B of this
The part 363 suggestions most frequently raised by commenters centered on the proposed updated asset threshold for the independent audit requirement, the proposed updated asset threshold for ICFR, the effective date for the updated thresholds, and the application of thresholds using average asset balances as opposed to point-in-time asset balances. Many commenters noted the proposed changes would substantially reduce costs and regulatory burden, particularly for smaller institutions. For example, updating the thresholds for audit, internal control, audit committee composition, and related reporting requirements would alleviate meaningful challenges for smaller institutions that have become scoped into part 363. Commenters also indicated the proposal would reduce burden associated with finding qualified individuals to serve on an audit committee, particularly for institutions in rural areas.
Many commenters were supportive of increasing the audit requirement and ICFR thresholds. Several commenters suggested increasing the $500 million asset threshold for the audit requirement to an amount other than $1 billion as proposed. Many of these commenters recommended specific asset thresholds for the part 363 audit requirement, with ranges from $2 billion to $10 billion. One commenter suggested a threshold as low as $750 million, while another commenter suggested a threshold as high as $15 billion. In addition to the asset threshold for the audit requirement, numerous commenters suggested raising the existing $1 billion asset threshold for ICFR to $10 billion instead of $5 billion as proposed. One commenter suggested eliminating the requirement to file financial statements under certain circumstances.
Commenters advocating for higher thresholds than those set forth in the proposal emphasized the cost and burden that audit and ICFR requirements impose on community banks. Such commenters requested that such burdens be shifted away from smaller institutions and towards larger institutions that pose more significant risks to the banking system, particularly with respect to the ICFR requirements.
Conversely, some commenters objected to the proposed increase in the independent audit requirement from $500 million to $1 billion and the ICFR requirement from $1 billion to $5 billion on the basis that it could lead to unreliable information in the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) for those institutions without an independent audit requirement.
Several commenters made suggestions regarding the effective date for the updated thresholds. These commenters generally advocated for a retroactive effective date to provide immediate burden relief for institutions with consolidated total assets below the updated thresholds.
A number of commenters also suggested that the FDIC determine whether institutions have crossed thresholds by evaluating an institution's assets over a period of time, such as over several quarters or over several years. These commenters emphasized that evaluating assets over a period of time (as opposed to a single point in time) would allow for smoother transition runways and thereby reduce cliff effects for institutions as they cross asset thresholds and become subject to additional requirements under part 363.
One commenter requested additional guidance on how to apply updated
Some commenters advocated for an increase in the audit requirement threshold to an amount greater than the proposed threshold of $1 billion. However, the $1 billion threshold would meaningfully reduce burden for community banks, while preserving the objective of the underlying statute,
As noted above, increasing thresholds as proposed would result in realigning industry coverage with policy objectives while providing meaningful burden reduction for community banks. Most notably, increasing the audit threshold would result in approximately 780 fewer institutions being subject to audit requirements under part 363. In terms of burden reduction, raising the ICFR threshold from $1 billion to $5 billion would result in more than 700 institutions no longer having to satisfy the ICFR requirements under part 363.
Based on the importance of independent audits in identifying weaknesses in internal controls for financial reporting and the reliance on such reporting for prudential standards such as regulatory capital and liquidity, the final rule does not adopt higher thresholds than those proposed. The FDIC and other Federal banking agencies rely upon financial information to evaluate the condition of IDIs, and the independent audit requirement in part 363 helps to ensure the accuracy and integrity of such information. Independent audits also help to identify weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting and risk management at institutions and reinforce corrective measures, thus complementing supervisory efforts in contributing to the safety and soundness of IDIs. The final rule's updates to the thresholds balance burden reduction with threshold levels that are appropriate for requiring compliance with part 363, as they are consistent with those used for purposes of its initial implementation in both the number of institutions and portion of industry assets covered by the regulation.
As discussed above, the FDIC has considered the comments received on its proposed amendments to part 363 and is finalizing the updates to these thresholds as proposed. However, as described in more detail in sections III.A.8 and III.B.3.ii of this
The final rule updates the applicability asset threshold in part 363 from $500 million to $1 billion and the ICFR asset threshold from $1 billion to $5 billion. Additionally, the final rule increases the threshold related to minimum audit committee requirements for IDIs from the range of $500 million to less than $1 billion in total assets to the range of $1 billion to less than $5 billion in total assets, as well as the threshold of $1 billion or more in total assets to $5 billion or more. The final rule also increases the threshold related to additional audit committee requirements from $3 billion to also $5 billion. Additionally, the final rule updates the compensation threshold in part 363 related to the determination of whether a director is considered “independent of management” from $100,000 to $120,000.
Part 380 of the FDIC's regulations implements the FDIC's orderly liquidation authority,
Among other restrictions, 12 CFR 380.13 prohibits a person from acquiring assets of a covered financial company from the FDIC if the person or its associated person has caused a substantial loss to a covered financial company
The FDIC added 12 CFR 380.13 to the FDIC's regulations in 2014.
Under the proposal, the “substantial loss” threshold in 12 CFR 380.13 would be raised from $50,000 to $100,000 to reflect inflation since the threshold was adopted.
One commenter acknowledged the proposed update to the thresholds in part 380 as part of a broader comment on the general deregulatory effects of the proposal. In consideration of the comment received, the FDIC is adopting the approach taken in the proposed rule, without change.
As described above, the FDIC received several comments advocating for the FDIC to pursue updates and adjustments to thresholds that were not included in the proposal, such as those that are statutory or do not only appear within regulations issued only by the FDIC. The thresholds referenced within these comments were outside the scope of the proposal and therefore are not being considered as part of this final rule.
The FDIC received several comments related to the effective date or the applicability date of the proposal. Some commenters requested retroactive applicability of the rule, while others requested immediate effectiveness. The final rule provides for an effective date of January 1, 2026.
With respect to part 363, the final rule clarifies that IDIs that have prospective filing and compliance requirements based on thresholds in place in 2025, but will no longer be subject to such requirements as a result of the updated thresholds that will be in effect as of January 1, 2026, are no longer required to comply with such part 363 requirements.
The amendments to part 363 do not relieve public companies or subsidiaries of public companies of their obligation to comply with the internal control assessment requirements imposed by section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in accordance with the effective dates for compliance set forth in the SEC's implementing rules.
As described above, several commenters suggested alternatives for how thresholds could be applied, such as by applying thresholds based on an average of multiple periods or only after crossing a threshold over consecutive periods. For example, some commenters suggested that thresholds should be effective for an institution only after the institution crosses the thresholds for two consecutive year-end dates or that assets should be averaged over four consecutive quarters for purposes of determining whether a threshold is effective for a particular institution.
The thresholds included in the proposal would generally apply to an institution based on the size of the institution at a point-in-time, rather than over a period of time. Under the proposal, the FDIC intended to update the dollar amount of specific thresholds, but not necessarily the method used to determine whether a threshold is effective for an individual institution, which is set forth in the current regulations. If a future proposal were to update a threshold for which applicability would be measured over a period of time, it may be appropriate to allow for that determination method to continue to be in effect, inclusive of any updates to the threshold dollar amount, consistent with the applicable law. Further, as it relates to part 363, section 36 of the FDI Act exempts small IDIs based on the value of their assets “as of the beginning of [their] fiscal year.”
Some commenters also suggested an approach that would tailor the reference index by threshold type, for example by applying CPI-W to consumer-facing monetary thresholds and nominal GDP for asset-based thresholds. As further discussed below, while tailoring the
Under the proposal, the FDIC would implement an indexing methodology that reflects inflation to make future automatic adjustments to most thresholds discussed above. A discussion of the proposal, comments received, and the final rule is provided below.
Under the proposal, the FDIC would generally adjust the dollar thresholds described in section III.A of this
Under the proposal, the FDIC would not lower thresholds in any given year to reflect periods of deflation.
To effectuate threshold changes under the proposal, the FDIC would announce threshold adjustments pursuant to the indexing methodology by publishing subsequent final rules in the
Many commenters agreed with the proposed indexing methodology and supported subsequent, periodic, automatic threshold adjustments. Additionally, many commenters agreed with the policy objectives to preserve threshold levels in real terms by periodically adjusting thresholds to reflect inflation.
However, some commenters stated that automatic adjustments to the thresholds would be complex and unpredictable and could create burden on banks when designing, implementing, and maintaining an internal control framework. One commenter suggested consideration of broader measures of bank complexity beyond asset size when adjusting thresholds, such as business line and geographic scope, and further suggested the indexing methodology should lower thresholds to account for deflation, consistent with raising thresholds to account for inflation.
As described in section I of this
Additionally, the proposal intended to update and adjust the dollar amount of specific thresholds to reflect inflation, but not necessarily the mechanism to determine how a threshold applies to an individual institution, which is set forth in the current regulations. Accordingly, the FDIC did not consider additional measures of complexity, such as business line or geographic scope, to determine threshold adjustments, which go beyond the scope of the proposal to reflect inflation across certain static, dollar-based thresholds. Lastly, to avoid increased burden for reasons unrelated to changes in inflation-adjusted size or risk profile, and given that periods of deflation have been rare in modern times, the final rule does not reduce thresholds during periods of deflation. However, any period of deflation would nonetheless be reflected in future threshold increases, as in such a scenario thresholds would not increase until the net cumulative change in CPI-W turns positive. In the event that the U.S. economy was to experience a period of sustained deflation, the FDIC may consider revisiting the proposed indexing methodology.
The FDIC proposed using the non-seasonally adjusted CPI-W as its inflation measure for updating and indexing thresholds, but also considered the seasonally-adjusted CPI-W series as well as other price indices such as the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), Chained CPI-U (C-CPI-U), Producer Price Index (PPI), Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index (PCEPI), and Gross Domestic Purchases Price Index (GDPPI). Commenters did not address the alternative price indices to measure inflation for purposes of the proposed indexing methodology.
As noted in the proposal, an advantage of using the CPI-W for updating and indexing thresholds within FDIC regulations is that the CPI-W is already commonly used for this purpose, including by the FDIC and other Federal agencies, such as the Social Security Administration for calculating benefit payments,
In addition to consumer price indices, the proposal considered use of other types of indices to update and index the regulatory thresholds subject to the proposal. For example, the BEA publishes a GDP data series on a quarterly basis, which measures aggregate U.S. economic activity.
Some commenters supported the use of nominal GDP instead of CPI-W to index thresholds. Several of these commenters indicated that indexing asset-based thresholds to nominal GDP would help to ensure that asset-based thresholds remain proportionate to the size of the broader economy, while another commenter added that banking industry deposits and assets are driven by economic activity, monetary policy, and the money supply, and as such, GDP is a better measure of bank expansion than CPI-W. Some commenters added that indexing methodologies should be tailored to the threshold, such as using nominal GDP to index asset thresholds based on size or risk-based measures and using CPI-W or similar price indices to index consumer-facing thresholds and other thresholds that are less sensitive to the impact of overall growth in the economy. Commenters also noted that thresholds are lower than they would otherwise be if updated and indexed using growth in GDP as a basis for adjustments.
While financial activity is closely related to broader macroeconomic activity and tends to grow together with the economy, using inflation as a basis for updating and indexing thresholds within FDIC regulations would specifically target consumer price levels to ensure dollar thresholds remain relatively consistent over time in real terms. Many commenters agreed with the indexing methodology, as proposed, including the use of consumer price inflation to index thresholds across FDIC regulations. As noted above, adjusting thresholds based on consumer prices is a common practice already in use by the FDIC and other Federal agencies. In addition, use of a single index to adjust thresholds across FDIC regulations would promote consistency and reduce burden from tracking threshold changes.
The FDIC recognizes that the banking industry will generally grow alongside the broader economy. However, the final rule uses CPI-W as the basis for indexing thresholds, consistent with the proposal. As stated in the proposal, there are several downsides to using GDP for threshold adjustments. GDP is subject to business cycle fluctuations that may not always correspond with price level changes, such as in a “stagflationary” environment where stagnant economic growth occurs simultaneously with inflation. Relatedly, GDP in certain cases may grow fast for a period of years, followed by a downturn marked by slow or negative growth. Additionally, GDP is a lagging indicator that is frequently revised, which may limit the accuracy and durability of threshold adjustments.
Finally, the intent behind many rules that use asset-based thresholds is to target banks of a certain size, rather than a size relative to the broader economy; thus, if the banking industry is growing quickly in real terms alongside a rapidly growing economy, banks are still growing for purposes of the relevant regulations. The FDIC recognizes adjusting thresholds using certain alternative measures, such as GDP, may produce higher threshold levels relative to using CPI-W. However, when evaluating various alternatives, the FDIC primarily considered their alignment with the overall policy objectives of the proposal, rather than targeting a particular threshold level.
The proposal also considered and requested comments about updating and indexing thresholds within FDIC regulations using measures of growth in banking or financial sectors. Several commenters supported use of a banking industry growth measure to index thresholds. One commenter stated that use of the actual growth rate in total banking industry assets would be a more direct measure to index asset-based thresholds and, similarly, growth in deposits would be logical for thresholds tied to deposits. Another commenter indicated growth of banking industry assets is a more appropriate measure to index thresholds and would be more representative of the commensurate risk to the DIF and overall banking industry. Another commenter suggested consideration of broader measures of bank complexity beyond asset size, such as the definition of community banking organizations that has been used by FDIC for other purposes.
While using banking industry assets as a measure may align threshold levels with changes in the banking industry broadly, it may also result in threshold adjustments that are influenced by factors unrelated to policy objectives of particular FDIC regulations. For example, threshold adjustments using growth in the size of the banking industry or financial sector may be overly influenced by a subset of institutions (for example, large banking organizations) and therefore may not always be representative of, or broadly consistent with, changes occurring across banks of different size ranges. Additionally, as discussed in the proposal, using growth in the size of the banking industry or financial sector would have disadvantages, including that (1) many thresholds are intended to apply to banks of a certain size, not necessarily a fixed proportion of the industry; (2) certain thresholds, including several as part of this proposal, are set at levels that are unrelated to asset size; and (3) these measures could reflect real growth and actual changes in risk profile, as opposed to capturing inflation alone. Compensating for these disadvantages by adding additional conditions to the methodology would be relatively more complex and less transparent to banks and market participants compared to using inflation as a basis for threshold adjustments.
As discussed above, under the proposal, thresholds would generally be adjusted every two years or if the cumulative change in non-seasonally adjusted CPI-W exceeded 8 percent during any intervening year since the most recent adjustment.
Some commenters preferred more frequent indexing for certain regulations, such as annually, while other commenters recommended a longer adjustment cadence, such as every three or five years. One commenter suggested that adjusting real estate appraisal thresholds on an annual basis would be commensurate with the original appraisal thresholds and regulatory risk tolerances that were established by the regulators. Commenters supporting a longer adjustment cadence indicated that using a two-year cadence would take considerable regulatory resources and add uncertainty for banks as inflation fluctuates over time.
The proposal considered various other adjustment frequencies, including quarterly, semi-annually, annually, every 3 years, and every 5 years. For most of the indexing options, including for the CPI-W, an adjustment frequency as short as monthly would be feasible based on data availability. As noted in the proposal, thresholds updated after a shorter adjustment period (
The final rule adopts a two-year period for measuring inflation, as proposed, which is intended to provide an appropriate cadence for capturing meaningful changes in inflation on a timely basis while balancing the frequency in which thresholds would be amended. Additionally, by providing for adjustments in intervening years where inflation exceeds 8 percent, the proposal would help mitigate the potential for institutions to cross one or more thresholds when inflation increases significantly during a two-year period. In the event thresholds were increased in two consecutive years due to inflation exceeding 8 percent, the adjustment period would reset, and the next increase would occur after two years, unless inflation exceeded 8 percent again the following year.
The proposal also considered, but the final rule does not adopt, an alternative approach that would adjust thresholds annually based on the change in inflation only if an inflation-adjusted threshold reaches a pre-determined level (
One commenter favored the proposed two-year cadence over the milestone approach, while another commenter favored the automated approach alternative discussed in the proposal relative to the milestone approach. Some commenters supported the milestone approach, stating that it allows threshold adjustments to reflect a material change as a result of inflation, supports transparency, would be more predictable for community banks, and allows them to plan ahead for approaching thresholds that trigger new regulatory requirements. One of these commenters also suggested further exploration of the advantages and disadvantages of the milestone approach.
The milestone approach would provide only for material threshold changes and could support transparency and predictability in future threshold amounts as each milestone would be known in advance. However, the milestone approach may lead to uncertainty in timing, as it may be challenging for the public to track when increases in inflation will trigger the next milestone for each threshold. Relative to an approach with a pre-determined adjustment schedule, the milestone approach would present regulatory compliance planning and management challenges associated with tracking inflation on an ongoing basis, as well as planning for, and managing to, adjustments, which would likely occur at inconsistent frequencies. By contrast, under the final rule, adjustments would be known ahead of time and be made pursuant to an established periodic cadence, which would be expected to simplify planning for, and management of, future threshold adjustments.
The proposal provided that the FDIC would, every two years, publish a
Some commenters supported the use of automatic adjustments to index the thresholds generally, though they did not refer specifically to the direct referencing of an index as described above. One commenter suggested that automatic adjustments offer transparency and predictability, reducing administrative burden for both banks and regulators. Other commenters indicated that automatic adjustments help ensure that community banks are not unfairly burdened by preventing thresholds from remaining artificially low and imposing undue burden on banks that present low risk to the financial system.
As described in the proposal, the direct reference approach would have the advantage of enhancing the automation, which could help contribute to a relatively more streamlined adjustment process. However, this approach may be less clear for members of the public or regulated entities. Additionally, while the FDIC could post the thresholds on its website, the revised threshold amounts would not be codified in the
The FDIC has carefully considered all comments received and is finalizing the indexing methodology for future threshold adjustments as proposed, with a modification to the effective date of future adjustments, as discussed in section III.B.3.ii of this
As discussed above, the FDIC recognizes there may be certain advantages of alternative approaches to periodically adjust thresholds, as described by commenters. However, the final rule provides for a consistent and predictable approach that specifically targets price levels to ensure dollar thresholds remain relatively consistent, in real terms, over time. The indexing methodology included in the final rule enhances transparency and certainty by providing institutions with a pre-determined schedule for future threshold changes. Further, these automatic adjustments will help preserve thresholds' intended scope of application and their alignment with intended policy objectives over time. Accordingly, the indexing methodology contributes to a more durable regulatory framework while avoiding the undesirable and unintended outcome where the scope of applicability for a regulatory requirement changes over time due solely to inflation.
In a change from the proposal, which provided for an April 1 effective date for future threshold adjustments, the final rule provides that such adjustments will take effect on October 1. This change is intended to align the effective date with the start date of fiscal years for the majority of IDIs, most of which have fiscal years beginning on October 1 or January 1. The final rule also includes a provision that expressly permits an IDI's appropriate Federal banking agency to exercise discretion to provide exemptive relief to an IDI whose asset size is likely to be below a relevant threshold following a forthcoming threshold adjustment that is scheduled to occur during the IDI's current fiscal year.
Part 363 measures the total consolidated assets of an IDI as of the beginning of its fiscal year to determine the applicability of filing and other compliance requirements under part 363, and IDIs have adopted a variety of dates as the start of their fiscal years. As a result, adjusting thresholds as of any specific date would impact IDIs differently, depending on the start of the IDI's fiscal year. For example, if the rule used January 1 as the date for threshold adjustments, an IDI with a fiscal year beginning on October 1 would immediately commence or continue certain part 363 compliance obligations as of that date, even though the IDI may be removed from the scope of such requirements for future fiscal years when the applicability threshold is adjusted a few months later in January. If an IDI expects to be subject to part 363 requirements as of the start of the fiscal year, the IDI may begin work to engage with an independent public accountant, to establish and/or maintain an adequate internal control structure and procedures over financial reporting, and to comply with audit committee composition requirements.
The final rule adopts two modifications to reduce the potential for undue compliance burden resulting from the beginning of an IDI's fiscal year not coinciding with the effective date of a future threshold adjustment. First, the final rule adopts an October 1 effective date for future threshold adjustments to coincide as closely as possible with the fiscal years of the majority of IDIs. Second, if an IDI likely will no longer be subject to a part 363 requirement as a result of a threshold adjustment that is scheduled to occur during the IDI's current fiscal year, the final rule includes a provision that expressly permits the IDI's appropriate Federal banking agency to exercise discretion to provide exemptive relief to the IDI.
While policy considerations related to part 363 motivated the FDIC to change the effective date of future part 363 adjustments, the FDIC has decided, for simplicity, to make future adjustments for all thresholds in this final rule effective as of October 1 in the applicable year.
The FDIC is also finalizing a two-year period as the default period for future adjustments and is selecting the CPI-W data series as close to the adjustment date as possible. The first future adjustment will be effective on October 1, 2027, using the CPI-W data through August 30, 2027, relative to the baseline. Future adjustments after October 1, 2027, will be made as of October 1 on a two-year cadence, with the target threshold being calculated based on cumulative CPI-W data through August of the year in which the adjustment is made, relative to the same initial baseline.
The final rule updates certain dollar thresholds within the FDIC's regulations to account for the effects of inflation since the thresholds were first implemented or most recently amended. It also establishes an indexing methodology to preserve these thresholds in real terms going forward. To estimate the expected scope, benefits, and costs of each amendment, the FDIC compared projected outcomes under the final rule to a baseline scenario defined by the dollar thresholds in the FDIC's current regulations.
The final rule is expected to affect IDIs of varying sizes and business models, as well as individuals and entities that interact with the FDIC in applications, filings, or asset
•
•
•
•
•
•
This section provides the FDIC's estimates of the number of institutions and other entities that may be directly affected by the threshold updates under the final rule. Table 2 summarizes the estimated changes in covered entities relative to current regulations. These estimates rely on available supervisory and application data, historical filing volumes, and conservative assumptions. Across all parts of the FDIC's regulations, the threshold updates in the final rule are expected to reduce the number of institutions subject to certain compliance obligations under parts 303, 335, and 363, and increase the number of entities eligible to engage in specific activities under parts 340 and 380. The largest numerical change in impacted entities will occur under part 363, where higher asset thresholds are expected to reduce the applicable regulatory requirements on several hundred IDIs.
Section 303.227 establishes
Section 335.801 requires disclosure of extensions of credit to insiders in excess of certain thresholds. The final rule raises the current threshold of $5 million to $10 million.
Section 340 restricts certain individuals and entities from purchasing failed-bank assets if they caused a “substantial loss” to an institution. The final rule raises the minimum threshold for “substantial loss” from $50,000 to $100,000. Based on historical annual PEC340 submissions from 2019 through 2023, the FDIC estimates approximately 140 submissions annually under the baseline. The volume of submissions in future periods depends on financial and economic conditions and the volume and characteristics of failed bank assets, among other conditions, all of which are difficult to predict. For analytical purposes, the FDIC assumes that the 100 percent increase in the threshold corresponds to a proportional increase in submissions as a result of the final rule, yielding an estimate of 280 unique entities annually. The FDIC acknowledges uncertainty regarding the degree to which the updated threshold will change the volume of submissions.
Section 347.111 establishes maximum thresholds for (a) aggregate underwriting commitments and (b) the equity securities held for distribution and dealing by foreign organizations held by insured State nonmember banks. The final rule doubles the current limits of $60 million and $30 million to $120 million and $60 million, respectively. Based on data from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council 's National Information Center (NIC), the FDIC identified 30 IDIs with foreign subsidiaries, of which five are State nonmember banks subject to part 347. Given information gaps on business activity, the FDIC conservatively assumes all five banks would be affected.
Part 363 contains multiple dollar value thresholds tied to an IDI's total consolidated assets as of the beginning of an IDI's most recent fiscal year
• Updates the general applicability threshold from $500 million to $1 billion in total assets, removing 778 IDIs from the scope of 12 CFR 363.1(a).
• Updates the total assets thresholds related to ICFR assessment from $1 billion or more to $5 billion or more, removing 727 IDIs from the scope of 12 CFR 363.2(b)(3) and 12 CFR 363.3(b).
• Updates the applicable thresholds for minimum audit committee requirements under 12 CFR 363.5(a)(2) for IDIs between $500 million to $1 billion in total assets to IDIs between $1 billion to $5 billion, removing a net of 51 IDIs from scope; and under 12 CFR 363.5(a)(1) for IDIs between $1 billion and $5 billion in total assets, removing 727 IDIs from scope.
• Updates the $3 billion threshold for additional audit committee requirements to $5 billion, removing 123 IDIs from the scope of 12 CFR 363.5(b).
• Updates the $100,000 compensation threshold for independent directors under Guideline 28(a)(4) to $120,000.
Part 380 restricts persons who participated in a transaction that caused a substantial loss to a covered financial company under part 380 from acquiring any assets of a covered financial company under part 380. The final rule raises the minimum threshold of a “substantial loss” from $50,000 to $100,000. As previously discussed, the FDIC would receive PECs under part 380 only if it has been appointed receiver for a covered financial company. Based on internal data, the FDIC estimates 66 PEC submissions annually under the baseline.
The final rule also implements an indexing methodology that reflects inflation to make future automatic adjustments to most thresholds discussed above.
The threshold updates in the final rule are intended to help preserve certain threshold levels in the FDIC's regulations in real terms to help maintain their intended application and policy objectives. The FDIC expects that the overall effect will reduce unnecessary compliance burden for IDIs, other financial institutions, and certain persons.
Updating
Updating the materiality threshold for insider credit disclosures from $5 million to $10 million would likely reduce the number of disclosures for the estimated nine affected IDIs. This change would modestly reduce compliance costs while better aligning reporting requirements with the threshold level related to insider indebtedness in real terms. Although fewer transactions would meet the disclosure threshold, the FDIC expects that transparency into insider relationships of supervisory concern would be preserved. Overall, the FDIC views this as a modest refinement that reduces unnecessary reporting without diminishing oversight effectiveness.
Updating the minimum threshold for “substantial loss” from $50,000 to $100,000 is expected to allow for more individuals and entities to be eligible to purchase assets from failed institutions, increasing competition and potentially raising bid prices. This would benefit the DIF by improving recoveries. A potential cost is a modest increase in the risk of sales to less-qualified buyers, but oversight processes remain in place to mitigate this risk.
Updating underwriting and dealing limits for foreign subsidiaries may permit State nonmember banks to engage in larger or more complex cross-border transactions and improve competitiveness with foreign institutions. These actions may then result in additional compliance obligations for the State nonmember bank from foreign regulatory regimes. However, these costs are expected to be modest relative to the institutions' overall operating expenses and are likely to be one-time or short-term in nature, reflecting transitional adjustments rather than ongoing burdens. Moreover, because participation in such activities remains discretionary and market-driven, IDIs are likely to undertake them only when the expected returns outweigh these rather incremental compliance costs.
The most substantial effects of the final rule are associated with part 363, where updated asset thresholds are expected to significantly reduce the number of IDIs subject to independent audit and reporting requirements. Approximately 778 IDIs with assets between $500 million and $1 billion, 727 IDIs with assets between $1 billion and $5 billion, and 123 IDIs with assets between $3 billion to $5 billion would see reduced compliance obligations. These changes would lower audit-related costs and help preserve certain threshold levels in the FDIC's regulations in real terms to help maintain their intended application and policy objectives. While fewer mid-sized IDIs would be subject to audit and reporting requirements, oversight of the largest and most complex institutions would remain unchanged. Additionally, to the extent that the appropriate Federal banking agency exercises its discretion to provide exemptive relief to IDIs, as described above, such relief may further attenuate compliance costs. The FDIC does not expect these cost savings to be outweighed by any significant increase in the risk profile of IDIs generally or any expected losses to the DIF. As discussed above, the largest IDIs would see no change in requirements. Due to the tailored and measured approach taken to the update of thresholds contained in part 363, the FDIC concludes these changes do not significantly increase risk to the DIF.
As with part 340, updating the minimum threshold for “substantial loss” under part 380 would expand eligibility, increasing the number of bidders for failed covered financial company assets. This could improve asset recovery values. A potential cost is the inclusion of some less-qualified buyers, though oversight mechanisms are expected to limit this risk.
Across all parts of the FDIC's regulations, the threshold updates provided by the final rule are expected to reduce compliance obligations for many smaller institutions while expanding eligibility for certain activities under parts 340 and 380. Table 2 shows that the largest scope of affected entities arises from the amendments to part 363, where the final rule would result in hundreds of IDIs no longer expected to be subject to enhanced audit and ICFR requirements. Overall, the FDIC expects the changes to result in reductions in regulatory burden.
The final rule is expected to yield positive net benefits by:
• Reducing compliance burden for hundreds of smaller and mid-sized IDIs.
• Helping preserve threshold levels in the FDIC's regulations in real terms to help maintain their intended application and policy objectives.
• Enhancing market participation in asset sales, which could improve recoveries to the DIF.
Any potential costs, such as marginal reductions in the frequency of reporting or supervisory review, are expected to be limited in scope and outweighed by the benefits of restoring and preserving threshold levels with their intended application.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires an agency to publish a substantive rule not less than 30 days before its effective date, except when an agency otherwise publishes in the final rule good cause for providing for an earlier effective date.
The final rule updates for inflation the dollar thresholds used to determine the applicability of certain regulatory requirements, immediately relieving affected institutions and individuals of reporting and compliance burdens. Delaying the effective date of the final rule would impose unnecessary and avoidable costs on regulated institutions and affected individuals. Specifically, a delayed effective date could force institutions that would no longer be subject to the revised thresholds to unnecessarily continue expending resources to meet requirements to which they would no longer be subject. The delayed effective date is both unnecessary and contrary to the public interest because it perpetuates costs of regulatory compliance that serve no prudential purposes. In addition, immediate effectiveness will promote clarity and certainty for affected institutions as they plan compliance activities for upcoming reporting and examination cycles.
Accordingly, the FDIC finds that a delayed effective date is both unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Therefore, the final rule is effective as of the date set forth under the
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, the Office of Budget and Management (OMB) makes a determination as to whether a final rule constitutes a “major rule,” defined in the Congressional Review Act as any rule that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the OMB finds has resulted in or is likely to result in (A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; (B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies or geographic regions; or (C) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
OMB has determined the final rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act. Accordingly, the FDIC will submit the report to Congress required by the Congressional Review Act and proposes an effective date for the final rule as set forth under the DATES heading, above.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)
The FDIC will submit the proposed revisions to these information collections to OMB for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA
The final rule updates the threshold for certain offenses under which no application to the FDIC under section 19 of the FDI Act is required. By updating the dollar threshold for the
The final rule updates the thresholds for disclosure requirements for extensions of credit to insiders from in excess of 10 percent of the capital account of an institution or $5 million, whichever is less, to 10 percent of the capital account of an institution or $10 million. Raising this threshold decreases the total information the FDIC requests from the affected respondents; therefore, it is a substantive modification to the previously approved information collection titled “14A Proxy Statements.” As such, the FDIC is required to submit the information collection for review and approval by OMB.
The final rule updates several thresholds in part 363. It raises the general applicability thresholds from $500 million to $1 billion, the ICFR asset threshold from $1 billion to $5 billion, and thresholds related to audit committee composition generally from $500 million to $1 billion, and from $1 billion and $3 billion to $5 billion. By raising the thresholds in part 363, the final rule changes several existing information collections under OMB Control No. 3064-0113 by changing the number of respondents or changing the reporting requirements. Accordingly, the FDIC will revise the categories of the existing information collections to better align with proposed rule's updated thresholds. The updated burden estimates and the information collection categories are as follows:
Based on the final rule, the FDIC estimates a total annual burden for OMB Control No. 3064-0113 of 106,718 hours, resulting in a burden decrease of 31,496 hours from the most recent PRA renewal.
The final rule updates the “substantial loss” threshold in 12 CFR 380.13 by raising the existing threshold from $50,000 to $100,000. Raising this threshold decreases the total information the FDIC requests from the affected respondents; therefore, it is a substantive modification to the previously approved information collection titled “Covered Financial Company Asset Sales Purchaser Eligibility Certification.”
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires that an agency, in connection with a final rule, to prepare and make available for public comment a final regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of the final rule on small entities.
To evaluate the impact of this final rule on small entities, this analysis considers all relevant regulations and guidance applicable to these institutions, together with financial data for all IDIs as of the quarter ending June 30, 2025.
Section 303.227 establishes criteria for
To estimate potential effects, the FDIC reviewed the number of section 19 applications received over the period from the beginning of 2023 through June 30, 2025. The FDIC received 13 applications (an average of five annually) submitted by individuals or IDIs.
For the purposes of this analysis the FDIC assumes the number of section 19 applications declines in proportion to the percentage increases in the applicable thresholds. As previously discussed, the final rule increases the
Section 335.801 establishes a threshold for disclosures related to extensions of credit to insiders. As previously discussed, the final rule updates the dollar-based threshold from $5 million to $10 million.
The FDIC identified nine FDIC-supervised IDIs
Section 340 relates to restrictions on the sale of failed bank assets to certain persons that have caused a “substantial loss” to an institution. “Substantial loss” is currently defined as greater than $50,000 in losses, unpaid final judgments, delinquent obligations, or deficiency balance following a foreclosure. As previously discussed, the final rule updates this threshold to greater than $100,000.
Based on historical annual PEC340 submissions from 2019 through 2023, the FDIC receives approximately 140 submissions annually. As discussed in
The FDIC estimates that an entity will incur 30 minutes of labor to submit a PEC340 to the FDIC.
Section 347.111 contains two relevant thresholds applicable to foreign organizations held by uninsured State nonmember banks: the aggregate underwriting commitment limit of $60 million and the distribution and dealing limit of $30 million. As previously discussed, the final rule updates both thresholds to $120 million and $60 million, respectively.
Based on data from the NIC, the FDIC identified five State nonmember banks with foreign subsidiaries subject to these provisions, none of which are classified as small for the purposes of the RFA.
As previously discussed, the final rule updates several dollar thresholds under part 363.
As of December 31, 2024, 556 small IDIs report between $500 million and $1 billion in assets. These institutions would no longer be subject to the requirements under part 363. Based on estimates of 28 hours per year for compliance activities under part 363
Part 380 defines “substantial loss” for restrictions on the sale of failed financial company assets. As previously discussed, the final rule updates this threshold from $50,000 to $100,000.
Based on PEC380 submissions, the FDIC estimates approximately 66 submissions annually. Assuming each is submitted by a unique entity and using the FDIC's previous estimate that 70 percent of all IDIs are small,
The FDIC estimates that an entity will incur 2.5 hours of labor to submit a PEC380 to the FDIC.
As of the quarter ending June 30, 2025, the FDIC insured 4,430 institutions, of which 3,092 are considered small for the purposes of the RFA. As of the same period the FDIC supervised 2,808 institutions, 2,085 are classified as small.
Even assuming each small IDI was simultaneously affected by all applicable provisions, the estimated cumulative annual cost change, approximately $4,097.60 per institution,
Accordingly, the FDIC certifies that this final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and, therefore, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The FDIC invited comments regarding the use of plain language but did not receive any relevant comments. The FDIC sought to clearly state the provisions of the rule in a simple and straightforward manner, using plain language as much as possible.
Section 302 of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (RCDRIA) requires that the Federal banking agencies, including the FDIC, in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements of new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on IDIs, consider, consistent with principles of safety and soundness and the public interest, any administrative burdens that such regulations would place on depository institutions, including small depository institutions, and customers of depository institutions, as well as the benefit of such regulations. New regulations and amendments to regulations prescribed by a Federal banking agency that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other new requirements on IDI shall take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter that begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form, with certain exceptions, including for good cause.
The final rule does not impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other new requirements on IDIs. As such, the provisions of RCDRIA do not apply to the FDIC's determination of the final rule's effective date.
Under Executive Order 12866, as affirmed and supplemented by Executive Order 13563, “significant regulatory actions” are subject to review by OMB.
The FDIC has submitted this regulatory action to OMB for review. OMB has determined the rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. For more information on the analysis conducted in connection with Executive Order 12866, refer to other sections of this
Executive Order 14192 directs agencies, unless prohibited by law, to identify at least 10 existing regulations to be repealed when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation with total costs greater than zero. Executive Order 14192 further requires that new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations. An Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action is an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero. This final rule is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.
Administrative practice and procedure, Bank deposit insurance, Banks, banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
Accounting, Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Bank deposit insurance, Banks, banking, Brokers, Confidential business information, Credit, Foreign banking, Holding companies, Insurance, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Securities, Trusts and trustees.
Accounting, Banks, banking, Confidential business information, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Banks, banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority delegations (Government agencies), Bank deposit insurance, Banks, banking, Credit, Foreign banking, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, U.S. investments abroad.
Accounting, Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Brokers, Holding companies, Insurance, Investments, Trusts and trustees.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation amends 12 CFR chapter III as follows:
12 U.S.C. 378, 1464, 1813, 1815, 1817, 1818, 1819(a) (Seventh and Tenth), 1820, 1823, 1828, 1829, 1831a, 1831e, 1831o, 1831p-1, 1831w, 1835a, 1843(l), 3104, 3105, 3108, 3207, 5414, 5415, and 15 U.S.C. 1601-1607.
12 U.S.C. 378, 1464, 1813, 1815, 1817, 1818, 1819, 1819(a) (Seventh and Tenth), 1820, 1821(p), 1823, 1828, 1829, 1831a, 1831e, 1831m, 1831o, 1831p-1, 1831w, 1835a, 1843(l), 3103, 3104, 3105, 3108, 3109, 3207, 5385(h), 5389, 5390(s)(3), 5390(b)(1)(C), 5390(a)(7)(D), 5381(b), 5390(r), 5390(a)(16)(D), 5414, 5415, and 15 U.S.C. 78j-1, 78l(i), 78m, 78n, 78p, 78w, U.S.C. 1601-1607, 5412, 5414, 5415, 7241, 7242, 7243, 7244, 7261, 7262, 7264, and 7265; Pub L. No. 111-203, section 939A, 124 Stat. 1376, 1887 (July 21, 2010) (codified 15 U.S.C. 78o-7 note).
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(c)
(1) Section 303.227(a)(2) of this chapter, baseline threshold value $3,500;
(2) Section 303.227(b)(3)(i) of this chapter, baseline threshold value $1,225;
(3) Section 335.801(d) of this chapter, baseline threshold value $10,000,000;
(4) Section 340.2(h)(1) of this chapter, baseline threshold value $100,000;
(5) Section 340.2(h)(2) of this chapter, baseline threshold value $100,000;
(6) Section 340.2(h)(3) of this chapter, baseline threshold value $100,000;
(7) Section 340.2(h)(4) of this chapter, baseline threshold value $100,000;
(8) Section 347.111(a)(1) of this chapter, baseline threshold value $120,000,000;
(9) Section 347.111(b)(1) of this chapter, baseline threshold value $60,000,000;
(10) Section 363.1(a) of this chapter, baseline threshold value $1,000,000,000;
(11) Section 363.2(b)(3) of this chapter, baseline threshold value $5,000,000,000;
(12) Section 363.3(b) of this chapter, baseline threshold value $5,000,000,000;
(13) Section 363.4(a)(2) of this chapter, baseline threshold value $5,000,000,000;
(14) Section 363.4(c)(3) of this chapter, baseline threshold value $5,000,000,000;
(15) Section 363.5(a)(1) of this chapter, baseline threshold value $5,000,000,000;
(16) Both thresholds in § 363.5(a)(2) of this chapter, baseline threshold values of $1,000,000,000 or more but less than $5,000,000,000;
(17) Section 363.5(b) of this chapter, baseline threshold value $5,000,000,000;
(18) Both thresholds in paragraph (8)(A) of appendix A of part 363 of this chapter, baseline threshold value $5,000,000,000;
(19) Paragraph (10) of appendix A of part 363 of this chapter, baseline threshold value $5,000,000,000;
(20) Paragraph (18)A of appendix A of part 363 of this chapter, baseline threshold value $5,000,000,000;
(21) All three thresholds in paragraph (27) of appendix A of part 363 of this chapter, with the first baseline threshold value being $5,000,000,000 or more and the second and third baseline threshold values being $1,000,000,000 or more but less than $5,000,000;
(22) Paragraph (30)(b) of appendix A of part 363 of this chapter, baseline threshold value $5,000,000,000;
(23) Both thresholds in paragraph (30)(c) of appendix A of part 363 of this chapter, baseline threshold value $1,000,000,000 or more but less than $5,000,000,000;
(24) Paragraph (35)(a) of appendix A of part 363 of this chapter, baseline threshold value $1,000,000,000;
(25) Paragraph (35)(b) of appendix A of part 363 of this chapter, baseline threshold value $5,000,000,000;
(26) Paragraph (35)(c) of appendix A of part 363 of this chapter, baseline threshold value $5,000,000,000;
(27) Paragraph 2(b) of appendix B of part 363 of this chapter, baseline threshold value $5,000,000,000;
(28) Section 380.13(b)(6)(i) of this chapter, baseline threshold value $100,000;
(29) Section 380.13(b)(6)(ii) of this chapter, baseline threshold value $100,000;
(30) Section 380.13(b)(6)(iii) of this chapter, baseline threshold value $100,000; and
(31) Section 380.13(b)(6)(iv) of this chapter, baseline threshold value $100,000.
(d)
(e)
(f)
12 U.S.C. 1819, 15 U.S.C. 78j-1, 78l(i), 78m, 78n, 78p, 78w, 5412, 5414, 5415, 7241, 7242, 7243, 7244, 7261, 7262, 7264, and 7265.
12 U.S.C. 1819 (Tenth), 1821(p).
12 U.S.C. 1813, 1815, 1817, 1819, 1820, 1828, 3103, 3104, 3105, 3108, 3109; Pub L. No. 111-203, section 939A, 124 Stat. 1376, 1887 (July 21, 2010) (codified 15 U.S.C. 78o-7 note).
12 U.S.C. 1831m.
If an insured depository institution likely will no longer be subject to a requirement of this part as a result of the application of a threshold adjusted in accordance with § 314.1 of this chapter that is scheduled to occur during the insured depository institution's current fiscal year, the appropriate Federal banking agency with respect to the insured depository institution may exercise discretion to not require compliance from the insured depository institution with respect to such requirement as of the beginning of the insured depository institution's current fiscal year. If the insured depository institution's total assets exceed such a threshold subsequent to the threshold adjustment occurring, the insured depository institution would be required to comply with the relevant requirement notwithstanding this section, unless the appropriate Federal banking agency again drew the same conclusion with respect to a future threshold adjustment.
12 U.S.C. 5385(h); 12 U.S.C. 5389; 12 U.S.C. 5390(s)(3); 12 U.S.C. 5390(b)(1)(C); 12 U.S.C. 5390(a)(7)(D); 12 U.S.C. 5381(b); 12 U.S.C. 5390(r); 12 U.S.C. 5390(a)(16)(D).
By order of the Board of Directors.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is revising the permanent security zone of the Coast Guard Base San Juan in San Juan, Puerto Rico. This security zone is necessary to protect the public and the Coast Guard base from potential subversive acts. This rulemaking prohibits entry of vessels or persons into this security zone extending 200 feet seaward from the water's edge of the Coast Guard Base San Juan unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector San Juan or their designated representative.
This rule is effective January 5, 2026.
To view available documents go to
If you have questions about this rule, contact Lieutenant Commander Rachel E. Thomas, Sector San Juan, Waterways Management Division Chief, Coast Guard; telephone (571) 613-1417, email
The Coast Guard docking facilities at Base San Juan in La Puntilla Old San Juan, Puerto Rico are home to several Coast Guard cutters and Coast Guard small boats. The Coast Guard base has experienced a number of potential threat incidents, including unknown vessels mooring up to the Coast Guard piers and suspected photography surveillance by unknown individuals located near the Coast Guard base. These incidents pose a potential threat to national security and could lead to subversive acts against the personnel or equipment located at the Coast Guard base. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector San Juan has determined that potential threats associated with the access of unknown individuals to Base San Juan is a safety concern for anyone within 200 feet of the water's edge of the Coast Guard Base San Juan. This final rule reduces the existing security zone for Coast Guard Base San Juan described in 33 CFR 165.776 so it does not encroach on the navigable channel. The rule sustains a sufficient security zone to address the potential threat to national security by prohibiting all persons and vessels from entering in, transiting through or remaining in a security zone extending within 200 feet of the water's edge of the Coast Guard Base San Juan.
On July 30, 2025, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NRPM) titled, “Security Zone; Base San Juan, San Juan, PR” (90 FR 35839). In that NRPM, we stated why we issued the NRPM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this security zone amendment.
Under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70051 and 70124, the COTP has determined that this rule is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, the marine environment, and the Coast Guard base from potential subversive acts. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative.
During the comment period that ended on August 29, 2025, we received one comment. The commenter supported the establishment of the security zone but asked why we chose 120 yards. The COTP San Juan has reevaluated this distance and determined that the proposed 120-yard zone was inconsistent with the proposed latitude and longitude coordinates and would encroach upon the navigable channel. Therefore, the final rule will implement a 200-foot security zone for the reasons set forth below. The commenter expressed support for the use of proper signage, barriers, or other appropriate boundaries to prevent inadvertent crossings. Barriers and boundaries will not be installed as they could interfere with operations. The revised security zone has been reduced in size and no longer encroaches upon the navigable channel, thereby minimizing the risk of inadvertent crossings. Further, the final rule establishes a uniform distance of 200 feet from the water's edge of Coast Guard Base San Juan, which is anticipated to be more intuitive for mariners.
The final rule also corrects two typographical errors in the NPRM proposed regulatory text by: (1) Eliminating the duplicate phrase “Security Zone;” in the title; and (2) correcting the name of “Sector San Juan” in the final sentence of the regulatory text, as the word “San” was inadvertently omitted in the NPRM.
This rule establishes a security zone extending 200 feet seaward from the water's edge of the base. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the security zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative. The regulatory text appears at the end of this document.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
The Coast Guard certifies that, although some small entities may intend to transit the security zone above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as mandated by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612 for the following reasons. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this security zone. This security zone will only impact a small, designated area and only extends 200 feet from Base San Juan.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is a security zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP Sector San Juan or a designated by telephone at (787) 289-2041, or via VHF-FM channel 16 to request authorization. Those in the security zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP Sector San Juan or the designated representative.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Final rule.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is announcing that interim final rule (IFR) 0920-AA75, which amended its Foreign Quarantine regulations during the COVID-19 public health emergency, has expired.
This final rule is effective December 4, 2025. The interim final rule expired on November 21, 2025.
Ashley C. Altenburger, J.D., Division of Global Migration Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-H16-4, Atlanta, Georgia 30329. Telephone: 1-800-232-4636.
On February 7, 2020, HHS/CDC published an interim final rule (IFR) (85 FR 7874) which amended 42 CFR 71.4 by adding two new paragraphs, (d) and (e). These paragraphs enabled CDC to require airlines to collect, and provide to CDC, certain data regarding passengers and crew arriving from foreign countries for the purposes of health education, treatment, prophylaxis, or other appropriate public health interventions, including travel restrictions. At the time, HHS and CDC determined that, given the exigent and rapidly emerging circumstances associated with the 2019-nCoV outbreak, it would have been impracticable and contrary to the public health and, thus, to the public interest, to delay putting these provisions in place until a full public notice-and-comment process had been completed. The IFR indicated that the terms of the rule would expire “on the earlier of (1) the date that is two incubation periods after the last known case of 2019-nCoV, or (2) when the Secretary determines there is no longer a need for this interim final rule.”
The Federal Public Health Emergency for COVID-19 expired on May 11, 2023. The HHS Secretary has now determined that there is no longer a need for this interim final rule. Therefore, paragraphs
Apprehension, Communicable diseases, Conditional release, CDC, Ill person, Isolation, Non-invasive, Public health emergency, Public health prevention measures, Qualifying stage, Quarantine, Quarantinable, Communicable disease.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services, on behalf of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, amends 42 CFR part 71 as follows:
Secs. 215 and 311 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 216, 243); secs. 361-369, PHS Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 264-272).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the State of North Carolina is transferring a portion of its 2025 commercial summer flounder quota to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 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 North Carolina and Massachusetts.
Effective December 3, 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
North Carolina is transferring 1,801 pounds (lb; 817 kilograms (kg)) of summer flounder to Massachusetts 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 on September 9, 2025. The revised summer flounder quotas for 2025 are: North Carolina, 2,332,603 lb (1,058,051 kg); and Massachusetts, 596,041 lb (270,360 kg).
On November 7, 2025, NMFS announced that the 2025 summer flounder commercial quota for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has been harvested (90 FR 50490). Effective 0001 hours November 7, 2025, through December 31, 2025, landings of summer flounder in Massachusetts by vessels holding Federal summer flounder commercial fishery permits are prohibited for the remainder of the 2025 calendar year. Further, federally permitted dealers are also notified that they may not purchase summer flounder from federally permitted vessels that land in Massachusetts for the remainder of the calendar year.
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; quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the State of Rhode Island 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 Rhode Island and North Carolina.
Effective December 3, 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
Rhode Island is transferring 50,000 pounds (lb) (22,680 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: Rhode Island, 205,061 lb (93,014 kg) and North Carolina, 1,322,012 lb (599,655 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; possession limit adjustment.
NMFS is implementing a 2,000-pound (lb; 907.2-kilogram (kg)) possession limit for Atlantic herring for Management Area 1A. This adjustment is required because NMFS projects that herring catch from Area 1A has reached 92 percent of the Area's sub-annual catch limit before the end of the fishing year. This action is intended to prevent overharvest of herring in Area 1A, which would result in additional catch limit reductions in a subsequent year.
December 2, 2025, through December 31, 2025.
Ashley Trudeau, Fishery Resource Management Specialist, (978) 281-9252.
The Regional Administrator of the Greater Atlantic Regional Office monitors Atlantic herring fishery catch in each Management Area based on vessel and dealer reports, state data, and other available information. Regulations at 50 CFR 648.201(a)(1)(i)(A) require implementation of a 2,000-lb (907.2-kg) possession limit for herring for Area 1A when catch is projected to reach 92 percent of the sub-annual catch limit (ACL) for that area. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act provides authority to implement the possession limit only to the Secretary of Commerce, which has been delegated to the Regional Administrator.
Based on vessel reports, dealer reports, and other available information the Regional Administrator estimates that the herring fleet caught 102 percent of the Area 1A sub-ACL through November 26, 2025. Therefore, unless otherwise changed by subsequent action, effective 0001 hr local time December 2, 2025, through December 31, 2025, a person may not attempt or do any of the following: fish for; possess; transfer; purchase; receive; land; or sell more than 2,000 lb of herring per trip or more than once per calendar day in or from Area 1A.
Vessels that enter port before 0001 hr local time on December 2, 2025, may land and sell more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring from Area 1A from that trip, provided that the catch is landed in accordance with state management measures. Vessels may transit or land in Area 1A with more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring on board, provided that: the herring were caught in an area not subject to a 2,000-lb (907.2-kg) limit; all fishing gear is stowed and not available for immediate use; and the vessel is issued a permit appropriate to the amount of herring on board and the area where the herring was harvested.
Also, unless otherwise changed by subsequent action, effective 0001 hr local time, December 2, 2025, through 2400 hr local time, December 31, federally permitted dealers may not attempt or do any of the following: purchase; receive; possess; have custody or control of; sell; barter; trade; or transfer more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring per trip or calendar day from Area 1A, unless it is from a vessel that enters port before 0001 hr local time on December 2, 2025, and catch is landed in accordance with state management measures.
On June 25, 2025, NMFS proposed new 2025-2027 herring specifications, which, if they become final, would increase the 2025 ACL and sub-ACLs, including the Area 1A sub-ACL (90 FR 26955). If appropriate, the 2,000-lb possession limit for Area 1A would be lifted until 92 percent of the new 2025 Area 1A sub-ACL is projected to be caught, including all 2025 Area 1A catch harvested prior to implementation of the new specifications.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. It is required by 50 CFR part 648, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
NMFS finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it is unnecessary, contrary to the public interest, and impracticable.
The 2025 herring fishing year began on January 1, 2025, and Management Area 1A opened to fishing on July 27, 2025. The first 2025 Management Area 1A possession limit adjustment was implemented on August 6, 2025 when over 99 percent of the Area 1A sub-ACL was projected to be caught. Because the New Brunswick weir fishery landed less than 2,722 mt of herring through October 1, 2025, 1,000 mt were subtracted from the management uncertainty buffer and reallocated to the herring ACL and Area 1A sub-ACL (90 FR 51570, August 18, 2025). This re-allocation allowed Area 1A to briefly re-open until 92 percent of the adjusted Area 1A was projected to be caught. High-volume catch and landings in this fishery can increase total catch relative to the sub-ACL quickly, especially in this fishing year where annual catch limits are unusually low. If implementation of this possession limit adjustment is delayed to solicit prior public comment, the 2025 sub-ACL for Area 1A will likely be exceeded; thereby undermining the conservation objectives of the Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP). If sub-ACLs are exceeded, the excess must be deducted from a future sub-ACL and would reduce future fishing opportunities. The public expects these actions to occur in a timely way consistent with the FMP's objectives. For the reasons stated above, NMFS also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Leonardo S.p.A. Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of interference found in the overhead panel area between the electrical cables and adjacent connectors. This proposed AD would require repetitively inspecting the overhead panel and, depending on the results, repairing or replacing the damaged wires. This proposed AD would also require modifying the overhead panel on certain helicopters. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by January 20, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this proposed AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
Michael Yeshiambel, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (316) 946-4190; 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
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 Michael Yeshiambel, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2025-0094, dated April 24, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0094) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on Leonardo S.p.A. Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. The MCAI states a report of interference was found in the overhead panel area between the electrical cables and adjacent connectors. This interference, if not addressed, could lead to the chafing of the electrical cables which could lead to a fire in the overhead panel with consequent loss of control of the helicopter.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0094, which specifies procedures for repetitively inspecting the overhead panel for interference, condition of the protective tape, and chafing of the cables. EASA AD 2025-0094 also specifies procedures for certain
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
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority (CAA) 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 on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA 2025-0094, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. See “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI” for a discussion of the general differences included in this proposed AD.
Where the MCAI specifies contacting Leonardo S.p.A for repair instructions or corrective actions, this proposed AD would require using a method approved by the FAA, EASA, or Leonardo S.p.A Helicopters' EASA Design Organization Approval.
EASA AD 2025-0094 specifies reporting the inspection results to Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, where this proposed AD would not include that action.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some 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 incorporates EASA AD 2025-0094 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2025-0094 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2025-0094 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2025-0094. Material required in EASA AD 2025-0094 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 121 helicopters of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The actions needed as a result of any cables that cannot be repaired could vary significantly from helicopter to helicopter. The FAA has no way of determining the costs to accomplish the repairs or the number of helicopters that may require repair.
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 January 20, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to Leonardo S.p.A. Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2497, Electrical Power System Wiring.
This AD was prompted by a report of interference found in the overhead panel area between the electrical cables and adjacent connectors. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and address chaffing of the electrical cables. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in chafing of the electrical cables which could lead to a fire in the overhead panel with consequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency AD 2025-0094, dated April 24, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0094).
(1) Where EASA AD 2025-0094 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where EASA AD 2025-0094 requires compliance in terms of flight hours, this AD requires using hours time-in-service.
(3) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2025-0094 specifies “If, during the inspection as required by paragraph (1) of this AD, any discrepancy is detected, as identified in the ASB (Alert Service Bulletin), before next flight, accomplish the applicable corrective action(s) in accordance with the instructions of Part I,” this AD requires replacing that text with “If, during the inspection as required by paragraph (1) of this AD, any discrepancy is detected, as identified in Part I of the ASB, before next flight, accomplish the applicable corrective action(s) in accordance with the instructions of Part I of the ASB.”
(4) Where paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2025-0094 specifies “If, during any inspection as required by paragraph (2) of this AD, any discrepancy is detected, as identified in the ASB,” this AD requires replacing that text with “If, during any inspection as required by paragraph (2) of this AD, any discrepancy is detected, as identified in Part II of the ASB.”
(5) Where the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0094 specifies to contact “LHD Product Support Engineering” for repair instructions, this AD requires using a method approved by the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters' EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature”.
(6) Where the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0094 specifies “if necessary, use a mirror and a source of light to completely inspect the area”, this AD requires replacing that text with “Use a mirror and light source to inspect the area”.
(7) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2025-0094.
Although EASA AD 2025-0094 specifies reporting certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
(1) The Manager, International Validation 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 local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD and email to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Michael Yeshiambel, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (316) 946-4190; 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0094, dated April 24, 2025.
(ii) Reserved
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(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).
This action proposes to establish and amend the Class E airspace at South Bend, IN. The name and geographic coordinates of the South Bend International Airport, South Bend, IN, would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of airspace reviews conducted due to the decommissioning of the Keeler very high frequency omnidirectional range (VOR) as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. This action would bring the airspace into compliance with FAA orders and support instrument flight rule (IFR) procedures and operations.
Comments must be received on or before January 20, 2026.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2025-5136 and Airspace Docket No. 25-AGL-18 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish and amend Class E airspace at the affected airports to support IFR operations.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Class E airspace is published in paragraphs 6002, 6003, 6004, and 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These updates would be published subsequently in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 that would modify the Class E surface airspace; establish a Class E extension to Class C airspace; establish a Class E extension to a Class E surface area; and modify the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface at South Bend, Indiana, due to airspace reviews conducted as part of the decommissioning of the Keeler VOR as part of the VOR MON Program.
For the South Bend International Airport, South Bend, IN, Class E surface area, the proposal would: (1) update the name of the airport from Michiana Regional Transportation Center Airport to South Bend International Airport and update the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; (2) remove the city associated with the airport from the airspace legal description header to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2R, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; (3) add the Chain-O-Lakes Airport to the airspace legal description header as it was previously omitted; and (4) update the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” to “Chart Supplement.”
The proposal would establish a Class E extension to Class C airspace at South Bend International Airport extending upward from the surface within 2 miles each side of the 179° bearing from the airport extending from the 5-mile radius of the airport to 9.7 miles south of the airport.
The proposal would establish a Class E extension to a Class E surface area at South Bend International Airport extending upward from the surface within 2 miles each side of the 179° bearing from the airport extending from the 5-mile radius of the airport to 9.7 miles south of the airport.
For the South Bend International Airport Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface, the proposal would: (1) decrease the radius from 8 miles to 7.5 miles; (2) amend the east extension to within 4 miles (decreased from 4.4 miles) south and 8 miles (increased from 7 miles) north of the 089° bearing from the South Bend INTL: RWY 27L-LOC (previously South Bend ILS Localizer East Course) extending from the 7.5-mile radius of the airport (previously South Bend Regional Airport) to 10 miles (decreased from 10.5 miles) east of the airport (previously Misha outer marker); (3) add an extension within 2 miles each side of the 179° bearing from the airport
And for the Jerry Tyler Memorial Airport, Niles, MI, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface, contained in the South Bend, IN, airspace legal description, the proposal would: (1) increase the radius from 6.4 miles to 6.9 miles; and (2) remove the city associated with the airport in the airspace legal description header to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2R.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Within a 5-mile radius of the South Bend International Airport, excluding that airspace within a 1-mile radius of the Chain-O-Lakes Airport and excluding that airspace 1 mile either side of the 214° bearing from the Chain-O-Lakes Airport to the 5-mile radius of the South Bend International Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2 miles each side of the 179° bearing from the airport extending from the 5-mile radius of the airport to 9.7 miles south of the airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2 miles each side of the 179° bearing from the airport extending from the 5-mile radius of the airport to 9.7 miles south of the airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.5-mile radius of South Bend International Airport; and within 4 miles south and 8 miles north of the South Bend INTL: RWY 27L-LOC extending from 7.5-mile radius of the South Bend International Airport to 10.5 miles east of the South Bend International Airport; and within 2 miles each side of the 179° bearing from the South Bend International Airport extending from the 7.5-mile radius of the South Bend International Airport to 10.7 miles south of the South Bend International Airport; and within a 6.9-mile radius of Jerry Tyler Memorial Airport.
Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), Library of Congress.
Proposed rule related to certain noncommercial webcasting.
The Copyright Royalty Judges are publishing for comment proposed regulations governing the rates and terms for the digital performance of sound recordings by Educational Media Foundation and for the making of ephemeral recordings necessary for the facilitation of such transmissions for the
Comments and objections, if any, are due January 5, 2026.
You may submit comments using eCRB, the Copyright Royalty Board's online electronic filing application, at
Anita Brown, CRB Program Specialist, at (202) 707-7658 or
Section 114 of the Copyright Act, title 17 of the United States Code, provides a statutory license that allows for the public performance of sound recordings by means of a digital audio transmission by, among others, eligible nonsubscription transmission services. 17 U.S.C. 114(f). For purposes of the section 114 license, an “eligible nonsubscription transmission” is a noninteractive digital audio transmission that does not require a subscription for receiving the transmission. The transmission must also be made as part of a service that provides audio programming consisting in whole or in part of performances of sound recordings the purpose of which is to provide audio or other entertainment programming, but not to sell, advertise, or promote particular goods or services.
Services using the section 114 license may need to make one or more temporary or “ephemeral” copies of a sound recording to facilitate the transmission of that recording. The section 112 statutory license allows for the making of these ephemeral reproductions. 17 U.S.C. 112(e).
Chapter 8 of the Copyright Act requires the Copyright Royalty Judges (“Judges”) to conduct proceedings every five years to determine the rates and terms for the sections 114 and 112 statutory licenses. 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(1), 804(b)(3)(A). The current proceeding commenced in January 2024 for rates and terms that will become effective from January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2030. Pursuant to section 804(b)(3)(A), the Judges published in the
On November 21, 2025, the Judges received a joint motion stating that participants in the indicated proceeding, SoundExchange and NRBMLC (“Settling Parties”), together with EMF, had reached a partial settlement regarding rates and terms for certain internet transmissions and related ephemeral recordings made by EMF for 2026-2030 and seeking approval of that partial settlement. Joint Motion to Adopt Settlement, Docket No. 23-CRB-0012-WR (2026-2030) (Joint Motion to Adopt Settlement) (eCRB no. 77856). The Settling Parties attached the proposed regulations concerning the settlement, as Exhibit A.
Based upon the Judges' review of the Joint Motion to Adopt Settlement and relevant attachments—including the Judges' observation that the Settling Parties include sufficient representations that Exhibit B to the Joint Motion to Adopt Settlement constitutes “their agreement concerning the Settlement”, and that there are no other agreements beyond Exhibit B that represent consideration for, or are contractually related to, the Settlement—the Judges find no reason to doubt that Joint Motion to Adopt Settlement, including the Exhibits A and B, constitutes “the agreement” for purposes of Section 801(b)(7)(A), and that the Joint Motion to Adopt Settlement satisfies Section 801(b)(7)(A). Therefore, the Judges hereby publish the Proposed Regulations and request comment from the public.
The contents of Exhibit A are represented in the Proposed Regulations in this Notice. Exhibit B may be found on pages 15-20 of the Joint Motion to Adopt Settlement.
Section 801(b)(7)(A) of the Copyright Act authorizes the Judges to adopt royalty rates and terms negotiated by “some or all of the participants in a proceeding at any time during the proceeding” provided they are submitted to the Judges for approval. The Judges must provide “an opportunity to comment on the agreement” to participants and non-participants in the rate proceeding who “would be bound by the terms, rates, or other determination set by any agreement. . . .” 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A)(i). Participants in the proceeding may also “object to [the agreement's] adoption as a basis for statutory terms and rates.”
The Judges “may decline to adopt the agreement as a basis for statutory terms and rates for participants that are not parties to the agreement,” only “if any participant [in the proceeding] objects to the agreement and the [Judges] conclude, based on the record before them if one exists, that the agreement does not provide a reasonable basis for setting statutory terms or rates.” 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A)(ii), or where the negotiated agreement includes provisions that are contrary to the provisions of the applicable license(s) or otherwise contrary to statutory law.
Any rates and terms adopted pursuant to this provision would be applicable to all copyright owners of sound recordings and EMF for the license period 2026-2030.
According to the Joint Motion to Adopt Settlement, EMF will make monthly lump sum payments commencing with $593,750 per month ($7,125,000 per year) in 2026 to allow it to make an unlimited number of public performances and related ephemeral recordings under the Sections 112(e) and 114 statutory licenses on non-customized channels. Its payments for 2026 are represented as an increase over what it has been paying in 2025, and after 2026, its payments increase by 4% per year for each year of the rate period. Joint Motion to Adopt Settlement at 2.
The Settlement continues EMF's established prior reporting arrangements, which provide for submission of a single, monthly report of use covering all transmissions made by EMF and its affiliates covered by the Settlement, providing what the parties state are administrative efficiencies to SoundExchange and EMF. The agreement also provides EMF, a nonprofit entity largely reliant on listener donations for its funding, an established, fixed royalty obligation which the parties assert serves to simplify EMF's planning, budgeting and targeted fundraising.
The rates set forth in the Settlement are specific to EMF, which is stated to be the largest noncommercial webcaster relying on the statutory licenses and which pays a large majority of the noncommercial webcaster statutory royalties. Because the Settlement applies to only a single payor, it was submitted to the Judges for adoption as a statutory rate and terms so that it will be binding on all artists and copyright owners, including those that are not members of SoundExchange.
Those who would be bound by the terms, rates, or other determination set by the agreement may comment on, and any participants in the
Copyright, Sound recordings, Webcasters.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Royalty Judges propose to amend 37 CFR part 380 as follows:
17 U.S.C. 112(e), 114(f), 804(b)(3).
For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply:
(1) made by the Licensee;
(2) subject to licensing under 17 U.S.C. 114(d)(2);
(3) transmitted over the internet on a channel or station offered for streaming to any member of the public who chooses to listen and that provides only linear programming that is not personalized to any particular listener.
(1) The Licensee, in relation to the Collective; and
(2) The Collective in relation to a Copyright Owner or Performer.
(1) A performance of a sound recording that does not require a license (
(2) A performance of a sound recording for which the Licensee has previously obtained a license from the Copyright Owner of such sound recording; and
(3) An incidental performance that both:
(i) Makes no more than incidental use of sound recordings including, but not limited to, brief musical transitions in and out of commercials or program segments, brief performances during news, talk and sports programming, brief background performances during disk jockey announcements, brief performances during commercials of sixty seconds or less in duration, or brief performances during sporting or other public events; and
(ii) Does not contain an entire sound recording, other than ambient music that is background at a public event, and does not feature a particular sound recording of more than thirty seconds (as in the case of a sound recording used as a theme song).
(a)
(1) 2026: $7,125,000.00 ($593,750.00 per month);
(2) 2027: $7,410,000.00 ($617,500.00 per month);
(3) 2028: $7,706,400.00 ($642,200.00 per month);
(4) 2029: $8,014,656.00 ($667,888.00 per month); and
(5) 2030: $8,335,242.24 ($694,603.52 per month).
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(e)
(a)
(1) The amount of the royalty payment and the month for which it is submitted;
(2) The name, address, business title, telephone number, facsimile number (if any), electronic mail address (if any) and other contact information of the person to be contacted for information or questions concerning the content of the Statement of Account;
(3) The account number assigned to the Licensee by the Collective for the relevant service offering (if the Licensee has been notified of such account number by the Collective);
(4) The signature of:
(i) The Licensee or a duly authorized agent of the Licensee;
(ii) A partner or delegate if the Licensee is a partnership; or
(iii) An officer of the corporation if the Licensee is a corporation.
(5) The printed or typewritten name of the person signing the Statement of Account;
(6) If the Licensee is a partnership or corporation, the title or official position held in the partnership or corporation by the person signing the Statement of Account;
(7) A certification of the capacity of the person signing;
(8) The date of signature; and
(9) An attestation to the following effect: I, the undersigned owner/officer/partner/agent of the Licensee have examined this Statement of Account and hereby state that it is true, accurate, and complete to my knowledge after reasonable due diligence and that it fairly presents, in all material respects, the liabilities of the Licensee pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 112(e) and 114 and applicable regulations adopted under those sections.
(b)
(a)
(1) The Collective must promptly distribute royalties received from the Licensee to Copyright Owners and Performers that are entitled thereto, or to their designated agents. The Collective shall only be responsible for making distributions to those who provide the Collective with information as is necessary to identify and pay the correct recipient. The Collective must distribute royalties on a basis that values all Performances by the Licensee equally based upon the information provided under the Reports of Use requirements for the Licensee pursuant to § 370.4 of this chapter and this subpart. In any case in which the Licensee has not provided a compliant Report of Use within three years after the due date specified in Section 370.4(c), whether for the current license period or otherwise, and the board of directors of the Collective determines that further efforts to seek the missing
(2) The Collective must use its best efforts to identify and locate Copyright Owners and featured artists in order to distribute royalties payable to them under 17 U.S.C. 112(e) and 114. Such efforts must include, but not be limited to, searches in Copyright Office public records and published directories of Copyright Owners.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) The Judges designate SoundExchange, Inc., as the Collective to receive Statements of Account and royalty payments from the Licensee and to distribute royalty payments to each Copyright Owner and Performer (or their respective designated agents) entitled to receive royalties under 17 U.S.C. 112(e) or 114(g).
(2) If SoundExchange, Inc. should dissolve or cease to be governed by a board consisting of equal numbers of representatives of Copyright Owners and Performers, then it shall be replaced for the applicable royalty period by a successor Collective according to the following procedure:
(i) The nine Copyright Owner representatives and the nine Performer representatives on the SoundExchange board as of the last day preceding SoundExchange's cessation or dissolution shall vote by a majority to recommend that the Copyright Royalty Judges designate a successor and must file a petition with the Copyright Royalty Judges requesting that the Judges designate the named successor and setting forth the reasons therefore.
(ii) Within 30 days of receiving the petition, the Copyright Royalty Judges must issue an order designating the recommended Collective, unless the Judges find good cause not to make and publish the designation in the
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Those employees, agents, consultants, and independent contractors of the Collective, subject to an appropriate written confidentiality agreement, who are engaged in the collection and distribution of royalty payments hereunder and activities related directly thereto who require access to the Confidential Information for the purpose of performing their duties during the ordinary course of their work;
(2) A Qualified Auditor or outside counsel who is authorized to act on behalf of:
(i) The Collective with respect to verification of the Licensee's statement of account pursuant to this part; or
(ii) A Copyright Owner or Performer with respect to the verification of royalty distributions pursuant to this part;
(3) Copyright Owners and Performers, including their designated agents, whose works the Licensee used under the statutory licenses set forth in 17 U.S.C. 112(e) and 114 by the Licensee whose Confidential Information is being supplied, subject to an appropriate written confidentiality agreement, and including those employees, agents, consultants, and independent contractors of such Copyright Owners and Performers and their designated agents, subject to an appropriate written confidentiality agreement, who require access to the Confidential Information to perform their duties during the ordinary course of their work;
(4) Attorneys and other authorized agents of parties to proceedings under 17 U.S.C. 112 and 114, acting under an appropriate protective order.
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) aims to further its actions in strengthening prohibitions on authorization of covered equipment and to clarify the rules and enforcement of such. The Commission seeks additional comment on modular transmitters and component parts in relation to covered equipment. The Commission addresses the partial court remand of the decision in its November 2022 EA Security R&O by proposing a definition of “critical infrastructure” as used on the Covered List and seeking comment on the implementation of that definition. The Commission also seeks comment on whether any modification to an authorized device by an entity identified on the Covered List should require a new application for certification. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on clarifying the scope of activities that constitute marketing of equipment and on measures to strengthen enforcement of marketing prohibitions.
Comments are due on or before January 5, 2026 and reply comments are due on or before February 2, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket No. 21-232, by any of the following methods:
•
•
• Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service.
• Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
• Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
• Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
•
Jamie Coleman of the Office of Engineering and Technology, at
This is a summary of the Commission's Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
In November 2022, as part of the Commission's ongoing efforts to protect the security of America's communications networks and equipment supply chains, the Commission adopted the Equipment Authorization Security Report and Order, Order, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket No. 21-232 and EA Docket 21-233 (2022) (EA Security R&O and FNPRM). In that item, the Commission adopted rules as part of its equipment authorization program to prohibit authorization of communications equipment that has been determined to “pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons” (covered equipment), which the Commission publishes in its Covered List. The rules constituted significant changes to the prior equipment authorization program. The Commission recognized that these revisions were only first steps and that further revisions should be considered to better ensure effective implementation of this prohibition. In the FNPRM portion of the item, the Commission sought comment on taking additional steps in the equipment authorization program to protect our nation's communications networks and supply chains. Building on the record received, Commission experience implementing the prohibition, and other recent Commission actions aimed at protecting our nation's communications networks and supply chain, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order (Second R&O) and this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
Enacted in March 2020, the Secure Networks Act requires the Commission to publish a list of equipment and services that pose “an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons” based solely on specific determinations made by certain enumerated sources (Covered List). In June 2021, the Commission initiated this proceeding in Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain through the Equipment Authorization Program; Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain through the Equipment Authorization Program, ET Docket No. 21-232 & EA Docket No. 21-233, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry (2021) (EA Security NPRM). The Commission noted that this proceeding—which involves revising the Commission's equipment authorization program—is part of the Commission's overall efforts in carrying out its important role in protecting the security of America's equipment supply chains, and also is part of the ongoing efforts of Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Commission to identify and eliminate potential security vulnerabilities in communications networks and supply chains.
In the EA Security R&O and FNPRM, the Commission established several new rules to prohibit authorization of equipment identified on the Commission's Covered List developed pursuant to the Secure Networks Act. In particular, the Commission adopted several revisions to its part 2 rules concerning equipment authorization requirements, processes, and guidance that involve significant changes to the equipment authorization program. These changes include new requirements placed on applicants seeking equipment authorizations as well as “responsible parties” associated with equipment authorizations and entities that are identified on the Covered List. These rules also place significant new responsibilities on telecommunication certification bodies (TCBs), private third-party organizations recognized by the Commission and to which the Commission has delegated particular responsibilities pursuant to section 302 of the Communications Act. TCBs are now tasked with reviewing equipment authorization applications and certifying that the subject equipment complies with all applicable Commission requirements, both technical (such as based on information submitted by test labs) and non-technical (such as those prohibiting authorization of covered equipment).
These rules require that, going forward, no communications equipment produced by entities identified on the Covered List can obtain an equipment authorization unless the authorization is pursuant to the certification process, which would require filing an application with supporting data that TCBs review. Commission rules no longer permit authorization of any such equipment through the Supplier's Declaration of Conformity (SDoC) procedures, which does not require an application filing, nor can such equipment now qualify for any exemption from the need for an equipment authorization. To help implement the prohibition on authorization of any covered equipment, applicants seeking such authorization are required to make certain attestations (in the form of certifications) about the equipment for which they seek authorization—these include attesting that the equipment is not covered and indicating whether the applicant is an entity identified on the Covered List. To further help with implementation of the prohibition, the Commission adopted a requirement that each of the entities named on the Covered List file a report with the Commission identifying its associated but unnamed entities (
In adopting the EA Security R&O and FNPRM, the Commission decided not to require, at that time, that the applicant make attestations that address individual component parts contained within the applicant's equipment and it did not revoke previously granted authorizations of covered equipment. The Commission determined that both of these matters, along with several other issues, would receive further consideration.
The Commission sought comment on whether the presence of certain component parts would result in the device being covered equipment prohibited from authorization and, if so, how the prohibition should be implemented in the Commission's equipment authorization program. It also sought comment on the role that applicants and responsible parties would play were the Commission to prohibit authorization of devices that include certain component parts. In addition, it sought comment on the extent to which the Commission should revoke any previous authorizations of covered equipment and, if so, based on which considerations and procedures, and the scope such revocations should take, as well as the extent to which it should take into account supply chain considerations. It also sought comment on whether to require all applicants seeking equipment certification to have a U.S.-based responsible party to help ensure compliance with the Commission's equipment authorization program rules. Finally, the Commission sought comment on various other issues concerning implementation of the prohibition on authorization of covered equipment, such as applicants' provision of additional information on equipment; additional activities that TCBs should conduct in light of the goals of this proceeding; the review of authorizations after grant by TCBs through post-market surveillance; and enforcement of the Commission's newly-adopted rules.
In May 2025, the Commission adopted Promoting the Integrity and Security of Telecommunications Certification Bodies, Measurement Facilities, and the Equipment Authorization Program, ET Docket No. 24-136, 40 FCC Rcd 3616 (2025) (EA Integrity R&O and FNPRM), in which it took steps, and proposed further steps, to promote the integrity and security of TCBs, measurement facilities (test labs), and laboratory accreditation bodies, which play an integral role in the Commission's equipment authorization program. Specifically, it adopted a prohibition on FCC recognition of any TCB, test lab, or laboratory accreditation body owned by, controlled by, or subject to the direction of a prohibited entity (as defined by the EA Integrity R&O and FNPRM). These entities are barred from participating in the Commission's equipment authorization program, including both the equipment certification process and SDoC process. To help ensure that the Commission has the necessary information to enforce this prohibition, the Commission expanded its reporting and certification requirements for all recognized TCBs, test labs, and laboratory accreditation bodies to certify to the Commission that they are not owned by, controlled by, or subject to the direction of a prohibited entity and to report all equity or voting interests of 5% or greater by any entity. It also adopted amendments to the rules to state that the Commission will not recognize—and will revoke any existing recognition of—any TCB, test lab, or laboratory accreditation body that fails to provide, or that provides a false or inaccurate, certification; or that fails to provide, or provides false or inaccurate, information regarding equity or voting interests of 5% or greater. In addition, it also clarified that Commission rules apply equally to all TCBs, test labs, and laboratory accreditation bodies regardless of the existence of MRAs or the physical location of the relevant facility. In the EA Integrity R&O and FNPRM, the Commission proposed and sought comment on further measures to safeguard the integrity of the equipment authorization program. Namely, it sought comment on whether to extend the prohibitions to also include entities subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign adversary and whether to expand the group of prohibited entities to include several additional lists from federal agencies or statutes. It also sought further comment on ways the Commission can facilitate and encourage more equipment authorization testing to occur at test labs located within the United States or United States allied countries. Finally, it sought further comment on post-market surveillance procedures to ensure compliance relating to prohibitions on authorization of covered equipment.
In this
In the Second R&O, the Commission clarifies that the existing rules
In the EA Security R&O and FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on other approaches to prohibiting the authorization of covered equipment that focused on component parts at a more granular level,
The Commission underscores that its goal in this proceeding is to ensure that the Commission not authorize equipment that poses an unacceptable risk to national security in accordance with the Covered List specific determinations. The Commission notes that several commenters state that they are already participating in other governmental efforts to improve equipment security, and they advocate a “whole of government” approach to address the component parts issues. The Commission believes that those ongoing efforts are critical, but do not fully address the Commission's statutory responsibilities to implement the prohibition on authorization of covered equipment and to promulgate regulations concerning radiofrequency devices consistent with the public interest. 47 U.S.C. 302a(b). The Commission believes that it has the requisite authority to prohibit authorization of equipment that includes certain component parts and seeks comment.
The Commission seeks comment on the appropriate transition period, if any, for implementing a prohibition on the authorization of equipment that includes certain component parts that it seeks to identify. The Commission's prohibition on authorization of covered equipment is based on national security concerns, so the Commission must take those security concerns into account. The Commission asks that commenters address the extent to which a particular transition period is recommended for a particular component part, and explain the rationale and bases for such views. In addition, the Commission seeks further comment and quantitative estimates on how different transition period durations (
Several commenters express concern about potential supply chain disruptions and about the potential need to ensure the procurement of replacement parts. The Commission seeks comment on the specific details and costs of such disruption. The Commission also asks for specific comment on any transition or phase-in prior to the effective date of a prohibition on the authorization of equipment that includes any particular components, and an explanation of the basis for any particular suggested period, including the time necessary for identifying the component part(s) in equipment for which authorization is sought and for obtaining replacements. Commenters advocating for a transition period should provide clear explanations for the factors they believe the Commission should take into consideration, and how the Commission should weigh such factors given the important national security goals that would be furthered by a prohibition on authorization of equipment that includes such components. The Commission requests further comment on the optimal transition path that strikes the appropriate balance between addressing national security concerns in a timely manner and allowing a smooth market transition that minimizes impact on the equipment supply chain.
Finally, the Commission also seeks comment on one of Charles Parton's proposals in the EA Security R&O and FNPRM. Mr. Parton recommends, among other things, that the government “[p]ass legislation or implement administrative measures to prevent the purchase of new Chinese IoT modules for domestic manufacturing and services.” The Commission construes this as suggesting the Commission prohibit the authorization of equipment containing certain modular transmitters
Similarly, the Hudson Institute recommends the Commission prohibit authorization of all equipment that contains a range of components, including semiconductors, modular transmitters, GPS and timing modules, and optical transceivers produced by any person owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary. The Commission seeks comment on this approach. Should the Commission prohibit authorization of equipment that includes these or other such components? The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should adopt this list of critical components or a broader or narrower one. How should the Commission identify such components produced by any person owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary? What other reason would require, or authorize, the Commission to prohibit equipment authorizations other than by deeming them to be on the Covered List? What, if any, are the national security benefits of such an approach? What are the costs? The Commission seeks additional comment on the capabilities of identifying the producer and the resources and analysis required to do so.
Finally, the Commission seeks comment on other measures proposed in comments in the record. Should the Commission consider any additional measures such as a broader investigation into the security of hardware serving U.S. data centers, to the extent that such hardware is subject to equipment authorization procedures and incudes components that could present risks to national security considerations? Similarly, should the Commission consider developing partnerships with one or more of the enumerated entities that can make “specific determinations” for the Covered List to determine security risks for specific communications equipment or services or developing a trusted supplier program in coordination with federal partners? If so, what information should the FCC consider in development of such a program and what benefits or costs might arise?
In this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission addresses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's partial remand of the Commission's decision in its EA Security R&O and FNPRM. Specifically, the court vacated those portions of the Commission's decision defining “critical infrastructure” for purposes of understanding when video surveillance and telecommunications equipment produced by Hikvision, Dahua, and Hytera (and their respective subsidiaries and affiliates) is used “for the purpose of . . . physical security surveillance of critical infrastructure,” as set forth in section 889(f)(3) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2019 and incorporated into the Covered List via the Secure Networks Act.
As part of this guidance, the Commission “broadly” construed “critical infrastructure.” The Commission cited several sources in the EA Security R&O and FNPRM, as supporting its definition of “critical infrastructure.” It specifically adopted the meaning provided by the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (Patriot Act), which defines “critical infrastructure” as “systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or a combination of those matters.” Uniting and Strengthening America By Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56, 115 Stat. 272, 401 (2001) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 5195c(e)). But the Commission also relied upon Presidential Policy Directive 21 (Directive on Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience, 1 Pub. Papers 106, 115 (Feb. 12, 2013) (PPD-21),
The court concluded that “[t]he Commission's choice of reference materials—government sources that define ‘critical infrastructure’ and related national security concepts—was reasonable, and that the Commission adequately explained why the cited sources were relevant.” The court specifically found that reliance on these sources “reflects appropriate consideration of relevant factors identifying ‘critical’ areas of the economy that have been vetted by those in the Executive Branch charged with assessing national security risks.” The court, however, noted that the definition of “critical infrastructure” adopted by the Commission includes “any ‘systems or assets’ that are merely ‘connected to’ the sixteen sectors identified by PPD-21 or the fifty-five functions listed by the CISA risk management guide.” It found that the Commission had failed to explain or justify its use of “the expansive words ‘connected to,’ ” and that the scope of the definition was “therefore arbitrarily broad.”
The court stated that the Commission “does not explain why everything `connected to' any sector or function that implicates national security must be considered `critical,' especially in light of the Patriot Act's emphasis on particular `systems and assets' that are `vital to the United States.' ” The court found that the Commission's definition “threatens to envelop ever-broadening sectors of the economy,” and reads the word “critical” out of the statute and applies the equipment ban to all “infrastructure.” The court found it “entirely implausible that every single system or asset that is `connected to,' for example, the food and agriculture sector, or to the function of supplying water, is `critical' to the national security of the United States,” and it noted that the Commission had not identified any relevant infrastructure that would not be covered, whether critical or not. The court concluded that the Commission's definition, “[w]ithout further explanation of why its expansive interpretation is reasonable or consistent with the statute,” was “not in accordance with law and is arbitrary and capricious.” The court also stated that the Commission's decision failed to “provide comprehensible guidance about what falls within the bounds of `critical infrastructure.' ” Finally, it concluded that the Commission had failed to justify placing that burden on petitioners to understand this guidance, and that “without a clear understanding of what constitutes a `connect[ion] to' critical infrastructure, Petitioners will face significant difficulty in developing” the required “marketing plan” before petitioners' “covered” equipment will be authorized. Thus, the court vacated “the portions of the FCC's order defining `critical infrastructure'” and remanded to the Commission “to comport its definition and justification for it with the statutory text of the NDAA.”
The Commission proposes to define “critical infrastructure” as: “Systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or a combination of those matters.” 42 U.S.C. 5195c(e)). This definition would apply the same base definition, taken from the Patriot Act, of “critical infrastructure” that the Commission adopted in the EA Security R&O and FNPRM, but exclude the portion that the court found to be arbitrarily broad.
The Commission notes that this proposed definition has been used several times after its inclusion in the Patriot Act. For instance, both PPD-21 and National Security Memorandum 22 (NSM-22) adopted this definition of “critical infrastructure.” The Commission tentatively concludes that the proposed definition is preferable because it is consistent with existing precedent and aligns with current Executive Branch policy directives regarding critical infrastructure. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion.
The Commission finds that this proposal is consistent with the court's opinion, which did not reject a broad definition of “critical infrastructure.” In the EA Security R&O and FNPRM, the Commission interpreted the prohibition in 2019 NDAA section 889 as having broad scope with respect to Hikvision, Dahua, and Hytera equipment because such equipment poses an unacceptable risk to national security. The court concluded that “[t]he Commission's choice of reference materials—government sources that define ‘critical infrastructure’ and related national security concepts—was reasonable, and that the Commission adequately explained why the cited sources were relevant.” The court noted that even Hikvision conceded that the Commission's application of the Patriot Act definition of critical infrastructure “may be appropriate.” Thus, the Commission believes that continuing to use the Patriot Act definition is the best course and is responsive to the court's opinion. Do commenters agree with the approach of using the Patriot Act definition of “critical infrastructure” but excluding the “connected to” language that the court found to be objectionable in the Equipment Authorization Security R&O?
The Commission seeks comment on whether “systems and assets” is sufficient, or whether it should include additional language to encompass other aspects of communications network infrastructure. For example, CISA's
The Commission seeks comment on interpreting “critical infrastructure” as encompassing equipment when used in the provision of services or functions in the 16 critical infrastructure sectors (“critical services or functions”). This approach would cover equipment that is not, by itself, “so vital to the United States” to be considered “critical infrastructure,” but when used to provide critical services or functions that may be the source of significant network security vulnerabilities. The Commission believes that such an approach is likely necessary to mitigate risks posed by vulnerabilities in network equipment within the critical infrastructure sectors that, if exploited, could produce cascading effects that negatively impact the provision of critical services or functions. Do commenters support this approach? If not, what alternatives would they suggest? The Commission seeks comment on whether additional clarification is necessary. For example, should the Commission incorporate the 55 National Critical Functions to further clarify the scope of the proposed definition?
Finally, the Commission seeks comment on Hikvision USA's definition of “critical infrastructure” as laid out in its filings with the Commission. In its Compliance Plan, Hikvision USA advocates that critical infrastructure should mean “infrastructure that provides essential services to American society. It includes only such systems and assets—governmental and private—that are so vital to the United States that individually incapacitating or destroying those systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on national security, national economic security, and/or national public health or safety.” Hikvision USA then provides a finite list of 10 systems and assets—across multiple sectors—to define the bounds of critical infrastructure. The Commission tentatively concludes that Hikvision USA's approach—which narrows the scope of the Patriot Act definition—leaves open gaps ripe for exploitation. For example, its list of systems and assets excludes several systems and assets included in the 16 critical infrastructure sectors that, if incapacitated or destroyed, would result in “a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or a combination of those matters.” These include sectors related to communications, critical manufacturing, emergency services, food and agriculture, and healthcare and public health. The Commission tentatively concludes that such an approach is short-sighted, ignores the vulnerabilities associated with various access points within communications networks and the interconnected nature of communications networks, and therefore falls far short of the level of network security Congress intended when it enacted the relevant statutes. Such an approach is contrary to the broad interpretation the Commission finds necessary in implementing 2019 NDAA section 889, “given the importance of preventing `covered' equipment from being made available for prohibited uses that would pose an unacceptable risk to national security or the security of U.S. persons.” Do commenters agree with this tentative conclusion, or do commenters believe that Hikvision USA's proposal is more consistent with 2019 NDAA section 889 and the Secure Networks Act?
In seeking to ensure consistent application of its prohibition on authorization of covered equipment, the Commission has prohibited the utilization of the SDoC process for authorization of equipment produced by any entity identified on the Covered List. 47 CFR 2.906(d). The Commission found that the certification process provides the Commission with the necessary oversight to ensure that it is achieving its goals to prohibit authorization of equipment that poses an unacceptable risk, as required by the Secure Equipment Act, and would help prevent covered equipment from improper authorization through the SDoC process in the first place.
As affirmed in the
As discussed in the R&O portion of this proceeding, modifications and permissive changes to covered equipment are prohibited under Commission rules, but such procedures are generally available for other equipment produced by entities identified on the Covered List. In keeping with the intent to require one procedure for all equipment authorization applications made by entities identified on the Covered List, the Commission proposes to require the submission of a certification for any equipment for which an entity
Given the unacceptable risks to national security posed by the continued importation and marketing of covered equipment, the Commission seeks comment on how it can strengthen its efforts to prevent unauthorized marketing, including through clarifications to the rules. The Commission believes that strengthening enforcement against unauthorized marketing would not only assist the Commission's mission under the Secure Equipment Act regarding covered equipment, but also have the added benefit of strengthening enforcement against unauthorized or non-compliant equipment more generally.
What about marketing of devices by entities identified on the Covered List? Under section 302 of the Act, the FCC has broad authority to, “consistent with the public interest, . . . make reasonable regulations . . . governing the interference potential of devices . . . applicable to the manufacture, import, sale, offer for sale, or shipment . . . and to the use of such devices . . . .” 47 U.S.C. 302a. The Commission's rules require authorization of a device before marketing, but once an authorization is granted, marketing activities are not limited to the grantee of that authorization. That is, in general, Commission rules allow any entity to market an authorized device. The Commission seeks comment on whether its rules should continue to allow marketing of an authorized device regardless of the identity of the marketer. If an entity identified on the Covered List is part of the distribution chain for previously authorized devices, then that entity would have some access or control over those devices while in legal or physical possession of them. The Commission believes that there is a risk to the public in the potential for entities identified on the Covered List—which have been determined to present a risk to national security in some circumstances—to manipulate or modify authorized equipment in a way that could result in that equipment posing a risk to national security or causing harmful interference to radio communications. Would it be in the public interest for the Commission to prohibit marketing of RF equipment by entities identified on the Covered List, regardless of the identity of the authorization holder or the production source? For example, some entities are identified on the current Covered List only with regard to the telecommunications services they provide; should the Commission consider a marketing prohibition of authorized devices for such entities? What are the potential impacts to the supply chain, if any? What other concerns should the Commission consider?
Furthermore, the Commission has previously advised that even online consumers may be engaged in importation when purchased devices are drop-shipped directly to the consumer from overseas. To date, however, the Commission has not focused its enforcement efforts on either consumers or commercial consignees. The Commission tentatively concludes, based on experience, that retailers and commercial consignees are typically better equipped to verify equipment compliance than consumers, who might mistakenly assume that a marketed product is compliant. The Commission seeks comment on whether this assessment is correct. The Commission seeks comment on which entity should bear greater responsibility for ensuring that only properly authorized devices are imported. It also seeks comment on situations in which neither a sale nor a consignment has occurred at the time of importation. In such cases, which domestic party should be held responsible for compliance with the Commission's rules? Commenters should clearly explain their rationale for assigning responsibility to a specific domestic party, with a particular focus on strengthening enforcement of the Covered List rules. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on what measures could improve transparency of equipment authorizations and revocations for both marketing entities and consumers.
As discussed, the Commission seeks comment on additional measures to safeguard consumers and communications networks from the risks posed by equipment identified on the Commission's Covered List. The Commission believes that stronger enforcement measures are needed to counterbalance the national security risks associated with covered equipment. Therefore, the Commission seeks comment on additional measures that it could adopt to safeguard consumers and communications networks from the risks posed by covered equipment.
Accordingly,
Administrative practice and procedures, Communications, Communications equipment, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, and Wiretapping and electronic surveillance.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 2 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336 unless otherwise noted.
(c) Any equipment produced by any entity identified on the Covered List, established pursuant to § 1.50002 of this chapter, that would otherwise be eligible for authorization pursuant to the Supplier's Declaration of Conformity, would be exempt from equipment authorization, or for which an authorization was previously granted and a permissive change would otherwise be permitted, must obtain equipment authorization through the certification process.
(f) Notwithstanding other provisions of this section, use of the permissive change procedures to modify equipment that is produced by any entity identified on the Covered List, established pursuant to § 1.50002 of this chapter, is prohibited. Any modification to such equipment must be authorized under the equipment certification provisions under subpart J of this part.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
On November 17, 2025, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) extended the comment and reply comment periods of the Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
The reply comment period for the proposed rule published September 2, 2025, at 90 FR 42355, is reopened. Reply comments should be received on or before December 18, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket Nos. 21-346 and 15-80; ET Docket No. 04-35 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
Jeanne Stockman, Attorney Advisor, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau at (202) 418-7830 or via email at
This is a summary of the Commission's Public Notice (
In the
On September 2, 2025, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) announced comment and reply dates for the
Guidance for the deadlines in the other matters indicated in the
Federal Communications Commission.
Petition for reconsideration.
Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's proceeding by Enrique Gallardo on behalf of California Public Utilities Commission.
Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before December 19, 2025. Replies to oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before December 29, 2025.
Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Kate Dumouchel, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at
This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3228, released November 26, 2025. The full text of the Petition can be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at:
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is publishing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to obtain stakeholder input on potential revisions to the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) to facilitate the safe transportation of hazardous materials using highly automated transportation systems.
Comments must be received by March 4, 2026, to ensure consideration. However, PHMSA will consider late-filed comments to the extent possible.
You may submit comments identified by the docket number PHMSA-2024-0064 (HM-266) by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Steven Andrews, Standards and Rulemaking Division, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, at 202-366-8553.
PHMSA is publishing this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit stakeholder input on the transportation of hazardous materials in highly automated transportation systems. For the purposes of this ANPRM, PHMSA considers highly automated transportation systems as advanced transportation systems that leverage varying degrees of automation, tailored to the system's complexity. The emergence of highly automated technology has the potential to transform how hazardous materials are transported while potentially enhancing safety, efficiency, and reliability. This shift warrants a comprehensive review of the requirements in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180). PHMSA is publishing this ANPRM to solicit feedback that can be used in performing that review.
The HMR was primarily designed with traditional transportation methods in mind. The advent of highly automated transportation systems,
On March 22, 2018, PHMSA published a Request for Information (RFI), titled “Request for Information on Regulatory Challenges to Safely Transporting Hazardous Materials by Surface Modes in an Automated Vehicle Environment.”
On March 14, 2019, PHMSA published a report, titled “Hazardous Materials Transport with Unmanned Systems,” that focused on identifying potential hazards and evaluating the current state of highly automated transportation systems in hazardous materials transportation by all modes.
On May 16, 2024, the 2024 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act
In addition, FAA—in conjunction with PHMSA—published a
On August 7, 2025, FAA and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) published an NPRM,
On April 3, 2025, PHMSA published a Request for Proposal (RFP) to seek a contractor with the expertise, capabilities, and experience to evaluate the safety performance of existing dangerous goods packaging requirements in a UAS environment.
Finally, in June 2025, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14307,
PHMSA works closely with its modal partners in developing modal specific regulations and guidance involved in the transportation of hazardous materials. The primary modal administrations that PHMSA works with are the: (1) Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) for the transportation of hazardous materials by highway—
Through stakeholder input to this ANPRM, along with incorporation of its own insights, research, and findings, PHMSA aims to identify necessary HMR regulatory revisions, guidance, legal clarification, and educational resources needed to inform future work. PHMSA is focused on current technologies and practices, and on exploring what might be possible in the future as automation continues to evolve.
Lastly, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
While PHMSA is considering regulatory revisions in this rulemaking, any person may currently request relief from the HMR via the Special Permit process—
The HMR requires most shipments of hazardous materials to have a shipping paper and emergency response information meeting the requirements in 49 CFR part 172, subparts C and G. Shipping papers and emergency response information are basic communication tools for the transportation of hazardous materials.
Specific to the shipping papers, these documents are important because they serve as the principal source of information regarding the presence, identification, and quantity of hazardous materials being shipped. Shipping papers also serve as the source
Shipping papers and emergency response information also serve to notify transport workers that hazardous materials are present. Shipping papers are the principal means of identifying hazardous materials during transportation emergencies. Firefighters, police, and other emergency response personnel are trained to obtain and review shipping papers and emergency response information when responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies. The availability of accurate information concerning hazardous materials being transported significantly improves response efforts in these types of emergencies.
Shipments of hazardous materials via highly automated transportation systems may present unique challenges to complying with shipping paper and emergency response information requirements.
Shipments of hazardous materials using highly automated transportation systems may not have humans in the transport vehicle; therefore, a person may not be present to provide the shipping paper and emergency response information to enforcement or emergency response personnel. This presents unique challenges in ensuring that critical safety and compliance information is readily accessible in the event of an incident or inspection. In addition, the use of a highly automated transportation system may introduce different types of informational needs for emergency response personnel. For example, the number and type of package details on a shipping paper may not be necessary when a UAS is only transporting a single package because emergency response personnel will see that there is only one package on the UAS. Emerging technologies may also lead to the automated development, verification, and certification of shipping papers.
PHMSA seeks input from stakeholders on any potential changes to the HMR that may be needed to facilitate the transportation of hazardous materials in highly automated transportation systems as it pertains to shipping paper and emergency response information.
Hazard communication in the form of marking, labels, and placards is a critical component of safety protocols for employees handling hazardous materials and for emergency responders responding to hazardous materials incidents. These requirements are found in 49 CFR part 172, subparts D (Marking), E (Labeling), and F (Placarding). Properly applied markings and labels ensure that everyone involved in the transportation process can quickly identify the contents of hazardous materials packages and understand any associated risks. Placards provide critical visibility of hazards present on transport vehicles from a distance during transit, allowing emergency responders to quickly assess hazards in the event of an incident. Together, these forms of hazard communication create a standardized system that enhances safety and minimizes confusion in hazardous materials transportation.
Highly automated transportation systems may face a variety of challenges in complying with the hazard communication requirements in the HMR. For UAS package delivery operations in which packages are transported outside the airframe and exposed to the environment at higher altitudes, traditional hazard communication may be subject to differing conditions than traditional transportation. In addition, so-called “last mile” delivery shipments using personal delivery devices or UAS to deliver consumer products may need additional clarification as to when certain marking, labeling, and placarding requirements in the HMR apply.
In its comments
PHMSA notes that, traditionally, transportation restrictions on hazardous materials are often modal and packaging specific and not dictated by the specific type of transport vehicle (
PHMSA seeks information from stakeholders on how the transportation of hazardous materials using highly automated transportation systems may affect the ability of entities to comply with the intent of marking, labeling, and placarding requirements in the HMR. PHMSA also seeks input on alternatives to the current marking, labeling, and placarding requirements that might be better suited for highly automated transportation systems.
Part 172, Subpart H of the HMR requires all persons who meet the definition of a hazardous materials employee under § 171.8 to be trained in the applicable requirements of the HMR. This training must include general awareness/familiarization, function-specific instruction, safety training, security awareness training, and, when applicable, in-depth security training.
As automation technology advances, the roles and responsibilities of hazardous materials employees may evolve, potentially altering the scope and nature of required hazardous materials training. For instance, highly automated transportation systems might reduce direct human interaction with
PHMSA seeks input from stakeholders on how the transportation of hazardous materials in highly automated transportation systems might affect the training requirements in the HMR, including hazardous materials training requirements in the HMR. PHMSA also seeks input on alternatives to the current hazardous materials training requirements that might be better suited to the transportation of hazardous materials in highly automated transportation system.
Part 172, subpart I of the HMR prescribes requirements for the development and implementation of security plans to address security risks related to the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce. When a person is subject to these requirements, they also are subject to the in-depth security training requirements prescribed in § 172.704(a)(5). These requirements were originally established in the HM-232 final rule
Applicability of security plan requirements—outlined in § 172.800(b)—cover those materials that “present significant security threats.” Many highly automated transportation systems may not be subject to security plan requirements based on the type and quantity of hazardous materials they carry. However, highly automated transportation systems carrying certain types or quantities of hazardous materials may “present significant security threats” due to the unique nature of these emerging technologies, including cybersecurity considerations. PHMSA notes that certain modes have—or are proposing—requirements outside of the HMR covering security. For example, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is proposing certain security requirements in the aforementioned BVLOS part 108 rulemaking.
PHMSA seeks input on any potential changes to the applicability of security plan requirements—and thus, in-depth security training—to address any significant security threats in highly automated transportation systems.
The HMR prescribes packaging requirements for non-bulk and bulk shipments of hazardous materials. The general requirements for packaging can be found in 49 CFR part 173, and the requirements for specification and performance-oriented packaging can be found in 49 CFR part 178. Highly automated transportation systems may require new packaging designs, performance standards, or rules to work with different automated platforms, which could lead to updates in HMR packaging standards to support these technologies. As technology around highly automated transportation systems evolves, the HMR may also need to be updated to address new risks and ensure that packaging requirements keep pace with these advancements.
PHMSA seeks input on any potential changes that might need to be made to address packaging requirements for highly automated transportation systems.
Various sections of the HMR contain requirements addressing the loading and unloading of hazardous materials. The use of highly automated transportation systems may create uncertainty or ambiguity about how the loading and unloading of hazardous materials should occur. For example, § 175.90(a) requires that packages delivered by air be inspected after delivery for evidence of leakage. Such inspections by hazmat employees may be impractical for hazardous materials delivered by an unmanned highly automated transportation system to a private individual's home address.
PHMSA seeks input from stakeholders on how loading and unloading procedures may need to be revised in the HMR to account for hazardous materials being transported by highly automated transportation systems.
The HMR prescribes regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials by rail in Part 174 of the HMR. PHMSA is not aware of any highly automated rail systems that are currently transporting hazardous materials in the United States. In early 2024, FRA received a “Petition for Waivers of Compliance”
The HMR has several requirements in part 174 that could pose a challenge to the transportation of hazardous materials using highly automated rail transportation systems. For example, § 174.26 requires that “[p]rior to movement of a train, a railroad must provide the train crew with train consist information as defined in § 171.8 of this subchapter in hard-copy (printed paper) form.” There may be other examples within part 174 where PHMSA may need to revise or clarify the HMR to accommodate the potential movement of train cars that do not have train crews.
PHMSA, in collaboration with FRA, is reviewing the use of highly automated rail systems for transporting hazardous materials. As part of this ANPRM, we seek stakeholder input on how these operations could impact the HMR and the rail-specific regulations in 49 CFR part 174.
The HMR prescribes regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials by air in 49 CFR part 175. The transportation of hazardous materials by air has traditionally been more limited and restrictive than transportation by other modes to account for the unique risks in air transportation. For example, the authorized quantity of hazardous materials in Column 9 of § 172.101 of the HMT is smaller for passenger and cargo aircraft than other modes. In some cases, products such as dry ice are limited on passenger and cargo aircraft due to the risk of asphyxiation to crew members, a concern that does not apply to UAS since they do not carry crew. In addition, there are more stringent
Traditionally, hazardous materials transportation operations have been conducted on a crewed passenger or cargo aircraft. On traditional manned aircraft, hazardous material packages are accepted by operator personnel and manually loaded onto an aircraft at the departure airport. The packages are then flown to the destination airport and manually unloaded.
UAS operations introduce alternative scenarios from this traditional process of transporting hazardous materials. UAS operations do not necessarily begin or end at an airport. Some UAS operations are designed for departure at a business parking lot (
Currently, operators seeking approval to deliver packages via UAS BVLOS are required to obtain a 14 CFR part 135 certification from FAA. Under this certification, FAA has authorized several operators to conduct package delivery by UAS. In addition, operators that intend to accept, handle, and transport hazardous materials via UAS must obtain an Operations Specification (OpSpec) A055 from the FAA and are subject fully to the HMR. The OpSpec A055 indicates authorization for an air carrier (including a UAS operator) to accept, handle, and transport hazardous materials as cargo (
To obtain an OpSpec A055, the operator must have an FAA-accepted hazardous materials manual that documents specific processes and procedures to ensure that hazardous materials are safely and properly handled, stored, packaged, loaded, and carried on board an aircraft in accordance with the HMR. In addition, the operator must have an FAA-approved hazardous materials training program.
Lastly, PHMSA anticipates the industry may develop additional variations of highly automated transportation systems designed to carry payloads inside the airframe over long-ranges for use in off-airport operations. In addition, there are other aspects of pre-transportation and transportation functions specific to air transportation in part 175 that could become automated, such as packaging inspection and aircraft loading functions (including traditional manned aircraft).
Ultimately, the air-specific requirements in part 175 of the HMR may pose a challenge for compliance when using highly automated air transportation systems as highlighted above. PHMSA—in collaboration with FAA—is seeking stakeholder input on how UAS, AAM, and other highly automated transportation systems can meet the intent of the HMR and the air-specific regulations.
The HMR prescribes regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials by vessel in part 176 of the HMR. While PHMSA is not aware of any
PHMSA, in collaboration with USCG, is exploring the potential use of highly automated vessel transportation systems for hazardous materials. To better understand the impact on the HMR, we are seeking stakeholder input on how these operations might affect hazardous materials transportation and the vessel-specific regulations in 49 CFR part 176.
The HMR prescribes regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials by highway in part 177 of the HMR. These regulations address critical safety aspects, such as packaging and vehicle requirements, to ensure that hazardous materials are transported safely by highway. Historically, these regulations have been tailored to human-driven vehicles, where the qualifications, actions, and decisions of the driver play a central role in ensuring safe operations.
As the transportation industry advances, emerging technologies—such as Automated Driving Systems (ADS)—are poised to transform the landscape of highway transportation. ADS operation raises unique considerations for the safe and efficient transportation of hazardous materials. ADS can offer enhanced safety features, such as the potential for more precise vehicle control, fewer human errors, and optimized route planning, but can also introduce new challenges in terms of regulatory oversight, emergency response, and system interoperability. ADS may operate in ways that differ significantly from traditional, human-driven vehicles, potentially altering the dynamics of risk assessment, hazard mitigation, and emergency management.
Given these advancements, FMCSA and PHMSA recognize the need to evaluate and, where necessary, update the HMR to account for the integration of ADS in the transportation of hazardous materials by highway, including FMCSA's consideration of whether the transportation of hazardous materials by fully automated commercial motor vehicles should be restricted or prohibited under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs).
PHMSA, in collaboration with FMCSA, is exploring the potential use of highly automated commercial motor vehicles for moving hazardous materials. To better understand the implications for the HMR, we are seeking stakeholder input on how these technologies might affect hazardous materials transportation and the highway-specific regulations in 49 CFR part 177.
To better understand the potential impacts of future regulatory revisions on the transportation of hazardous materials in highly automated transportation systems, PHMSA is asking a series of questions to identify potential updates to the HMR. Whenever possible, please provide supporting data or specific examples.
For Section B, “Economic Questions,” PHMSA is seeking per-unit, aggregate, and programmatic (both one-time implementing and recurring) data. Explanation of the bases or methodologies employed in generating cost and benefit data, including data sources and calculations, is valuable so that PHMSA can explain the support for any estimates it is able to provide that accompany a proposed rule, and other commenters may weigh in on the validity and accuracy of the data. Please also identify the baseline (
When responding to a specific question below please note the topic letter and question number in your comment.
1. How should PHMSA address the transportation of hazardous materials using highly automated transportation systems (
2. Should PHMSA consider specific automation use cases when revising the HMR? Or should requirements be scoped to various system automation use cases and performance capabilities remain with the appropriate modal administration?
3. What specific safety concerns do you foresee with the use of highly automated transportation systems for hazardous materials? What specific safety benefits do you foresee with the use of highly automated transportation systems for hazardous materials?
4. How should PHMSA and modal administrations evaluate and mitigate risks associated with these systems?
5. Are there existing regulations that you believe adequately address the use of highly automated transportation systems for hazardous materials? If not, what new regulations or amendments would you recommend?
6. How can PHMSA support innovation while ensuring safety and compliance?
7. Are current packaging requirements in 49 CFR parts 173 and 178 adequate for highly automated transportation systems? If not, in what ways are they not adequate, and what new regulations or amendments would you recommend?
8. Are current packaging exceptions in 49 CFR part 173 adequate for highly automated transportation systems? If not, in what ways are they not adequate, and what new exceptions or amendments would you recommend?
9. Are there hazard classes, packing groups, amounts, or specific commodities that should not be
10. How should PHMSA and the modal administrations evaluate the hazards and risks of certain hazard classes or divisions with the varying use cases and performance capabilities of highly automated transportation systems?
11. Are there other types of highly automated transportation systems not mentioned in this ANPRM that PHMSA should consider (particularly technologies that are under development or being tested)?
12. What performance-based regulations need to be modified or clarified for highly automated transportation systems? Are there any prescriptive requirements in the HMR that should become more performance-based? Are there any requirements in the HMR that are not appropriate for highly automated transportation systems?
13. The HMR references “conditions normally incident to transportation.” How should this term evolve to account for highly automated transportation systems that introduce different conditions on packages from the more traditional transportation systems?
14. What responsibilities should operators have to communicate the expected conditions of transport via a highly automated transportation system to shippers and freight forwarders?
15. What additional requirements might be necessary to protect hazardous materials packages from being exposed to the effects of highly automated transportation systems failure (
16. Are there any current industry standards specific to highly automated transportation systems that would help PHMSA and modal administrations evaluate potential requirements or exceptions of the HMR?
17. Are there international or country-specific regulatory frameworks that stakeholders recommend PHMSA consider harmonizing with? If so, why?
18. How can the HMR support efficient and effective hazardous materials communication (
19. How do unmanned highly automated transportation systems (
1. What are the broadly anticipated economic benefits of using highly automated transportation systems for hazardous materials?
2. What are the specific economic impacts of revising the HMR to further enable commercial UAS hazardous materials package delivery?
3. What are the specific economic implications of hazardous materials delivered by ADS systems or personal delivery devices?
4. How should PHMSA evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these systems compared to traditional methods?
5. How can PHMSA balance the need for safety regulations with the economic burden on businesses?
6. What additional costs would companies face if new inspection and safety protocols (
7. What types of hazardous materials does the industry expect to transport via highly automated transportation systems in the near future, and by which mode? What commodities are expected to be transported by highly automated transportation systems in high volumes once the technology is more widely deployed?
1. What incident reporting requirements should be added or modified in §§ 171.15 and 171.16 to account for highly automated transportation systems (
2. How should PHMSA ensure that highly automated transportation systems comply with the intent of shipping paper requirements in part 172, subpart C (
3. How should PHMSA ensure that highly automated transportation systems comply with the intent of emergency response information requirements in part 172, subpart G?
4. How can highly automated transportation systems effectively implement the intent of hazard communication requirements, including labeling, marking, and placarding, as specified in part 172, subpart D, E, and F, respectively?
5. What specific part 172, subpart H training requirements should PHMSA establish or clarify to account for highly automated transportation systems?
6. Should PHMSA update its current hazardous materials employee training requirements to address the transportation of hazardous materials using highly automated transportation systems? If so, what types of safety assurance and certification systems should PHMSA and modal administrations consider (
7. Should PHMSA revise the applicability of security plan requirements to address any significant security threats in highly automated transportation systems? If so, how should PHMSA revise the security plan applicability?
8. How should PHMSA consider any cybersecurity concerns created by the use of highly automated transportation systems? Who should PHMSA consult regarding these concerns?
9. The HMR have multiple sections related to definitions, including §§ 105.5, 107.1, 109.1, and 171.8. Does PHMSA need to add new definitions in these sections that are explicitly related to highly automated transportation systems? If so, what definitions are needed? Are there definitions in other Federal laws, Federal regulations, or international regulations the HMR should be consistent with or incorporate?
10. Should additional information be required of a Special Permit applicant for highly automated transportation systems? Or should additional information continue to be requested by PHMSA and modal administrations on an ad hoc basis?
1. How should PHMSA ensure highly automated transportation systems comply with the general requirements for the transportation of hazardous materials by rail as outlined in § 174.1?
2. How can highly automated transportation systems meet the inspection and acceptance requirements specified in § 174.9?
3. How should PHMSA ensure highly automated transportation systems address the requirements for the removal and disposition of hazardous materials at destination as outlined in § 174.16?
4. What specific segregation procedures should be adopted by highly automated rail transportation systems to comply with § 174.81?
1. How can highly automated transportation systems comply with the general requirements for the transportation of hazardous materials by air as outlined in part 175 (
2. How should PHMSA and FAA address HMR requirements (
3. How should PHMSA and FAA address HMR requirements (
4. Should there be new exceptions or revisions to current exceptions from the HMR in part 175 (
5. How can highly automated transportation systems meet the acceptance and inspection requirements specified in § 175.30?
6. Should PHMSA apply the same criteria for Column 9 quantity limits of the § 172.101 HMT to highly automated aircraft transportation systems? Should quantity limits be increased or decreased? If so, how should PHMSA tackle establishing new quantity limits?
7. Are there any hazardous materials currently subject to the HMR when transported by aircraft (but not regulated when transported by other modes) that should not be subject when transported by unmanned highly automated air transportation systems?
8. How can highly automated transportation systems comply with the notification and reporting requirements for hazardous materials incidents as specified in § 175.31?
9. How can highly automated transportation systems comply with current inspection requirements (
1. How should PHMSA ensure highly automated transportation systems comply with the general requirements for the transportation of hazardous materials by vessel as outlined in § 176.1?
2. How can highly automated transportation systems meet the documentation requirements specified in § 176.24, including the need for shipping papers, certificates, and dangerous cargo manifests?
3. What specific stowage and segregation procedures should be adopted by highly automated transportation systems to comply with § 176.83?
1. How should PHMSA ensure highly automated transportation systems comply with the general requirements for the transportation of hazardous materials by highway as outlined in § 177.800?
2. When hazardous materials are transported using highly automated transportation systems, should PHMSA revise the requirements in § 177.817(e) that state that “[a]
3. How would the implementation of highly automated transportation systems affect compliance with 49 CFR part 177, which includes specific operational requirements for hazardous materials transported by highway (
4. Are there specific provisions in 49 CFR part 177 that would be particularly burdensome for small businesses using highly automated transportation systems for the transportation of hazardous materials?
5. What specific highway segregation requirements should be adopted by highly automated transportation systems to comply with § 177.848?
Following the publication of this ANPRM, PHMSA will carefully review and consider all public comments submitted to the docket. In addition to public input, PHMSA will incorporate its own insights, research, and findings to inform the development of a potential NPRM. Furthermore, PHMSA may explore the possibility of hosting a public meeting to gather additional data and stakeholder input, ensuring a comprehensive and well-informed regulatory proposal.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding; whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by January 5, 2026 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Specifically, researchers will be required to complete the OF-306 (Declaration for Federal Employment) to support onboarding into USDA's human capital management system. This step is necessary to establish a formal relationship between ERS and the researcher and to ensure compliance with federal identity verification and personnel tracking requirements. The OF-306 collects administrative PII such as Social Security Number (SSN), date of birth, sex, and citizenship. This information will be submitted directly to REE Onboarding and will not be retained or processed by ERS.
The collection and maintenance of this data are governed by USDA's Privacy Act System of Records Notice (SORN) OCFO/NFC-1—Systems for Personnel, Payroll, and Time & Attendance (89 FR 5481, January 29, 2024). The OF-306 is approved under OMB Control No. 3206-0182. As such, burden associated with completing the OF-306 is not included in this ICR.
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
30-Day information collection notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for a new collection of information titled “Technical Assistance Training Request Form”. The purpose of this information collection is to provide a standardized method for members of the public and state and
Send comments on or before January 5, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30, days of publication of this notice to
Attorney Advisor Wendy Marshall, (202) 272-0043,
Under the PRA and its implementing regulations (5 CFR part 1320), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor (
The Access Board is providing notice that it has requested OMB approval of a new information collection regarding requests for training by members of the public and state and local governments. The Access Board provides training and technical assistance on the guidelines and standards that it promulgates, including design criteria for the built environment, transit vehicles, public rights-of-way, information and communication technology, and medical diagnostic equipment under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, and other laws. By practice, the Access Board provides in-person and virtual training to organizations across the United States, to include state and local agencies. The Access Board receives email requests for training which currently result in multiple communications with the requestor to determine if the Access Board is able to provide the training requested. The Access Board is proposing to streamline this process for both the requestor and the Board by creating a form for the agency website to allow requestors to submit all necessary information at one time so the Board can review the request and make a determination whether the training can be provided. The online form will be used unless the requestor expresses a preference for another format (
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of public meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the Wisconsin Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a public business meeting via Zoom at 12:00 p.m. CT on Thursday, December 11, 2025. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss civil rights topics for the Committee's first study.
Thursday, December 11, 2025, from 12:00 p.m.-1:30 p.m. Central Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom Webinar.
David Barreras, Designated Federal Officer, at
This committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to David Barreras 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 this file sharing website. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website,
Recodeal Energy Inc submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facilities in Houston, Texas within Subzone 84AK. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on September 24, 2025.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material/component and specific finished product described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished product is galvanized steel pipes (duty rate is duty-free).
The proposed foreign-status material/component is galvanized steel coils (duty rate is duty-free). The request indicates that the material/component is subject to duties under section 1702(a)(1)(B) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (section 1702), section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (section 232), or section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 1702, section 232, and section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Juanita Chen at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 94 Assessment Webinar I for Florida Hogfish.
The SEDAR 94 assessment process of Florida hogfish will consist of a Data Workshop, and a series of assessment webinars, and a Review Workshop. See
The SEDAR 94 Assessment Webinar I will be held December 16, 2025, from 1 p.m.-4 p.m. Eastern Time.
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366. Email:
The Gulf, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the SEDAR process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop, (2) a series of assessment webinars, and (3) A Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The assessment webinars produce a report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The product of the Review Workshop is an Assessment
The items of discussion during the SEDAR 94 Assessment webinar I are as follows:
Participants will review the assessment modelling work to date.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will hold an online meeting that is open to the public. The purpose of the meeting is to take final action on the 2026 Pacific halibut Catch Sharing Plan and annual regulations and may also include groundfish inseason actions that were unable to be completed at the Pacific Council's November 2025 meeting.
The online meeting will be held Thursday, December 18, 2025, from 1 p.m. Pacific Time until business for the day has been completed.
This meeting will be held online. Specific meeting information, including directions on how to join the meeting and system requirements will be provided in the meeting announcement on the Pacific Council's website (see
Merrick Burden, Executive Director, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2280.
The purpose of the meeting is to take final action on the 2026 Pacific halibut Catch Sharing Plan and may also include groundfish inseason actions that were unable to be completed at the Pacific Council's November 2025 meeting.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Gulf Fishery Management Council will hold a 1 day in-person meeting of its Outreach and Education Technical Committee.
The meeting will convene on Thursday, December 11, 2025, 8:30 a.m.-4 p.m., EST.
The meeting will be held in-person at the Gulf Council office. Please visit the Gulf Council website at
Emily Muehlstein, Public Information Officer, Gulf Fishery Management Council;
The Meeting will begin with welcome and introductions, adoption of agenda, approval of November 13, 2024 meeting summary, and scope of work.
The Committee will review Recreational Initiative Recommendations, Fishery Ecosystem Plan/Fishery Ecosystem Issue Stakeholder Engagement and Communications Plan. The Committee will receive an update on Sea Grant Reef Fish Extension, and discuss the Anonymous Voicemail Pilot, Council Learning Opportunities and Management Area and Boundaries Mapping. The Committee will review the progress of 2025 Communications Improvement Plan and 2025 Analytics and discuss 2026 Communications Improvement Plan Ideas.
The Committee will discuss Other Business items and receive Public Comment before the meeting adjourns.
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take-action to address the emergency.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permits and a permit amendment.
Notice is hereby given that permits and a permit amendment 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
Erin Markin, Ph.D., (File No. 28678), Shasta McClenahan, Ph.D., (File No. 28408), and Jennifer Skidmore (File No. 22851); 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 (42 U.S.C. 4321
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.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region (GARFO), NMFS, has made a preliminary
Comments must be received on or before December 19, 2025.
You may submit written comments by email:
Christine Ford, Fishery Management Specialist,
The NOAA NEFSC submitted a complete application for an EFP to conduct commercial fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise restrict, to continue trials of on-demand fishing gear that use one or no surface buoys and to test the ability of gear marking systems to consistently locate gear. This EFP would exempt the participating vessels from the following Federal regulations:
This project is a continuation and broadening of the development of on-demand (also known as ropeless) fishing systems aimed at reducing the entanglement risk to protected species, mainly the North Atlantic right whale, in trap/pot and gillnet fisheries. The NEFSC's existing EFP (DA24-004) authorizes on-demand gear trials on up to 180 lobster trap/pot vessels and up to 20 total gillnet, red crab trap, and black sea bass pot vessels. The EFP will expire on December 31, 2025. This project would allow up to 180 total trap/pot vessels and up to 20 gillnet vessels to replace up to 20 of their existing trawls/strings (up to 2,000 total trawls/strings) with modified trawls/strings, including in the ALWTRP Restricted Areas. Modified gear would replace one or both traditional end lines with acoustic on-demand systems and other alternatives to persistent buoy lines (including, but not limited to, spooled systems, buoy and stowed-rope systems, lift-bag systems, and grappling).
The ultimate goal of this project is to enable the continuation of some of the region's most valuable and historically significant fisheries while also meeting the requirements set forth by the ALWTRP and section 118(f) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, specifically reducing the level of serious injury and mortality of North Atlantic right, humpback, and fin whales in commercial fisheries. To achieve this, the project includes objectives to test the efficacy of fully on-demand trawls/strings and the adequacy of gear marking systems that use data hubs and visualization platforms to share on-demand gear locations. The research focus for this project includes:
• Gear performance evaluation in varied environmental conditions among varied vessel and gear characteristics to
• Data analysis focused on durability, manufacturer-specific performance, and criteria that could be used to later approve gear technologies;
• Continued evaluation of the reliability of new innovative gears as they come on the market by working with manufacturers and fishermen to pilot test gears;
• Expansion of experimental fishing in Restricted Areas in ways that make sense with a focus on safety (protected species and fishermen) and equity (fishermen and manufacturers) to assess the feasibility and efficiency of fishing fully on-demand trawls; and
• Expansion of communication efforts to the broader fishing community, managers, and partners.
To ensure that on-demand fishing and gear marking technologies are adequately tested across the breadth of regional commercial fishing conditions, the NEFSC requests the flexibility to test on-demand gear across the geographic range of the Federal American lobster and Jonah crab fishery, including testing fully on-demand gear (no persistent vertical lines) in ALWTRP Restricted Areas. It also requests the opportunity to trial on-demand gillnet and other trap/pot gear across the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, Southern New England, and the Mid-Atlantic. To cover a greater area and target areas where data is needed, NEFSC has requested the flexibility to have greater than 200 participants during the permit period (with only 200 fishing at one time). It would provide requested modifications to the active participants, general locations, and technologies to be tested one month in advance. Priority would be given to participants who are seasonally excluded from fishing in certain areas and/or in offshore fisheries with limited entanglement mitigation options.
This permit would only exempt vessels from the specified Federal regulations in Federal waters. It would not exempt the vessels from any requirements imposed by any state, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, or any other applicable laws. The applicant would be responsible for obtaining all required state authorizations. Other than gear markings, all trap/pot trawls and gillnet strings would be consistent with the regulations of the management area where the vessel is fishing and would be fished in accordance with the participating vessels' standard operations (number and length of trips, soak times, trap limits,
The use of on-demand lobster trap gear in the ALWTRP Restricted Areas is limited to gear without any persistent vertical lines. The EFP would allow vessels to modify up to 20 trawls each, but would cap effort to 600 total trawls in the ALWTRP Restricted Areas. If necessary due to a high level of interest and limited capacity, the NEFSC may require a demonstrated history of fishing within ALWTRP Restricted Areas as a condition for participation in on-demand trials in those areas.
In recognition of industry's interest in grappling as a low-cost alternative to acoustic on-demand systems, this project would also allow up to 5 vessels to retrieve up to 20 trawls via grappling; this would be a subset of the 180 total trap/pot vessels and the 1,800 modified trap/pot trawls effort cap. This would enable the NEFSC to collect data on the viability of grappling at a commercial scale. Although no grappling trials have occurred to date, four vessels/operators have expressed interest in participating in the study. Unlike what is authorized under the existing EFP, no grappling would be allowed in the ALWTRP Restricted Areas.
In the first phase of participation, staff from the NEFSC and the gear manufacturers would provide training to ensure that the system is working as intended and that all participants have sufficient experience with the gear before borrowing from the gear cache library. In the second phase, participating vessels would rig an on-demand system to one end of a standard trawl or string and fish it as a hybrid (with one traditional surface marking) for at least 10 hauls per system. In phase three, participants would fish the gear as part of normal fishing operations, including fishing fully on-demand gear and fully on-demand trap trawls in the ALWTRP Restricted Areas. In some cases, a scientific observer may be on board, and/or GoPro Systems (or equivalent) may record gear retrievals. The NEFSC would provide standardized data collection sheets to all participants, but individually-identifiable data would only be made public with the express permission of the vessel owner.
The NEFSC also plans to include targeted geolocation studies in areas with limited trawling and/or dredging to test new location-marking systems on the seafloor and automated location-marking when gear is set and retrieved. This EFP would support efforts to improve gear-marking and gear-conflict avoidance technologies, including testing the amount of effort to mark sub-surface gear location in the Trap Tracker app (vs. surface location where the gear is deployed) and other sub-surface gear marking technologies. This EFP would also continue to test the EarthRanger platform that displays gear locations from various gear-marking technologies. The NEFSC would demonstrate and encourage adoption of these technologies with non-participant vessels.
The NEFSC proposes the following best practices and risk reduction measures:
• All vessels would report all right whale sightings to NMFS via
• All vessels would retrieve on-demand vertical lines as quickly as possible to minimize time in the water column;
• All vessels would adhere to current approach regulations—a 500-yard (1,500-foot) buffer zone created by a surfacing right whale—and must depart immediately at a safe and slow speed, in accordance with current regulations. Hauling any lobster gear would immediately cease (by removal) to accommodate the regulation and be reinitiated only after it is reasonable to assume the whale has left the area;
• All vessels would provide mandatory, weekly gear loss reports;
• All vessels would operate within a 10-knot (18.52 km per hour) speed limit when transiting ALWTRP Restricted Areas or when whales are observed;
• For fully on-demand gear without traditional surface markings, participants would use the Trap Tracker or an equivalent technology for retrieval and set positioning details, which would be available to Federal, state, and corresponding enforcement personnel, as well as other fishermen;
• For fully on-demand gear without traditional surface markings, on-demand vertical lines would be marked with unique yellow/black/orange marks above the regional markings, in addition to ALWTRP regulations (per agreement with the NMFS Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team Coordinator);
• When fishing in ALWTRP Restricted Areas, vessels would check real-time right whale sightings information (such as Right Whale Sightings Advisories and Whale ALERT) before setting any gear and avoid areas of high right whale abundance, and all vessels would be recommended to follow this process when setting gear outside the ALWTRP Restricted Areas;
• Enforcement would be provided with and trained on the Trap Tracker
• A unique flag would be flown by each vessel for enforcement recognition; and
• The NEFSC would continue to provide monthly updates on any gear conflicts to GARFO's Sustainable Fisheries Division.
Vessels fishing fully on-demand lobster trap trawls in ALWTRP Restricted Areas would be required to follow additional practices:
• All participants would carry a NEFSC scientist on a subset of trips to collect additional data and oversee trial performance;
• Stowed hauling lines in on-demand units would contain unique colored identification marks consisting of orange marks above each regional ALWTRP marking;
• No floating groundline would be used on research trawls, including where otherwise legally allowed between the first trap and anchor or on-demand unit;
• If any large whale species comes within 500 yards of a participating vessel during hauling, fishing would immediately cease, by either removal or resetting, and be reinitiated only after it was reasonable to assume the whale(s) has left the area;
Participants would be provided with information on species identification as well as protocols to report live, dead, or entangled sightings of all large whale species. All whale sightings would be recorded on data sheets.
If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of letter of authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, its implementing regulations, and NMFS' MMPA regulations for taking marine mammals incidental to geophysical surveys related to oil and gas activities in the Gulf of America, originally published as “Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical Surveys Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the Gulf of Mexico,” notification is hereby given that a Letter of Authorization (LOA) has been issued to Future Energy Consultants (FEC) for the take of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activity in the Gulf of America (GOA).
The LOA is effective from November 6, 2025 through April 19, 2026.
The LOA, LOA request, and supporting documentation are available online at:
Jenna Harlacher, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
On January 19, 2021, we issued a final rule with regulations to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activities conducted by oil and gas industry operators, and those persons authorized to conduct activities on their behalf (collectively “industry operators”), in U.S. waters of the Gulf of America (GOA)
The regulations at 50 CFR 217.180
NMFS subsequently discovered that the 2021 rule was based on erroneous take estimates. We conducted another rulemaking using correct take estimates and other newly available and pertinent information relevant to the analyses supporting some of the findings in the 2021 final rule and the taking allowable under the regulations. We issued a final rule in April 2024, effective May 24, 2024 (89 FR 31488, April 24, 2024).
The 2024 final rule made no changes to the specified activities or the specified geographical region in which those activities would be conducted, nor to the original 5-year period of effectiveness. In consideration of the new information, the 2024 rule presented new analyses supporting affirmance of the negligible impact determinations for all species, and affirmed that the existing regulations, which contain mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements, are consistent with the “least practicable adverse impact” standard of the MMPA.
FEC plans to conduct a FloatSeis seismic field trial survey in the lease block LA5A, with water depths ranging from approximately 50—180 meters (m). See section F of the LOA application for a map of the area. FEC plans to use both a 2,450 cubic inch (in
Consistent with the preamble to the final rule, the survey effort proposed by FEC in its LOA request was used to develop LOA-specific take estimates based on the acoustic exposure modeling results described in the preamble (89 FR 31488, April 24, 2024). In order to generate the appropriate take number for authorization, the following information was considered: (1) survey type; (2) location (by modeling zone
FEC survey type was not included in the modeled survey types, and use of existing proxies (
For the survey effort using the 220 in
The survey will take place over approximately 5 days all operating in Zone 2. The monthly distribution of survey days is not known in advance, though we assume that the planned 5 days of source operation would occur contiguously. Take estimates for each species are based on the time period that produces the greatest value.
Based on the results of our analysis, NMFS has determined that the level of taking expected for this survey and authorized through the LOA is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations. See table 1 in this notice and table 6 of the rule (89 FR 31488, April 24, 2024).
Under the rule, NMFS may not authorize incidental take of marine mammals in an LOA if it will exceed “small numbers.” In short, when an acceptable estimate of the individual marine mammals taken is available, if the estimated number of individual animals taken is up to, but not greater than, one-third of the best available abundance estimate, NMFS will determine that the numbers of marine mammals taken of a species or stock are small (see 89 FR 31535, May 24, 2024). For more information, please see NMFS' discussion of small numbers in the 2021 final rule (86 FR 5438, January 19, 2021).
The take numbers for authorization, determined as described above in the Summary of Request and Analysis section, are used by NMFS in making the necessary small numbers determinations, through comparison with the best available abundance estimates (see discussion at 86 FR 5322, 5391, January 19, 2021). For this comparison, NMFS' approach is to use the maximum theoretical population, determined through review of current stock assessment reports (SAR;
Based on the analysis contained herein of FEC's proposed survey activity described in its LOA application and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the affected species or stock sizes (
NMFS has determined that the level of taking for this LOA request is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the incidental take regulations and that the amount of take authorized under the LOA is of no more than small numbers. Accordingly, we have issued an LOA to FEC authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to its geophysical survey activity, as described above.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for a permit modification.
Notice is hereby given that Matthew Fisher, Normandeau Associates, Inc., 2233 Spring Street, West Lawn, PA 19609, has requested a modification to scientific research Permit No. 28294.
Written comments must be received on or before January 5, 2026.
The modification request 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
Erin Markin, Ph.D., or Shasta McClenahan, Ph.D., (301) 427-8401.
The subject modification to Permit No. 28294, issued on December 11, 2024 (90 FR 3803, January 15, 2025), is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Permit No. 28294 authorizes the permit holder to capture Atlantic (
The permit holder requests authorization to conduct research off the coasts of New York and New Jersey to better understand temporal and spatial movement, occurrence and behavior of Atlantic sturgeon. Up to 150 adult/sub-adult Atlantic sturgeon may be captured annually by gill net, anesthetized, implanted with acoustic transmitters, marked (PIT), measured, photographed/videoed, biologically sampled, and weighed, prior to release. A subset of captured sturgeon may receive a satellite tag. The permit holder requests one unintentional mortality of an Atlantic sturgeon in this new research area over the life of the permit.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of letter of authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, its implementing regulations, and NMFS' MMPA regulations for taking marine mammals incidental to geophysical surveys related to oil and gas activities in the Gulf of America, originally published as “Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical Surveys Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the Gulf of Mexico,” notification is hereby given that a Letter of Authorization (LOA) has been issued to Oceaneering International (OII) for the take of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activity in the Gulf of America (GOA).
The LOA is effective from November 1, 2025 through April 19, 2026.
The LOA, LOA request, and supporting documentation are available online at:
Jenna Harlacher, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
On January 19, 2021, we issued a final rule with regulations to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activities conducted by oil and gas industry operators, and those persons authorized to conduct activities on their behalf (collectively “industry operators”), in U.S. waters of the GOA
The regulations at 50 CFR 217.180
NMFS subsequently discovered that the 2021 rule was based on erroneous take estimates. We conducted another rulemaking using correct take estimates and other newly available and pertinent information relevant to the analyses supporting some of the findings in the 2021 final rule and the taking allowable under the regulations. We issued a final rule in April 2024, effective May 24, 2024 (89 FR 31488, April 24, 2024).
The 2024 final rule made no changes to the specified activities or the specified geographical region in which those activities would be conducted, nor to the original 5-year period of effectiveness. In consideration of the new information, the 2024 rule presented new analyses supporting affirmance of the negligible impact determinations for all species, and affirmed that the existing regulations, which contain mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements, are consistent with the “least practicable adverse impact” standard of the MMPA.
OII plans to conduct a shallow seismic survey in the West Delta Area Block 146, with water depths ranging from approximately 130-161 meters (m). See section F of the LOA application for a map of the area. OII anticipates using one source vessel with a 160 cubic inch (in
Consistent with the preamble to the final rule, the survey effort proposed by OII in its LOA request was used to develop LOA-specific take estimates based on the acoustic exposure modeling results described in the preamble (89 FR 31488, April 24, 2024). In order to generate the appropriate take number for authorization, the following information was considered: (1) survey type; (2) location (by modeling zone);
OII survey type was not included in the modeled survey types, and use of existing proxies (
The survey will take place over approximately 6 days with 3 days of source use all in Zone 2. The monthly distribution of survey days is not known in advance, though we assume that the planned 3 days of source operation would occur contiguously. Take estimates for each species are based on the time period that produces the greatest value.
Based on the results of our analysis, NMFS has determined that the level of taking expected for this survey and authorized through the LOA is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations. See table 1 in this notice and table 6 of the rule (89 FR 31488, April 24, 2024).
Under the rule, NMFS may not authorize incidental take of marine mammals in an LOA if it will exceed “small numbers.” In short, when an acceptable estimate of the individual marine mammals taken is available, if the estimated number of individual animals taken is up to, but not greater than, one-third of the best available abundance estimate, NMFS will determine that the numbers of marine mammals taken of a species or stock are small (see 89 FR 31535, May 24, 2024). For more information please see NMFS' discussion of small numbers in the 2021 final rule (86 FR 5438, January 19, 2021).
The take numbers for authorization, determined as described above in the Summary of Request and Analysis section, are used by NMFS in making the necessary small numbers determinations, through comparison with the best available abundance estimates (see discussion at 86 FR 5322, 5391, January 19, 2021). For this comparison, NMFS' approach is to use the maximum theoretical population, determined through review of current stock assessment reports (SAR;
Based on the analysis contained herein of OII's proposed survey activity described in its LOA application and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the affected species or stock sizes (
NMFS has determined that the level of taking for this LOA request is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the incidental take regulations and that the amount of take authorized under the LOA is of no more than small numbers. Accordingly, we have issued an LOA to OII authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to its geophysical survey activity, as described above.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add products and service(s) to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Comments must be received on or before: January 03, 2026.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 489-1322, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (operating as the U.S. AbilityOne Commission) is proposing to add the product listed below to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
In accordance with 41 CFR 51-5.3(b), the Committee intends to add the service listed below to the Procurement List as a mandatory purchase only for the contracting activity and location listed with the proposed qualified nonprofit agency as the authorized source of supply. Prior to adding the service to the Procurement List, the Committee will consider other pertinent information, including information from Government personnel and relevant comments from interested parties regarding the Committee's intent to geographically limit this services requirement.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to the Procurement List.
This action adds service(s) to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 489-1322, or email
On July 11, 2025, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (operating as the U.S. AbilityOne Commission) published an initial notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List. (90 FR 30634). The Committee determined that the service(s) listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government and has added this service to the Procurement List as a mandatory purchase for contracting activity listed. In accordance with 41 CFR 51-5.3(b), the mandatory purchase requirement is limited to the contracting activity and location listed, and in accordance with 41 CFR 51-5.2, the Committee has authorized (NPA) as the mandatory source(s) of supply.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the service(s) and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service(s) listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the service(s) to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the service(s) added to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following service(s) are added to the Procurement List:
The Committee finds good cause to dispense with the 30-day delay in the effective date normally required by the Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d). This addition to the Committee's Procurement List is effectuated because of the expiration of the Civil Engineering Base Maintenance Support, U.S. Air Force Academy, USAF Academy, CO contract. The Federal customer contacted and has worked diligently with the AbilityOne Program to fulfill this service need under the AbilityOne Program. To avoid performance disruption, and the possibility that the U.S. Air Force will refer its business elsewhere, this addition must be effective on December 14, 2025, ensuring timely execution for a December 15, 2025 start date. The Committee published an initial notice of proposed Procurement List addition in the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (“ICR”) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”), of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.
Comments must be submitted on or before January 5, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of this notice's publication to OIRA, at
In addition to the submission of comments to
Or by either of the following methods:
•
•
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments submitted to the Commission should include only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.
Eric Schmelzer, Special Counsel, (202) 836-0567,
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.
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (“ICR”) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Comments must be submitted on or before January 5, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of this notice's publication to OIRA, at
In addition to the submission of comments to
Or by either of the following methods:
•
•
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments submitted to the Commission should include only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.
Eric Schmelzer, Special Counsel, (202) 836-0567,
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.
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
Department of the Navy (DoN), Department of Defense.
Notice.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and Executive Order 12114, the DoN announces its decision to conduct training and testing activities within the Hawaii-California Training and Testing (HCTT) Study Area as described in Alternative 1 of the HCTT Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS).
Alternative 1 is the DoN's preferred alternative and is representative of an annual level of training and testing activities that accounts for fluctuations of training cycles, deployment schedules, use of synthetic training opportunities, and testing programs.
The complete text of the Record of Decision (ROD) and the HCTT Final EIS/OEIS is available on the project website at
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing an extension without change of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 2, 2026.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Diana Yu, 202-245-6371.
The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Information Collection 1820-0600 is being extended as is.
Take notice that during the month of November 2025, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2025).
On December 1, 2025, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL26-23-000 pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, instituting an investigation to determine whether ECP Linden's Rate Schedule is unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential, or otherwise unlawful.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL26-23-000 established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL26-23-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2025), within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFile” link at
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
On April 24, 2024, as supplemented on October 3, 2024, Swan Lake North Hydro LLC (licensee) filed an application for amendment of the unconstructed Swan Lake North Hydroelectric Project No. 13318. The licensee proposes to modify project designs based on engineering development and geotechnical investigations. The project will be located about 11 miles northeast of the city of Klamath Falls in Klamath County, Oregon. The project will occupy federal land administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
On September 9, 2025, Commission staff issued notice of the availability of an Environmental Assessment (EA) containing Commission staff's analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed surrender. The September 9, 2025 notice established October 9, 2025, as the deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests. On November 20, 2025, the Department of Interior filed a request to extend the comment period for the EA until December 5, 2025.
The reason cited for the request for extension was the federal lapse of appropriations from October 1 through November 12, 2025 and that federal employees were on furlough and were unable to review and develop comments on the EA.
We have reviewed Interior's request and are reopening the comment period for the EA. All comments on the EA must be filed by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 5, 2025.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
For further information, contact Elizabeth Moats at 202-502-6632 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:
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 December 31, 2024, Moon Lake Electric Association, Inc. filed an application to surrender and decommission the Uintah Hydroelectric Project No. 190. The project is located on the Uinta River, Pole Creek, and Big Springs, near the town of Neola, Duchesne County, Utah. The project occupies lands of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation of the Ute Indian Tribe and the U.S. Forest Service's Ashley National Forest.
On October 20, 2025, Commission staff issued notice of the availability of an Environmental Assessment (EA) containing Commission staff's analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed surrender. The October 20, 2025 notice established November 19, 2025, as the deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests.
On November 10, 2025, the Department of Interior (Interior) filed a timely request to extend the comment period for the EA for 30 days or until December 10, 2025. The reason cited for the request for extension was the federal lapse of appropriations from October 1 through November 12, 2025, and that federal employees were on furlough and were unable to review and develop comments on the EA.
We have reviewed Interior's request and are reopening the comment period for the EA. All comments on the EA must be filed by
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
For further information, contact Diana Shannon at 202-502-6136 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
l.
m.
n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
o.
p.
q. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
On July 23, 2023, and supplemented January 30, 2025 and September 26, 2025, Pacific Gas and Electric Company filed an application for a non-capacity license amendment for Article 52 of the Potter Valley Project No. 77. The project is located on the Eel River and East Fork of the Russian River in Lake and Mendocino counties, California. The project occupies federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service.
On October 31, 2025, the Commission issued public notice of the application and established December 1, 2025, as the deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests. On November 20, 2025, a communication from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was filed to the docket,
The additional time will allow the USDA to review the proposed non-capacity amendment and potentially provide comments concerning the effects of the proposed amendment to the record. In order to provide the USDA additional time, we are extending the deadline for all entities. The new deadline for filing responses to the Notice of Application for Non-Capacity Amendment of License Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions to Intervene, and Protests is now December 19, 2025, 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
For further information, contact Katherine Schmidt at 415-369-3348 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:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities 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:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
On July 25, 2025, Pacific Gas and Electric Company filed an application to surrender and decommission the Potter Valley Hydroelectric Project No. 77. The project is located on the Eel River and East Fork of the Russian River in Lake and Mendocino counties, California. The project occupies federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service.
On October 31, 2025, the Commission issued public notice of the application and established December 1, 2025, as the deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests. Since issuance of the notice, multiple parties including the Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture's U.S. Forest Service, County of Lake (California), America First Policy Institute, the Honorable Doug LaMalfa, U.S. House of Representatives, and private citizens, have filed requests to extend the comment period. Requested extensions range from short extensions (
Among the reasons cited for the request for extension was the federal lapse of appropriations from October 1 through November 12, 2025, the complexity of issues related to surrender of the project, and additional time would allow more meaningful stakeholder engagement with the Commission.
We have reviewed the requests and are extending the deadline for filing comments, interventions, and protests until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 19, 2025.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
For further information, contact Diana Shannon at 202-502-6136 or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces the availability of and solicits public comment on the following Information Collection Request (ICR) that EPA is planning to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): PCBs, Consolidated Reproting and Recordkeeping requirements (EPA ICR No. 1446.15 and OMB Control No. 2070-0112). This ICR represents a renewal of an existing ICR that is currently approved through July 31, 2026. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval under the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment.
Comments must be received on or before February 2, 2026.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0647, online at
Carolyn Siu, Office of Mission Critical Operations (Mail Code 7602M), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-1205; email address:
Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
There is an increase of 3,191 hours in the total estimated individual respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB, although overall there is a decrease in 23,762 burden hours compared with the currently approved. This increase reflects EPA's update of the burden hours in the 3 major categories: Reporting, Third-party Reporting, and Recordkeeping. Reporting increased 3,171 hours due to an increase in respondents by 1 and based on the average number of applications received in the Agency in FY2022-FY2024. This activity has a 2,000-hour burden associated with it. Third-party reporting remained constant. Recordkeeping increased 20 hours mostly due to a new reporting requirement, based on the number of notices received by the Agency in FY2022-FY2024. This is an adjustment. There is also an increase in the capital costs from what is currently approved by OMB by $4,100. This is a correction. The currently approved capital costs of $50 represents per firm costs, not total capital costs.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.
Notice.
This notice announces the appointment of the members of the Performance Review Board (PRB) for the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. The PRB reviews the performance appraisals of career and non-career senior executives. The PRB makes recommendations regarding proposed performance appraisals, ratings, bonuses, pay adjustments, and other appropriate personnel actions.
Effective on December 4, 2025.
Joshua Poole, Senior Management and Program Analyst, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, (202) 577-6831.
This Notice announces the appointment of the following primary and alternate members to the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission PRB:
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, Benjamin W. McDonough, Deputy Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than January 5, 2026.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement; request for comment.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of Federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before January 5, 2026.
Interested parties may file comments online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Bhavna Changrani (202-326-2363), Attorney, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 400 7th St. SW, Washington, DC 20024.
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule § 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of 30 days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before January 5, 2026. Write “Illuminate; File No. 222 3105” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your State—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the
Because of heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. We strongly encourage you to submit your comments online through the
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule § 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the FTC website at
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Illuminate Education, Inc. (“Respondent”). The proposed consent order (“proposed order”) has been placed on the public record for 30 days for receipt of public comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the agreement, along with the comments received, and will decide whether it should make final the proposed order or withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action.
Respondent is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Wisconsin Rapids, WI. Respondent offers schools and districts a suite of software products and solutions, such as the IO Suite,
The proposed complaint alleges that despite representing to school districts, students and their parents that it would keep their student personal information safe, Respondent failed to utilize reasonable information security measures to do so. The proposed complaint alleges that as a result of Respondent's unreasonable information security practices, a threat actor infiltrated Respondent's network, had unfettered access to students' personal information for 13 days, and exfiltrated millions of students' personal information.
The Commission's proposed three-count complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 5(a) of the FTC Act by (1) unfairly failing to employ reasonable information security practices to protect students' personal information, (2) misrepresenting to school districts, students and their parents that it took reasonable steps to protect student personal information, and (3) misrepresenting to school districts that it would provide timely notifications regarding breach or unauthorized disclosure. With respect to the first count, the proposed complaint alleges that Respondent:
(a) stored, until at least January 2022, students' personal information in Illuminate's network in S3 buckets in plaintext, rather than encrypting the information;
(b) failed to implement reasonable access controls to safeguard students' personal information stored in AWS services;
(c) failed to employ effective threat detection and response on its network and databases;
(d) failed to employ effective vulnerability monitoring and patch management practices;
(e) improperly configured, or failed to implement, logging and monitoring tools to appropriately capture and alert on suspicious data security events;
(f) failed, until at least November 2022, to establish a comprehensive incident management or incident response plan; and
(g) failed, until at least March 2022, to have a policy, process, or procedure for inventorying and deleting students' personal information stored on Illuminate's network after that information is no longer necessary.
The proposed complaint alleges that Respondent could have addressed each of these failures by implementing readily available and relatively low-cost security measures. It also alleges that Respondent's failures caused, or are likely to cause, substantial injury to consumers that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition and is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves. Such practices constitute unfair acts or practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act.
With respect to the second count, the proposed complaint alleges that, at various times, Respondent represented to school districts, students and their parents that it used reasonable measures to protect student personal information. The proposed complaint alleges that, in reality, and as noted above, Respondent failed to implement reasonable measures to protect students' personal information. Such representations were, therefore, deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act.
Finally, the third count of the proposed complaint alleges that at various times Respondent represented that it would provide timely notifications to school districts whose data has been exposed as a result of a breach or unintended disclosure. The proposed complaint alleges that Respondent failed to timely notify school districts whose data had been exposed due to a breach or unintended disclosure. Such representations were, therefore, deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act.
The proposed order contains injunctive relief designed to prevent Respondent from engaging in the same or similar acts or practices in the future.
Part I prohibits Respondent from misrepresenting (1) the extent to which it protects the privacy, security, availability, confidentiality, or integrity of any covered information; and (2) the time period in which Respondent will notify school districts and students of a breach or unintended disclosure of any covered information as defined in the proposed order.
Part II requires that Respondent delete or destroy covered information that is not being retained in connection with providing products or services under Respondent's contracts with its customers or as requested by Respondent's customers.
Part III requires that Respondent document and adhere to a retention schedule for the covered information it collects from consumers, including the purposes for which it collects such information and the timeframe for its deletion.
Part IV requires Respondent to establish and implement, and thereafter maintain, a comprehensive information security program that protects the security, availability, confidentiality, and integrity of covered information.
Part V requires Respondent to obtain initial and biennial information security assessments by an independent, third-party professional for 10 years. Part VI requires Respondent to disclose all material facts to the assessor required by Part V and prohibits Respondent from misrepresenting any fact material to the assessments required by Part V.
Part VII requires Respondent to submit an annual certification from the Chief Information Security Officer responsible for its information security program that the company has implemented the requirements of the Order and is not aware of any material noncompliance that has not been corrected or disclosed to the Commission. Part VIII requires Respondent to notify the Commission any time it notifies a federal, state, or local government that information of or about a consumer was, or is reasonably believed to have been, accessed, acquired, or publicly exposed without authorization.
Parts IX-XII are reporting and compliance provisions, which include recordkeeping requirements and provisions requiring Respondent to provide information or documents necessary for the Commission to monitor compliance.
Part XIII states that the proposed order will remain in effect for 10 years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify the proposed order's terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
This notice announces the annual adjustment in the amount in controversy (AIC) threshold amounts for Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearings and judicial review under the Medicare appeals process. The adjustment to the AIC threshold amounts will be effective for requests for ALJ hearings and judicial review filed on or after January 1, 2026. The calendar year 2026 AIC threshold amounts are $200 for ALJ hearings and $1,960 for judicial review.
This annual adjustment takes effect on January 1, 2026.
Natasha Franklin, (410) 786-5692.
Section 1869(b)(1)(E) of the Social Security Act (the Act) established the amount in controversy (AIC) threshold amounts for Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearings and judicial review at $100 and $1,000, respectively, for Medicare Part A and Part B appeals. Additionally, section 1869(b)(1)(E) of the Act provides that beginning in January 2005, the AIC threshold amounts are to be adjusted annually by the percentage increase in the medical care component of the consumer price index (CPI) for all urban consumers (U.S. city average) for July 2003 to the July preceding the year involved and rounded to the nearest multiple of $10. Sections 1852(g)(5) and 1876(c)(5)(B) of the Act apply the AIC adjustment requirement to Medicare Part C/Medicare Advantage (MA) appeals and certain health maintenance organization and competitive medical plan appeals. Health care prepayment plans are also subject to MA appeals rules, including the AIC adjustment requirement, pursuant to 42 CFR 417.840. Section 1860D-4(h)(1) of the Act, provides that a Medicare Part D plan sponsor shall meet the requirements of paragraphs (4) and (5) of section 1852(g) of the Act with respect to benefits, including appeals and the application of the AIC adjustment requirement to Medicare Part D appeals.
The statutory formula for the annual adjustment to the AIC threshold amounts for ALJ hearings and judicial review of Medicare Part A and Part B appeals, set forth at section 1869(b)(1)(E) of the Act, is included in the applicable implementing regulations, 42 CFR 405.1006(b) and (c). The regulations at § 405.1006(b)(2) require the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to publish changes to the AIC threshold amounts in the
Section 1852(g)(5) of the Act applies the AIC adjustment requirement to Medicare Part C appeals. The implementing regulations for Medicare Part C appeals are found at 42 CFR part 422, subpart M. Specifically, §§ 422.600 and 422.612 discuss the AIC threshold amounts for ALJ hearings and judicial review. Section 422.600 grants any party to the reconsideration (except the MA organization) who is dissatisfied with the reconsideration determination a right to an ALJ hearing as long as the amount remaining in controversy after reconsideration meets the threshold requirement established annually by the Secretary. Section 422.612 states, in part, that any party, including the MA organization, may request judicial review if the AIC meets the threshold requirement established annually by the Secretary.
Section 1876(c)(5)(B) of the Act states that the annual adjustment to the AIC dollar amounts set forth in section 1869(b)(1)(E)(iii) of the Act applies to certain beneficiary appeals within the context of health maintenance organizations and competitive medical plans. The applicable implementing regulations for Medicare Part C appeals are set forth in 42 CFR part 422, subpart M and apply to these appeals in accordance with 42 CFR 417.600(b). The Medicare Part C appeals rules also apply to health care prepayment plan appeals in accordance with 42 CFR 417.840.
The annually adjusted AIC threshold amounts for ALJ hearings and judicial review that apply to Medicare Parts A, B, and C appeals also apply to Medicare Part D appeals. Section 1860D-4(h)(1) of the Act regarding Part D appeals requires a prescription drug plan sponsor to meet the requirements set forth in sections 1852(g)(4) and (g)(5) of the Act, in a similar manner as MA organizations. The implementing regulations for Medicare Part D appeals can be found at 42 CFR part 423, subparts M and U. More specifically, § 423.2006 addresses the AIC threshold amounts for ALJ hearings and judicial review. Sections 423.2002 and 423.2006 grant a Part D enrollee who is dissatisfied with the independent review entity (IRE) reconsideration determination a right to an ALJ hearing if the amount remaining in controversy after the IRE reconsideration meets the threshold amount established annually by the Secretary, and other requirements set forth in § 423.2002. Sections 423.2006 and 423.2136 allow a Part D enrollee to request judicial review of an ALJ or Medicare Appeals Council decision if the AIC meets the threshold amount established annually by the Secretary, and other requirements are met as set forth in these provisions.
Section 1869(b)(1)(E)(iii) of the Act requires that the AIC threshold amounts be adjusted annually, beginning in January 2005, by the percentage increase in the medical care component of the CPI for all urban consumers (U.S. city average) for July 2003 to July of the year preceding the year involved and rounded to the nearest multiple of $10.
The AIC threshold amount for ALJ hearings will rise from $190 for CY 2025 to $200 for CY 2026, and the AIC threshold amount for judicial review will increase from $1,900 for CY 2025 to $1,960 for CY 2026. These amounts are based on the 96.188 percent change in the medical care component of the CPI, which was at 297.600 in July 2003 and rose to 583.856 in July 2025. The AIC threshold amount for ALJ hearings changes to $196.19 based on the 96.188 percent increase over the initial threshold amount of $100 established in 2003. In accordance with section 1869(b)(1)(E)(iii) of the Act, the adjusted threshold amounts are rounded to the nearest multiple of $10. Therefore, the CY 2026 AIC threshold amount for ALJ hearings is $200.00. The AIC threshold amount for judicial review changes to $1,961.88 based on the 96.188 percent increase over the initial threshold amount of $1,000. This amount was rounded to the nearest multiple of $10, resulting in the CY 2026 AIC threshold amount of $1,960.00 for judicial review.
In the following table we list the CYs 2022 through 2026 threshold amounts.
This document announces the annual adjustment in the AIC threshold amounts and does not impose any “collection of information” requirements as defined under 5 CFR 1320.3(c). Consequently, the notice is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Dr. Mehmet Oz having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Trenesha Fultz-Mimms, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to provide opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Office of Clinical Research Education and Collaboration Outreach (OCRECO), Office of Intramural Research (OIR), National Institutes of Health, will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit
Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires: written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimizes the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
This revision request is comprised of the addition of 4 new surveys: two application surveys for two new certificate programs and two generic/template surveys for additional courses as part of the clinical research education programs of the office. The clinical research education programs include: the Introduction to the Principles and Practice of Clinical Research and Principles of Clinical Pharmacology, Sabbatical in Clinical Research Management, the NIH Summer Course in Clinical and Translational Research, the Ethical and Regulatory Aspects of Clinical Research Course (Asynchronous/Online), the Clinical Research Curriculum Certificate Program, the Radiology Research Certificate Program, and additional future courses.
OMB revision request approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 2,723.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health published a Notice in the
The nomination deadline has been extended through Friday, January 2, 2026.
Nominations are due by Friday, January 2, 2026 and may be sent to Dr. Susan Daniels, Director, Office of National Autism Coordination/NIMH/NIH, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 6119, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 by standard or express mail, or via email to
Susan Daniels at 301-827-1437 or email at
On September 24, 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health published a Notice in the
Nominations of new non-federal public members are encouraged, and previous non-federal public members may also be re-nominated to serve if they have served only one term previously, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 280i-2(c)(3). Self-nominations and nominations of other individuals are both permitted. Only one nomination per individual is required. Multiple nominations of the same individual will not increase likelihood of selection. The Secretary may select non-federal public members from the pool of submitted nominations and other sources as needed to meet statutory requirements and to form a balanced committee that represents a broad range of expertise and perspectives within the autism
Those eligible for nomination include individuals on the autism spectrum; parents, guardians, or family members of individuals on the autism spectrum; leaders or representatives of major autism research, advocacy, and service organizations; healthcare and service providers; educators; researchers; and other individuals with professional or personal experience with autism. Nominations of individuals from all U.S. states and territories, and individuals representing a range of lived experience, community service perspectives, and/or professional expertise within the autism community are encouraged. Nominations of individuals with a variety of disability and support needs are encouraged; requests for reasonable accommodation to enable participation on the Committee should be indicated in the nomination submission.
IACC non-federal public members are appointed as special government employees (SGEs) and are required to be at least 18 years old and U.S. citizens. Male non-federal public members must have signed up for the U.S. Selective Service in order to be eligible. To serve, SGEs must submit an annual confidential financial disclosure report used to determine conflicts of interest as well as a foreign activities questionnaire. Prohibited foreign activities include holding a position or title with a foreign governmental entity (including certain universities), and from receiving compensation and certain gifts from a foreign government. In accordance with White House Office of Management and Budget guidelines (FR Doc. 2014-19140), federally-registered lobbyists are not eligible. Federal employees may not serve as non-federal public members. IACC non-federal public members may be restricted from serving on other federal advisory committees while serving on the IACC and are subject to standard background checks associated with federal employment.
As specified in the Committee's authorizing statute (section 399CC of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 280i-2, as amended), the Committee will carry out the following responsibilities: (1) on a regular basis, monitor autism spectrum disorder research, and to the extent practicable, services and support activities, across all relevant Federal departments and agencies, including coordination of Federal activities with respect to autism spectrum disorder; (2) summarize advances in autism spectrum disorder research related to causes, prevention, treatment, early screening, diagnosis or ruling out a diagnosis; interventions, including school and community-based interventions, and access to services and supports for individuals with autism spectrum disorder across the lifespan of such individuals; (3) make recommendations to the Secretary regarding any appropriate changes to such activities, including with respect to the strategic plan; (4) make recommendations to the Secretary regarding public participation in decisions relating to autism spectrum disorder, and the process by which public feedback can be better integrated into such decisions; (5) develop a strategic plan for the conduct of, and support for, autism spectrum disorder research, which shall include (A) proposed budgetary requirements; and (B) recommendations to ensure that autism spectrum disorder research, and services and support activities to the extent practicable, of the Department of Health and Human Services and of other Federal departments and agencies are not unnecessarily duplicative; and (6) submit to Congress and the President: (A) an annual update on the summary of advances; and (B) a biennial update to the strategic plan, including progress made in achieving the goals outlined in such strategic plan and any specific measures taken pursuant to such strategic plan.
In accordance with the Committee's authorizing statute, “Not more than
All non-Federal public members are appointed as Special Government Employees for their service on the IACC, of which:
• At least three such members shall be individuals with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder; and
• At least three such members shall be parents or legal guardians of an individual with an autism spectrum disorder; and
• At least three such members shall be representatives of leading research, advocacy, and service organizations for individuals with autism spectrum disorder.
The Department strives to ensure that the membership of HHS Federal advisory committees is balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. Every effort is made to ensure that a range of perspectives and expertise are represented on HHS Federal advisory committees and, therefore, the Department encourages nominations of qualified candidates, including individuals with disabilities, from across the United States and its territories. Appointment to this Committee shall be made free from all forms of discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, age, disability, or sex.
Non-Federal public members of the Committee “shall serve for a term of 4 years and may be reappointed for one additional 4-year term. Any member appointed to fill a vacancy for an unexpired term shall be appointed for the remainder of such term. A member [with a valid appointment] may serve after the expiration of the member's term until a successor has been appointed.”
“The Committee shall meet at the call of the chairperson or upon the request of the Secretary. The Committee shall meet not fewer than 2 times each year.” In the years 2021-2024, the IACC typically held 3-4 meetings per year, including full committee, subcommittee, working and planning group meetings, and workshops. Meetings were held as either hybrid meetings with both in-person and videoconference accessibility, or as videoconference only. Travel expenses are provided for non-federal public Committee members to facilitate in-person attendance at hybrid meetings. Members are expected to be committed to making every effort to attend, either in-person or by video conference, all IACC full committee meetings and workshops and relevant subcommittee, working and planning group meetings. Accessible meeting design is employed, and reasonable accommodations are provided to facilitate full participation of individuals with disabilities.
Nominations should include a cover letter of no longer than 3 pages describing the candidate's interest in seeking appointment to the IACC, including relevant personal/lived, professional, and/or community service experience with autism; indication of any membership eligibility requirements met; disability accommodation requests; and an indication of commitment to attend IACC meetings if selected; as well as full contact information and a current resume or curriculum vitae. Up to 2
Nominations are due by Friday, January 2, 2026. Nominations may be sent to Dr. Susan Daniels, Director, Office of National Autism Coordination/NIMH/NIH, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 6119, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 by standard or express mail, or via email to
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days from the meeting date due to exceptional circumstances. As a result of the 43-day government shutdown, due to lapsed appropriations, the above meeting was canceled. This meeting was to assess the scientific and technical merit of NIH grant applications, required by statute to disburse NIH funds. The meeting must take place urgently so that evaluations of biomedical research applications addressing multiple major public health priorities can be submitted to the national advisory councils for timely funding recommendations.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Registration is not required to attend this meeting.
Office of Policy Development and Research, Chief Data Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
John L. Murphy, PRA Compliance Officer, Paperwork Reduction Act Division, PRAD, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 8220, Washington, DC 20410; email at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Guido.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Anna Guido, PRA Compliance Officer, Paperwork Reduction Act Division, PRAD, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 8210, Washington, DC 20410; email at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Anna Guido, PRA Compliance Officer, Paperwork Reduction Act Division, PRAD, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 8210, Washington, DC 20410; email at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Anna Guido, PRA Compliance Officer, Paperwork Reduction Act Division, PRAD, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 8210, Washington, DC 20410; email at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.
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 scientific research to promote conservation or other activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of endangered or threatened 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 any of 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 January 5, 2026.
•
•
Tiffany Heitz, via phone at 916-414-6489, or via email at
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, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities that constitute take of listed wildlife species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activity. The ESA's definition of “take” of wildlife species includes such activities as pursuing, harassing, trapping, capturing, or collecting, in addition to hunting, shooting, harming, wounding, or killing, or attempting to engage in any such conduct.
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 of listed wildlife species and removal and reduction to possession of listed plant species from an area of federal jurisdiction. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found in the Code of
Proposed activities in the permit requests in table 1 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 these 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, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
After the comment period closes, we will make decisions regarding permit issuance. If we issue a permit to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
An interested party opposed to a recovery permit's issuance may object by following the requirements in 50 CFR 17.22(d) and request notification of the final action. The Service will follow the procedures in that section regarding notification of interested parties who file objections to issuance of permits.
We publish this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), in accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), provide a list to the public of permits issued under the ESA. With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits take of listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that authorizes or exempts the taking under the ESA. We provide this list to the public as a summary of our permit issuances for candidate conservation agreements with assurances, safe harbor agreements, conservation benefit agreements, habitat conservation plans, and recovery activities for calendar year 2024.
For general information about the ESA permit process, contact Diana Kramer, via phone at 703-358-1874 or via email at
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), provide a list to the public of the permits issued under sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits take of listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that authorizes the taking, or the take is exempted through section 7 of the ESA. In 2024, we revised the implementing regulations for ESA section 10(a) related to enhancement of survival permits supported by candidate conservation agreements with assurances (CCAAs) and safe harbor agreements (SHAs) (50 CFR 17.22(c) and (50 CFR 17.32 (c) and (d)), to combine the CCAAs and SHAs into one type of conservation agreement, called a conservation benefit agreement (CBA) (89 FR 26070; April 12, 2024). Therefore, permits listed in this notice include CCAAs and SHAs issued prior
Under the authority of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA, we may issue permits for any act otherwise prohibited by section 9 for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species, including acts necessary for the establishment and maintenance of experimental populations. These permits must be issued in accordance with the purposes and policy of the ESA. The purposes of the ESA, as described in section 2(b), are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of treaties and conventions. Furthermore, the ESA describes the policy of Congress, in section 2(c), to be that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA. The terms “conserve,” “conserving,” and “conservation” mean to use, and the use of, all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the ESA are no longer necessary. We equate “recovery” with the definition of “conserve” and define “recovery” as improvement in the status of listed species to the point at which listing is no longer appropriate under criteria set out in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Therefore, we may issue enhancement of survival permits to conduct activities that provide a conservation benefit for endangered or threatened species, or for unlisted species should they become listed in the future, in response to permit applications that we received in conjunction with a SHA, CCAA, or CBA. We may also issue recovery permits under ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) to allow for purposeful take as part of activities intended to foster the recovery of listed species.
Under ESA section 10(a)(1)(B), we may issue permits for any taking otherwise prohibited by ESA section 9 if such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity (known as an incidental take permit (ITP)) and the permit applicant submits an HCP that meets the permit issuance criteria under section 10(a)(2)(B). Typically, applicants seek an ITP to conduct activities such as residential and commercial development, infrastructure development or maintenance, and energy development projects that range in scale from small to landscape-level planning efforts.
The permits associated with SHAs, CCAAs, CBAs, HCPs, and recovery activities that we issued between January 1 and December 31, 2024, are listed below.
Under section 10(a)(1)(A), we issued each permit only after we determined that it was applied for in good faith; that granting the permit would not be to the disadvantage of the listed species, or to the unlisted species should they be listed; that the proposed activities would benefit the recovery or the enhancement of survival of the species; and that the terms and conditions of the permits were consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in the ESA.
Under section 10(a)(1)(B), we issued permits only after we determined that the applicant was eligible and had submitted a complete application and HCP that fully met the permit issuance criteria consistent with section 10(a)(2)(B).
The following permits, sorted by type of permit or agreement and date issued in the table below, were applied for and issued by the Regional office responsible for section 10 permitting in the States and territories listed above.
For more information about HCP, CCAA, SHA, or CBA permits, contact:
For more information about any of the following recovery permits, contact the Recovery Permit Coordinator by email at
The following permits, sorted by type of permit or agreement and date issued in the table below, were applied for and issued by the Regional office responsible for section 10 permitting in the States listed above.
For more information about HCP, CCAA, SHA, or CBA permits, contact:
For more information about any of the following recovery permits, contact the Recovery Permit Coordinator by email at
The following permits, sorted by type of permit or agreement and date issued in the table below, were applied for and issued by the Regional office responsible for section 10 permitting in the States listed above.
For more information about HCP, CCAA, SHA, or CBA permits, contact:
For more information about any of the following recovery permits, contact the Recovery Permit Coordinator by email at
The following permits, sorted by type of permit or agreement and date issued in the table below, were applied for and issued by the Regional office responsible for section 10 permitting in the States and territories listed above.
For more information about HCP, CCAA, SHA, or CBA permits contact:
For more information about any of the following recovery permits, contact the Recovery Permit Coordinator by email at
The following permits, sorted by type of permit or agreement and date issued in the table below, were applied for and issued by the Regional office responsible for section 10 permitting in the States and territories listed above.
For more information about HCP, CCAA, SHA, or CBA permits, contact:
For more information about any of the following recovery permits, contact the Recovery Permit Coordinator by email at
The following permits, sorted by type of permit or agreement and date issued in the table below, were applied for and issued by the Regional office responsible for section 10 permitting in the States listed above.
For more information about HCP, CCAA, SHA, or CBA permits, contact:
For more information about any of the following recovery permits, contact the Recovery Permit Coordinator by email at
No associated permits were issued in Region 7 (Alaska) in 2024.
The following permits, sorted by type of permit or agreement and date issued in the table below, were applied for and issued by the Regional office responsible for section 10 permitting in the States and region listed above.
For more information about HCP, CCAA, SHA, or CBA permits, contact:
For more information about any of the following recovery permits, contact the Recovery Permit Coordinator by email at
You may request copies of the
We provide this notice under the authority of section 10 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are proposing to renew a currently approved information collection without change.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 2, 2026.
Send your comments on the information collection request (ICR) by one of the following methods (please reference OMB Control No. 1018-0167 in the subject line of your comment):
•
•
Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again inviting the public and other Federal agencies to comment on continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. 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 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 Service permit applications associated with eagles are in the 3-200 and 3-202 series of forms, each tailored to a specific activity based on the requirements for specific types of permits. We collect standard identifier information for all permits. The information that we collect on applications and reports is the minimum necessary for us to determine if the applicant meets/continues to meet issuance requirements for the particular activity.
The Service proposes to renew the information collections listed below, without change, in order to extend the expiration date for the collection (currently July 31, 2026) while the Service continues to finalize proposed regulations under RIN 1018-BI80, Deregulatory Actions Relating to Migratory Birds and Eagles. As part of that rulemaking, the Service will propose amendments to our miscellaneous provisions relating to migratory birds and eagles. We will propose revisions to current regulations to more efficiently and appropriately authorize activities while meeting our obligations under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Airborne Hunting Act, and the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act. We will propose to modify requirements from a prescriptive approach to a performance-based standard approach to allow greater flexibility in compliance. We will also propose to clarify and streamline requirements to improve understanding and ease of compliance. Finally, we will propose to remove certain parts, sections, and subsections to reduce confusion and improve regulatory efficiency, including
We will request OMB approval to renew, without change, the following information collection requirements associated with eagles:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
The public may request copies of any form contained in this information collection by sending a request to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer (see
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
November 26, 2025.
Rachel Devenney (202-205-3172), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Effective October 1, 2025, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the subject proceeding (90 FR 47334, October 1, 2025). Due to the lapse in appropriations and ensuing cessation of Commission operations, the Commission is revising its schedule as follows: responses to the notice of institution are due December 17, 2025; comments concerning the adequacy of responses to the notice of institution and whether the Commission should conduct an expedited or full review are due January 27, 2026. The deadline for persons, including industrial users of the Subject Merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the proceeding as parties, to file an entry of appearance, which was originally set for 21 days after the publication of the notice of institution on October 1, 2025 (90 FR 47334), has been tolled by 47 days.
For further information concerning this proceeding, see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf Doosan Bobcat North America, Inc. d/b/a Bobcat Company on December 2, 2025. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain skid-steer loaders, compact track loaders, excavators, wheel loaders, dozers, and components thereof. The complaint names as a respondent: Caterpillar, Inc. of Irving, TX. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, members of the public, and interested government agencies are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3860”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
On March 18, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Latania Akers-White, M.D., of Richmond, Virginia
The OSC notified Registrant of her right to file a written request for hearing, and that if she failed to file such a request, she would be deemed to have waived her right to a hearing and be in default.
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] 1316.67.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are deemed admitted. According to the OSC, on or about July 11, 2024, the Virginia Department of Health Professions suspended Registrant's Virginia medical license. RFAAX 1, at 2. According to Virginia online records, of which the Agency takes official notice,
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
According to Virginia statute, “dispense” means “to deliver a drug to an ultimate user or research subject by or pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the prescribing and administering, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery.” Va. Code § 54.1-3401 (2025). Additionally, Virginia statute defines “practitioner” as “a physician . . . or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted to distribute, dispense, prescribe and administer, or conduct research with respect to a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research in [Virginia].”
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant lacks authority to practice medicine in Virginia. As discussed above, a physician must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled substance in Virginia. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to practice medicine in Virginia and, therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in Virginia, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. FA2343630 issued to Latania Akers-White, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on November 24, 2025, by Administrator Terrance C. Cole. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. (MST-AZ), Tuesday, December 16, 2025.
Virtual Board of Trustees Meeting via Microsoft Teams.
This virtual meeting of the Board of Trustees will be open to the public. Members of the public who would like to attend this meeting may request remote access by contacting Sara Moeller at
(1) Call to Order and Chair's Remarks; (2) Trustees' Remarks; (3) Executive Director's Remarks; (4) Consent Agenda Approval (Minutes of the May 6, 2025, Board of Trustees Meeting; Board Reports submitted for Education Programs, Finance and Internal Controls, John S. McCain III National Center for Environmental Conflict Resolution, and Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, including the Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy and Special Collections at the University of Arizona Libraries; and Board takes notice of any new and updated personnel policies and internal control methodologies); and (5) The University of Arizona Fiscal Year 2026 Program Work Plan and Funding (including votes on resolutions regarding Allocation of Funds to the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy and Special Collections at the University of Arizona Libraries and Funds Set Aside for the Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy, a program of the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy).
Sara Moeller, Chief Operating Officer, 434 E University Blvd., Suite 300, Tucson, AZ, 85705, (520) 345-3562.
Dated: December 2, 2025.
National Science Foundation.
Notice.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to reinstate this collection. In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are providing opportunity for public comments on this action. After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance of this collection for no longer than 3 years.
Written comments on this notice must be received by February 2, 2026 to be assured consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. Send comments to address below.
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; telephone (703) 292-7556; or send email to
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
1.
2.
1.
2.
This Notice will be published in the
On December 13, 2024, CME Securities Clearing, Inc. (“CMESC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) an application on Form CA-1 (“Application”) under Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) seeking to register as a clearing agency to provide central counterparty (“CCP”) services for transactions involving U.S. Treasury securities.
The Commission received comment letters on the notice of the Application and on the OIP, as well as response letters from CMESC.
This order grants CMESC's Application for registration as a clearing agency for the reasons set forth in Part III below.
Clearing agencies are broadly defined under the Exchange Act and undertake a variety of functions,
The requirements of the Exchange Act applicable to clearing agencies are set forth in Section 17A of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
After a clearing agency's application for registration is granted, the clearing agency must continue to satisfy the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. The Commission has explained that “[a]n approval of clearing agency registration does not mean that no further modifications of the applicant's rules, systems, procedures, or practices are needed.”
Consistent with the requirements in Sections 17A and 19(a)(1) of the Exchange Act described above, the Commission below discusses how the Application satisfies each of the statutory requirements to be registered as a clearing agency.
Section 17A(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act states that a clearing agency shall not be registered unless the Commission determines that such clearing agency is so organized and has the capacity to be able to facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions for which it is responsible, to safeguard securities and funds in its custody or control or for which it is responsible, to comply with the provisions of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, to enforce (subject to any rule or order of the Commission pursuant to Section 17(d) or 19(g)(2) of the Exchange Act) compliance by its participants with the rules of the clearing agency, and to carry out the purposes of Section 17A of the Exchange Act.
Consistent with this standard, the Commission does not assess in this order whether CMESC's ultimate implementation of the rules, policies, and procedures set forth in its Application will comply with each of the Commission's rules for clearing agencies, as CMESC is not yet operating
In the OIP, the Commission requested public comment on whether CMESC is so organized and has the capacity to facilitate prompt and accurate clearance and settlement, and in particular, whether CMESC's proposed legal, governance, and operational arrangements enable CMESC to satisfy the requirements of the Exchange Act and Commission rules and regulations thereunder.
The following is an overview of CMESC's proposed clearing agency operations. In Exhibit J, CMESC describes that its risk management framework has been designed to identify, measure, monitor, and manage a range of risks that arise through its clearance and settlement functions in order to promote prompt clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and the safeguarding of securities and funds against operational risk losses. For example, CMESC will have a process to manage trade submissions in real-time, and allow for communication of trade submissions, settlement confirmation and failures, and transfers.
As described in Exhibit J, CMESC will accept three types of transactions for clearing: tri-party Clear to Hold Transactions, Clear to Deliver Transactions, and Cash Treasury Transactions.
According to Exhibit J, upon submission of a pre-matched or a successful full match of a transaction request, CMESC will validate the transaction, account level details, and Member limits placed on a particular Member or User.
Members and Users will be responsible to CMESC to settle their trade exposures, post margin and pay Outstanding Exposure Settlement (“OES”) obligations.
In Exhibit J, CMESC describes its ability to settle transactions on trade date, or “T+0.” As described in Exhibit J, to reduce settlement risk, Repo Transactions that settle on T+0 will be settled in real-time on a gross basis. Separately, for Members and Users, Cash Treasury Transactions and Repo Transactions that settle on the day after trade date (or a “T+1” basis) and have identical CUSIPs will be settled on a net basis. For Clear to Deliver Transactions and Cash Treasury Transactions, settlement obligations of cash outright and repo transactions at the CUSIP level with the same settlement date will be netted by CMESC. Net settlement of next day (T+1) cash outright and repo transactions will occur at CMESC's end-of-day settlement price.
Exhibit J describes the steps CMESC will follow in the case of a settlement fail. For example, with respect both to Clear to Deliver Transactions and Clear to Hold Transactions, when Members and Users fail to deliver securities on the Start Leg of a transaction, CMESC will: (i) allocate the fail to one or more Member(s) or User(s) that are entitled to receive the same Eligible Securities (for Clear to Deliver Transactions) or allocate the fail to one or more Member(s) or User(s) that are entitled to receive the securities in the same General Collateral Bucket (for Clear to Hold Transactions) that the failing Member or User was obligated to deliver; (ii) assess against the failing Member or User the repo rate based on the full delivery obligation; and (iii) assess against the failing Member or User a fail charge as determined by CMESC for each day that such Member or User fails to deliver the Eligible Securities.
When a Member or User fails to deliver securities on the Off Leg of a transaction, CMESC will allocate the fail to one or more Member(s) or User(s) that are entitled to receive the same Eligible Securities that the failing Member or User was obligated to deliver, and CMESC may assess against the failing Member or User a fail charge as determined by CMESC for each day that such Member or User fails to deliver the Eligible Securities. CMESC will pay the collected fail charges pro rata to the Member(s) or User(s) to which CMESC allocates the fail.
As described in Exhibit J, failure to deliver cash in a Clear to Deliver Transaction or Clear to Hold Transaction may be considered a Default.
In Exhibit K, CMESC describes its business continuity practices. CMESC's information technology infrastructure will be made up of SCI Critical Systems that will be hosted in a virtual private cloud (“VPC”) environment and in physical datacenters.
In addition, as described in Exhibit M, CMESC has Business Continuity Management and disaster recovery requirements that are governed by CMESC's Operational Resilience Program Policy. CMESC's infrastructure and systems are built around a multi-layered approach to resilience and redundancy. If for any reason one of its database server instances becomes unstable or unavailable, systems are architected to create a new instance. If a datacenter becomes unavailable for any reason, systems are architected to automatically redirect all instances that were operating in that datacenter to another available datacenter. These actions are designed to occur within the production environment and are independent of the disaster recovery instance infrastructure.
CMESC is a Delaware corporation, which is wholly owned by its parent company, CME Group, Inc., itself a Delaware corporation.
With respect to organization and governance, CMESC's Application demonstrates that it is a corporation in good standing in the State of Delaware.
Under Exhibit E-2A(2), either the sole shareholder or the CMESC Board of Directors can amend the corporation's bylaws and board charters. This presents the Board and the shareholder with concurrent ability to revise how the corporation operates, even if CMESC's board and its sole shareholder—its parent company—are likely to have aligned views. Ultimately, to the extent CMESC seeks to revise its bylaws and charters to address the potentially overlapping authorities of the Board and the shareholder (or to revise its bylaws and charters for any other reason), such revisions are required to be filed with the Commission as proposed rule changes pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act and rules thereunder, including Rule 19b-4, and the Commission will review any such changes for consistency with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
CMESC's governance arrangements include a process for classifying certain directors as independent. In most cases, the Nominating Committee, which consists of a majority of independent directors,
With respect to its operational arrangements and capacity to facilitate prompt and accurate clearance and settlement, as generally described in Part III.A.2 above, CMESC systems and processes will enable trade submission, matching, novation, netting, settlement and settlement fails management and will promote business continuity. CMESC's rules, policies and procedures demonstrate that CMESC has processes in place to support and oversee these clearing agency operations via its governance processes. These governance processes further demonstrate that CMESC is so organized and has the capacity to facilitate prompt and accurate clearance and settlement and to comply with the Exchange Act and rules and regulations thereunder. For example, with respect to CMESC's ability to comply with the provisions of the Exchange Act and rules and regulations thereunder, Exhibit E-2F states that CMESC's Chief Compliance Officer will have a reporting line to the Regulatory Oversight Committee of the Board of Directors. In addition, the Application describes CMESC's senior managers and their reporting relationships, including the staff that provides legal services through CMESC's parent company, CME Group, Inc.
Additionally, per Exhibit E-2C, the Head of Risk will have a direct reporting line to the Risk Management Committee of the Board of Directors, allowing such officer to raise and escalate any issues pertaining to risk management. Exhibit E-2C provides that the Risk Management Committee is authorized to engage outside professional advisors and legal counsel in order to facilitate its discharge of its duties and responsibilities, including the review and approval of all risk-related proposed rule changes. Having multiple personnel, layers of review and reporting, and the ability to access additional resources in order to proactively manage CMESC's risks is one way the Application demonstrates that CMESC would be so organized and have the capacity to comply with the
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission determines that CMESC is so organized and has the capacity to be able to facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and to comply with the provisions of the Exchange Act and the rule are regulations thereunder.
Section 17A(b)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act states that a clearing agency shall not be registered unless the Commission determines that the rules of the clearing agency provide that any (i) registered broker or dealer, (ii) other registered clearing agency, (iii) registered investment company, (iv) bank, (v) insurance company, or (vi) other person or class of persons as the Commission, by rule, may from time to time designate as appropriate to the development of a national system or the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions may become a participant in such clearing agency.
CMESC Rules identify two types of participants: Members and Users.
CMESC Rules identify the following persons as those that may be approved as either Members or Users, provided that they satisfy the applicable qualifications for participation: (i) broker-dealers registered pursuant to Sections 15 or 15C of the Exchange Act; (ii) banks that are subject to the supervision and regulation of their chartering authority in the U.S. at either federal (
The Commission finds that the Application satisfies the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act. CMESC Rules provide that each type of entity specified in Section 17A(b)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act may be either a Member or a User of CMESC. The Commission further agrees that both Members and Users would qualify as “participants” as defined in Section 3(a)(24) of the Exchange Act. Although Users must be authorized by a Member to join CMESC as a User,
Section 17A(b)(4)(B) of the Exchange Act states that a registered clearing agency may deny participation to, or condition the participation of, any person if such person does not meet such standards of financial responsibility, operational capability, experience, and competence as are prescribed by the rules of the clearing agency. Section 17A(b)(4)(B) also provides that, a registered clearing agency may examine and verify the qualifications of an applicant to be a participant in accordance with procedures established by the rules of the clearing agency.
With respect to the criteria for participation under Section 17A(b)(4)(B) of the Exchange Act, the Application describes how CMESC's participant
CMESC has the authority to deny participant status to entities that, among other things, are subject to statutory disqualification under Section 3(a)(39) of the Exchange Act,
CMESC will routinely review its Members and Users to ensure each adheres to CMESC's participation requirements on an ongoing basis. In this regard, CMESC requires Members to provide it with interim and annual financial statements and, periodically, certain regulatory reports (
To assist the Commission in determining whether the Application establishes participation requirements consistent with Section 17A(b)(4)(B) of the Exchange Act, the Commission sought comment as to whether the Application proposes a sufficient level of surveillance and monitoring by CMESC of the risks posed by its Members and the two categories of Users, such that the Application has policies and procedures that establish objective, risk-based, and publicly disclosed criteria for participation and that require Members to have sufficient financial resources. In response, commenters stated that “[t]he minimum capital requirement for CMESC Members should be higher than proposed to ensure that no Member poses an unreasonably high risk to the other Members,”
In response, CMESC stated that the minimum capital requirements for Members in Rule 306(b) provide an appropriate baseline for admission and that these minimum capital requirements are not the only mechanisms CMESC relies upon to ensure that Members will have sufficient financial resources and robust operational capacity to meet obligations arising from their clearing activity at CMESC. CMESC also identified that such other mechanisms include, but are not limited to, a credit rating process for Members, daily risk monitoring, margin collection, and OES exchange. In addition, CMESC stated that it may require a Member to meet a higher capital requirement as CMESC determines appropriate, taking into consideration the Member's risk profile, including the number and type of Users it authorizes and the volume, size and nature of such Users' cleared transactions.
Because CMESC Rules would establish participation requirements that include financial standards for Members and operational competency standards for Members and Users that clearly denote ongoing compliance obligations and set forth consequences for failing to meet those obligations, CMESC Rules are sufficient to protect the clearing agency from the risks that can be associated with Members and Users who would not otherwise meet such competency standards. In addition, consistent with the requirements in Rules 17Ad-22(e)(18) and (19), which would apply to CMESC, it is appropriate for CMESC to request from Members their due diligence and risk monitoring policies and procedures to understand how Members are managing their relationships with Users and the risk controls and other mitigants Members' may choose to apply. Consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(18) and (19), such requests may also extend to Users' activity beyond CMESC itself to activity at other clearing agencies, such as in cases where those Users may be relying on cross-margining arrangements.
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission determines that the rules of CMESC regarding participation in the clearing agency are consistent with the standards set forth in Section 17A(b)(4)(B) of the Exchange Act.
Section 17A(b)(3)(C) of the Exchange Act states that a clearing agency shall not be registered unless the Commission determines that the rules of the clearing agency assure a fair representation of its shareholders (or members) and participants in the selection of its directors and administration of its affairs.
Per Exhibit E-2B, CMESC will have a nine-member Board of Directors, all of whom are elected by CMESC's sole shareholder, CME Group, Inc. The shareholder is authorized, per Article III, Section 6 of Exhibit E-2A(2), to remove any and all members of CMESC's Board of Directors, with or without cause, at any time. One board member position will be restricted to a person who is an officer, director, or employee of a Member of the clearing agency, and one board member position will be restricted to a person who is an officer, director, or employee of a User of the clearing agency. In addition, at least five positions of CMESC's nine-member Board of Directors will be independent directors.
Under Section 17A(b)(3)(C) of the Exchange Act, the Commission considers whether the Application provides fair representation both to shareholders and to participants. In doing so, the Commission undertakes an analysis of the documents in the Application that govern or otherwise affect the selection of directors by the clearing agency and the administration of its affairs. Such documents include, for example, the constitution, articles of incorporation, bylaws, rules, and written policies or procedures. Such analysis considers both qualitative and quantitative factors, including the number of board positions reserved for management or to represent participants, as well as the existence of provisions in governing documents that may impede participation in the selection of directors or the administration of affairs. The Commission also considers the overall organization of the clearing agency, the nature of the products it clears, and the structure of the market it serves, including the nature of existing clearing and settlement arrangements in the market served, the existence of other clearing agencies that would compete to offer services, and the size of the market served by the applicant, to evaluate whether the representation proposed by the applicant is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act.
After performing this analysis, the Commission finds that the Application provides fair representation for the reasons set forth below.
With respect to the fair representation of the shareholders in the selection of its directors and administration of its affairs, CMESC's parent company is the same legal entity as the sole shareholder of CMESC. The shareholder cannot select as independent directors individuals that have a material relationship with the parent company, as “material relationship” and “affiliate” are defined in Rule 17Ad-25.
With respect to fair representation of the participants of CMESC in the selection of its directors and administration of its affairs, the parent company of CMESC is the sole shareholder, and so the Application includes no provision to make CMESC voting stock available for purchase to Members or Users. As such, CMESC would operate in a manner that is different from some other registered clearing agencies, which are constituted of owner-members.
In addition, reserving a position on the Board for one Member and one User—and the absence of provisions that might impede or restrict these positions to carry out their duties when compared to other board directors or classes of board directors—ensures representation on the Board and therefore also helps ensure that Members and Users have representation in the administration of CMESC's affairs.
For the reasons discussed directly above, the Commission determines that the rules of CMESC assure fair representation in the selection of its directors and administration of its affairs consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(C) of the Exchange Act.
Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Exchange Act states that a clearing agency shall not be registered unless the Commission determines that the rules of the clearing agency provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its participants.
CMESC's Application does not include a fee schedule or schedule of prices; however, CMESC's Application does describe: (i) its authority to determine and equitably allocate fees;
CMESC's Exhibit E-2A(2) includes Section 4 of CMESC's by-laws, explaining its authority to determine fees (and the limits to this authority).
The CMESC Fees Letter identified five factors that CMESC may consider in developing its fee schedule: (i) market structure and competition; (ii) transaction volumes and liquidity; (iii) operational costs; (iv) market participant feedback; and (v) regulatory considerations.
CMESC's Rule 801 governs fees (“Charges for Services Rendered”)
Exhibit E-4 sets forth CMESC Procedures, including “Procedure 8-1. Product-Specific Fees and Charges,”
The Commission received no comments on CMESC's authority, rules, or procedures for determining fees,
As noted above, CMESC is not yet operating as a clearing agency,
Accordingly, the Commission determines that the Application is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Exchange Act. In addition, as noted above, CMESC's Application states that CMESC does not “fix prices, rates, or fees for services by its participants (
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act states that a clearing agency shall not be registered unless the Commission determines that the rules of the clearing agency are designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in the clearance and settlement of securities transactions, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a national system for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. It also states that a clearing agency shall not be registered unless the Commission determines that the rules are not designed to permit unfair discrimination in the admission of participants or among participants in the use of the clearing agency, or to regulate by virtue of any authority conferred by the Exchange Act matters not related to the purposes of this section or the administration of the clearing agency.
The Commission has adopted multiple rules that are related to Section 17A(b)(3)(F), in that they establish requirements related to financial risk management, default management and loss allocation, and recovery and orderly wind-down. Specifically, these Commission rules implicate the safeguarding of securities and funds and promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, including the collection of margin, composition of the guaranty fund, default management and loss allocation procedures, and other risks.
As a threshold matter, the CMESC Application establishes a comprehensive risk management framework consistent with Commission rules that help ensure CMESC will collect sufficient margin to cover its exposures, maintain an appropriately sized Guaranty Fund, and will be able to manage a default and allocate losses appropriately, if or when needed. CMESC's risk management framework is designed to address the particular features of CMESC's proposed participation structure,
In Exhibit L, CMESC explains that, with the exception of initial margin and Guaranty Fund contributions, it does not maintain custody of or otherwise safeguard Members' or Users' securities or cash in clearing transactions, and that only in limited circumstances does CMESC exercise control of such securities or cash.
Pursuant to CMESC Rules, before submitting any Repo Transaction or Cash Treasury Transaction to CMESC for clearing, a Member or User must establish a settlement account at CMESC's Securities Settlement Bank for the relevant transactions.
One commenter made suggestions regarding risk management procedures related to the relationship between a Member and its Users, including with respect to: a Member's responsibility for porting of User accounts;
Pursuant to CMESC Rules, CMESC will determine initial margin requirements for any Eligible Securities Transactions it clears.
In Exhibit J, CMESC describes that margin is calculated in accordance with CMESC's proprietary risk-based margin model, the SPAN 2 framework, and is designed to cover price movements over the margin period of risk, which for Eligible Securities Transactions is at least two business days.
Pursuant to CMESC Rules, a Member will post margin for its own account and on behalf of its authorized Supported Users for their Supported User Accounts.
One commenter stated that CMESC should limit its discretion in returning excess margin.
CMESC Rules provide that Members shall contribute to the Guaranty Fund.
Members will be required to contribute to the Guaranty Fund, and a Member's contribution may be used to cover losses incurred by CMESC as a result of a Member or User Default.
Regarding Guaranty Fund sizing, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(iii) under the Exchange Act requires covered clearing agencies to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, among other things, maintain additional financial resources at a minimum to enable it to cover a wide range of foreseeable stress scenarios that include, but are not limited to, the default of the participant family that would potentially cause the largest aggregate credit exposure for the covered clearing agency in extreme but plausible market conditions. In connection with sizing the Guaranty Fund, CMESC Rules and Procedures state that it will maintain resources at least equal to the largest theoretical loss to CMESC resulting from the default of two Member Families in extreme but plausible market conditions, covering, as applicable, Member Accounts and a predefined number of User Accounts with the largest credit exposures at each Member.
In addition, Rule 17Ad-22(c)(1) under the Exchange Act requires that a registered clearing agency calculate and maintain a record each fiscal quarter, or any time upon Commission request, of the financial resources necessary to meet the requirements in Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4). Consistent with this requirement, CMESC will produce a record that CMESC calculates and maintains assuming the default of at least the largest Member Family and reflecting all of the Member Family's exposures including Users, and Commission staff will be able to consider that record through its ongoing monitoring of CMESC as part of the Commission's supervisory program, to consider and assess the performance of the existing Guaranty Fund sizing methodology over time.
In Exhibit J, CMESC states that it employs a risk management framework intended to reduce the potential impact of a Participant Default via credit risk standards and ongoing monitoring and to ensure that it has sufficient financial resources to manage a Default of its largest Participants.
Pursuant to CMESC Rules, upon the occurrence of a Member Default or User Default, CMESC will notify all Members and, as appropriate, Users.
CMESC Rules also provide that CMESC will apply financial resources to manage a Participant Default in accordance with its rules and procedures.
Under CMESC Rules, for an Independent User Default, the first resource applied would be margin posted for open transactions in the Defaulting User's Independent User Account and any other assets of the Independent User held by, pledged to, or otherwise available to CMESC on behalf of that Independent User.
Under CMESC Rules, if CMESC deems it appropriate to obtain financing necessary to satisfy its settlement obligations, CMESC may enter into repo transactions involving Eligible Securities intended to be delivered to a Defaulting Member or Defaulting User and those Qualified Margin Securities of the Defaulting Member or Defaulting User with any market participant so willing, and no Member or User shall take any action to interfere intentionally with such repo transactions.
Regarding default management, commenters stated that CMESC's corporate contribution to the default waterfall should be more than $50 million and be sized dynamically.
The appropriate amount of a clearing agency's own contribution to its default management process varies depending on the structure of the clearing agency, the characteristics of the assets cleared, and the markets served by the clearing agency, and registered clearing agencies have taken different approaches to applying their own resources to the default management process. The Commission does not require that a CCA have “skin-in-the-game” to address or allocate losses, and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(iii), which was cited by commenters to support their argument for greater “skin-in-the-game,” does not require any particular amount of “skin-in-the-game.”
Two commenters requested that CMESC obtain legal opinions relating to the default management aspects of CMESC's margin framework (
In addition, with respect to certain commenters' views regarding the costs of default management, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii) under the Exchange Act requires covered clearing agencies to provide sufficient information to enable participants to identify and evaluate the risks, fees, and other material costs they incur by participating in the covered clearing agency.
Another commenter cited Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii) in its request that CMESC provide participants with more specific information about its Members' required contributions under its CLF.
CMESC submitted a response to these commenters regarding the sufficiency of information provided for its default management rules (specifically, regarding costs to Members: (i) under the CLF; and (ii) after submitting a Member Withdrawal).
Separate from Commission rules regarding default management, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii) requires a covered clearing agency to provide sufficient information to enable participants to identify and evaluate the risks, fees, and other material costs they incur by participating in the covered clearing agency,
Section 17A(b)(3)(G) of the Exchange Act states that a clearing agency shall not be registered unless the Commission determines that the rules of the clearing agency provide that (subject to any rule or order of the Commission pursuant to Sections 17(d) or 19(g)(2) of the Exchange Act) its participants shall be appropriately disciplined for violation of any provision of the rules of the clearing agency by expulsion, suspension, limitation of activities, functions, and operations, fine, censure, or any other fitting sanction.
With respect to discipline and sanctions, CMESC Rules provide that CMESC may discipline any Member or User for a violation of any provision of CMESC Rules or Procedures, such Member's or User's agreements with CMESC, or for any error, delay, or other conduct detrimental to CMESC, or for not providing adequate facilities for such Member's or User's business with CMESC, by expulsion, suspension, limitation of or restriction on activities, functions, and operations, fine or censure, or any other appropriate
CMESC has procedures for enforcing rules and disciplining Members and Users that are consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act. CMESC's rules provide it with authority to discipline Members and Users for rule violations and to impose each of the sanctions enumerated in the Exchange Act. Accordingly, the Commission determines that CMESC Rules provide that its participants shall be appropriately disciplined for violation of any provision of the rules consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(G) of the Exchange Act.
Section 17A(b)(3)(H) of the Exchange Act states that a clearing agency shall not be registered unless the Commission determines that the rules of the clearing agency, in general, provide a fair procedure with respect to the disciplining of participants, the denial of participation to any persons seeking participation therein, and the prohibition or limitation by the clearing agency of any person with respect to access to services offered by the clearing agency.
CMESC Rules state that CMESC shall notify a Member or User in writing of the specific charges against such Member or User and its right to a hearing before CMESC imposes any disciplinary sanction on a Member or User.
Pursuant to CMESC Rules, the Member or User receiving a notice of disciplinary charges shall have fifteen Business Days after service of such notice to file a written answer thereto.
CMESC Rules provide that, prior to the issuance of the written statement of decision, the Respondent and CMESC may agree to a settlement resolving the disciplinary action or adverse action.
Any fine imposed pursuant to CMESC Rules and not contested shall not be publicly reported, except as may be required by Rule 19d-1 under the Exchange Act or as may be required by any other regulatory authority.
CMESC Rules provide any aggrieved party the right to request an appeal to the full Board of Directors from any decision of a Hearing Panel of CMESC.
As described, CMESC has established procedures to ensure that any Member or User assessed with a rule violation receives notice of the alleged violation, and is afforded an opportunity to contest the allegations, including by requesting a hearing at which the participant may be represented by counsel. CMESC's procedures address disciplining of participants, denial of participation, and prohibitions or limitations imposed by the clearing agency with respect to access to services offered by the clearing agency. The Commission therefore determines that CMESC Rules provide a fair procedure consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(H) of the Exchange Act.
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Exchange Act states that a clearing agency shall not be registered unless the Commission determines that the rules of the clearing agency do not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
As discussed in Part III.B, CMESC's rules permit all of the participant categories required by Section 17A(b)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act to be Members or Users. In addition, as contemplated by Section 17A(b)(4)(B), CMESC's Rules state that CMESC may deny participation, or condition participation, based on: (i) general operational, and, for Members, financial requirements; (ii) minimum financial responsibility standards (specific to business type) for Members and Users; and (iii) the existence and maintenance of policies and procedures addressing minimum operational, and, for Members, risk monitoring requirements.
One commenter generally discussed the topic of competition, requesting clarity about CMESC's “Trade Submission Requirement.”
CMESC submitted a response to this commenter.
More generally, in the context of establishing standards for participation, CMESC's rules may impact competition among market participants by restricting access of its clearing services for market participants unable to meet its standards for participation; however, such a burden on competition can be in furtherance of, and consistent with, the Exchange Act, including Sections 17A(b)(3)(B), 17A(b)(4)(B), and 17A(b)(3)(F) thereof.
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that CMESC satisfies the requirements for registration as a clearing agency, including those requirements set forth in Section 17A of the Exchange Act and Commission rules and regulations thereunder.
By the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17a-4 requires exchange members, brokers, and dealers (“broker-dealers”) to preserve for prescribed periods of time certain records required to be made by Rule 17a-3. In addition, Rule 17a-4 requires the preservation of records required to be made by other Commission rules and other kinds of records which firms make or receive in the ordinary course of business. These include, but are not limited to, bank statements, cancelled checks, bills receivable and payable, originals of communications, and descriptions of various transactions. Rule 17a-4 also permits broker-dealers to employ, under certain conditions, electronic storage media to maintain records required to be maintained under Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4.
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 compression (Rule 15Fi-4(b) and (c)), valuation disputes (Rule 15Fi-3(c)), and written trading relationship documentation (Rule 15Fi-5). Rule 17-4 does not require the firm to create these records or perform the underlying task required by the Rule. Rather, the burden to create these records and
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 respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
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 proposed rule change to amend the fees applicable to securities listed on the Exchange, which are set forth in BZX Rule 14.13, Company Listing Fees, to expand the category of Generically-Listed ETPs to include Commodity-Based Trust Shares that meet the generic listing requirements under Rule 14.11(e)(4) and do not require an Exchange Rule Filing. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5. 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.
On June 21, 2018,
On September 17, 2025, the Commission approved the Exchange's proposed rule change to establish comprehensive generic listing standards for Commodity-Based Trust Shares under Rule 14.11(e)(4).
Currently, Exchange Rule 14.13(b)(1)(B)(v)(a) provides that a Company that submits an application to list any ETP shall be required to pay an entry fee to the Exchange as follows:
All ETPs, with the exception of Index Fund Shares, Portfolio Depositary Receipts, Managed Fund Shares, Linked Securities, Currency Trust Shares, and Exchange-Traded Fund Shares that are listed on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Exchange Act and for which an Exchange Rule Filing is not required to be filed with the Commission (collectively, “Generically-Listed ETPs”), shall pay an entry fee of $10,000 per ETP . . .
As such, Commodity-Based Trust Shares currently are subject to the $10,000 entry fee per ETP. The Exchange now proposes to amend Exchange Rule 14.13(b)(1)(B)(v)(a) to expand the category of Generically-Listed ETPs to include Commodity-Based Trust Shares that meet generic listing criteria of Rule 14.11(e)(4) and thus do not require an Exchange Rule Filing. As a result, Commodity-Based Trust Shares that meet generic listing criteria of Rule 14.11(e)(4) would be exempt from the $10,000 entry fee.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The proposed fee treatment is equitable because it applies uniformly to all Commodity-Based Trust Shares that qualify for generic listing pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under existing Exchange rules. Just as other ETPs that qualify for generic listing under Rule 19b-4(e) are exempt from the entry fee, Commodity-Based Trust Shares that meet the same regulatory threshold should receive equivalent treatment.
The distinction between products that qualify for generic listing and those that require an Exchange Rule Filing is based on objective regulatory considerations already established in Exchange rules. Products that meet generic listing standards do not require an Exchange Rule Filing and therefore do not require the additional time and extensive legal and business resources required by Exchange staff to prepare and review such filings and to communicate with issuers and the Commission regarding such filings. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to exempt such products from the entry fee, which is designed to offset the costs associated with Exchange Rule Filings.
The proposed rule change does not unfairly discriminate among issuers because the fee exemption is available to all issuers whose Commodity-Based Trust Shares meet the objective criteria for generic listing under existing Exchange rules. Any issuer, regardless of size or market position, can benefit from the fee exemption if their product qualifies for generic listing pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e). The Exchange is not granting preferential treatment to particular issuers or products; it is simply aligning its fee structure with the regulatory framework that distinguishes between products requiring an Exchange Rule Filing and those that meet established generic listing standards.
The proposed fee change removes unnecessary costs and regulatory friction for products that do not require an Exchange Rule Filing. The $10,000 entry fee was designed to offset the costs associated with processing individualized Exchange Rule Filings for products that meet the generic listing criteria. For Commodity-Based Trust Shares that qualify for generic listing under Commission-approved standards, no such individualized Exchange Rule Filing is required, and therefore the entry fee is not warranted. Eliminating this fee for qualifying products ensures that issuers are charged fees that are commensurate with the actual regulatory burden their products impose on the Exchange.
Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, the Exchange believes that the proposal will enhance competition, as it is intended to streamline the listing process for qualifying Commodity-Based Trust Shares and reduce unnecessary costs.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed amendment would burden intramarket competition as the proposed expansion of Generically-Listed ETPs would apply equally to all issuers of Commodity-Based Trust Shares that meet the existing generic listing criteria under Rule 19b-4(e). Any issuer whose Commodity-Based Trust Shares qualify for listing pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) without requiring an Exchange Rule Filing would be eligible for the fee exemption. The Exchange is not adopting new listing criteria through this fee change; rather, it is aligning its fee structure with the existing regulatory framework that already permits certain Commodity-Based Trust Shares to be listed generically. The criteria are based on objective market characteristics and regulatory considerations already established in Exchange rules rather than issuer-specific factors, ensuring equitable treatment of all market participants.
The proposed rule change benefits issuers of Commodity-Based Trust Shares that qualify for generic listing under existing Exchange rules by eliminating the entry fee and streamlining the listing process. This does not unfairly burden issuers of other types of ETPs because the fee structure for other ETP categories remains unchanged. Moreover, the distinction between products that qualify for generic listing under Rule 19b-4(e) and those that require Exchange Rule Filings is based on legitimate regulatory considerations already embedded in the Exchange's rules, which justify differential fee treatment.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will enhance intermarket competition by making the Exchange a more attractive listing venue for qualifying Commodity-Based Trust Shares. The streamlined listing process and elimination of entry fees for qualifying products will benefit issuers and investors by reducing costs and facilitating more efficient capital formation. This competitive pressure may encourage other exchanges to adopt similar fee structures that recognize the reduced regulatory burden associated with generically-listed products, which would benefit the broader marketplace.
Market participants on other exchanges are welcome to become Members and list products at BZX if they determine that this proposed rule change has made BZX more attractive or favorable. The proposed rule change does not create barriers to entry or otherwise restrict competition among listing venues.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) proposes to introduce a Small Retail Broker Hosted Solutions Program and to update the existing eligibility requirements for the Small Retail Brokerage Distribution Program for the Cboe One Summary Feed. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
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 adopt a Small Retail Broker Hosted Solutions Program (the “Program”) for Cboe One Summary Data (collectively, the “Applicable Feed”).
Further, the Exchange proposes to increase the allowed maximum Non-Professional Data User subscriber count for the existing Small Retail Broker Program for Cboe One Summary Feed. By way of background, the Exchange currently offers the BZX Top Data Feed, which is a data feed that offers top-of-book quotations and last sale information based on orders entered into the Exchange's System. The BZX Top Data Feed benefits investors by facilitating their prompt access to real-time top-of-book information contained in BZX Top Data. The Exchange's affiliated equities exchanges (
Currently, the Exchange offers a Small Retail Broker Distribution Program
The Exchange now proposes to create a new Program based on the proposed eligibility criteria for Small Retail Brokers to specifically support Small Retail Brokers who are operating platforms on behalf of other Small Retail Brokers. Based on customer feedback, there are Small Retail Brokers who would like to provide this data via a hosted solution as a White Label Service
Of further note, the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor is responsible for reporting its External Hosted Subscribers and their users, and ultimately the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor is responsible for payment of all data fees for both its External Hosted Subscribers and itself. While the Exchange is not privy to pass-through costs between Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors and External Hosted Subscribers, this proposed pricing allows Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors the freedom to charge or not charge External Hosted Subscribers while also appropriately charging for a service provided to an External Hosted Subscriber that is benefitting from an infrastructure developed and supported by the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor. The Exchange notes that the current Small Retail Broker Program prevents the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor from packaging this waiver as part of their overall service to their External Hosted Subscribers (as External Hosted Subscribers would be billed directly under the existing Small Retail Broker Program).
Additionally, given that External Hosted Subscribers are smaller relative to other Small Retail Brokers currently participating in the existing Small Retail Broker Distribution Program, their ability to subscribe to the Applicable Feed as Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors is likely not feasible. Specifically, the costs of the Applicable Feeds, and the costs associated with building and maintaining the technological infrastructure to receive and maintain data, may make access to the Applicable Feeds impractical. Generally speaking, technology, infrastructure, and connectivity costs are a significant monetary investment and require significant human expertise and resources to maintain. As such, the totality of costs can make access to data difficult. The Exchange believes, though, that the proposed fees and the ability to subscribe to the Applicable Feed as External Hosted Subscribers will make access to data more feasible. Indeed, the Exchange anticipates that the retail broker-dealers that would seek to become External Hosted Subscribers are broker-dealers that do not have the technological infrastructure in place to ingest and disseminate data as a Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor, and that are likely to have smaller client bases and business models not as conducive to making the investments necessary to become a Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor.
In these regards, the Exchange believes that the proposed program will incentivize Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors to offer the Applicable Feed to External Hosted Subscribers, thereby making data accessible to a larger number of broker-dealers and their clients, at an affordable cost. Specifically, under the proposed program, a Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor providing the data to at least one External Hosted Subscriber would be eligible for a credit of its Distribution Fee (a credit of $3,500/month for Cboe One Summary Feed) that it is normally responsible for under the existing Small Retail Broker Program. Additionally, the External Hosted Subscriber shall also receive a waiver of the Distribution Fee (a credit of $3,500/month for Cboe One Summary Feed). The External Hosted Subscriber will also receive a waiver of the Data Consolidation Fee (a credit of $350/month) and in lieu of paying the Non-Professional User fees, it shall be a set monthly fee $850 for Cboe One Summary Data.
In addition to the changes set forth above, the Exchange also proposes to modify the existing Small Retail Broker Program for Cboe One Summary Feed to increase the number of Non-Professional Data User maximum from 5,000 to 10,000 to be consistent with the proposed threshold for External Hosted Subscribers. As previously discussed, the Exchange proposes to also use the cap of 10,000 Non-Professional Data Users for the proposed Program. The Exchange proposes to increase this in support of increased participation across both retail and investor markets in order to facilitate the growth of smaller retail brokers on a global scale.
Furthermore, as mentioned above, the existing fee structure makes it costly for both Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors and its External Hosted Subscribers to provide data to the External Hosted Subscribers' retail clients as Distribution Fees are assessed on both Small Retail Brokers. Overall, the Exchange believes that this fee proposal will help to make its data more widely accessible for retail users who receive their data from External Hosted Subscribers. Specifically, the Exchange believes that that this proposal will (i) further increase the competitiveness of the Exchange's top of book market data products compared to competitor offerings that may currently be cheaper for firms with a limited subscriber base that do not yet have the scale to take advantage of the lower subscriber fees offered by the Exchange; and will (ii) provide additional incentives for Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors to provide hosted solution services for other Small Retail Brokers in order to make data more widely available to retail investors. In turn, the Exchange believes that this change may benefit market participants and investors by spurring additional competition and increasing the accessibility of the Exchange's top of book data.
The Exchange recognizes that Small Retail Brokers participating in the existing Small Retail Broker Distributor Program are not eligible for the proposed Distribution fee and Consolidation Fee waivers proposed to be offered to External Hosted Subscribers. Importantly, however, the Exchange notes that such incentives are necessary to help encourage External Hosted Subscribers to connect to a Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor, and in turn, disseminate data to their downstream retail clients. In doing so, the Exchange believes its Applicable Feeds will reach a larger base of retail clients that may not otherwise have access to such data. As a practical matter, by and between the Small Retail Brokers in the existing Small Retail Broker Distributor Program (
The Exchange notes that at least one other exchange has a similar offering. For example, the New York Stock Exchange has a Redistribution Fee Waiver for NYSE Trades, for which redistributors of data may have their redistribution fee waived so long as they provide the data to at least one data feed recipient and reports such data feed recipient or recipients to the Exchange.
Without these discounts, a redistributor of NYSE Trades would pay the General Access Fee of $1,500/month in addition to the Redistribution Fee of $1,000/month and the applicable Professional User Fee ($4/month/User) and Non-Professional User Fee ($0.20/month/User).
While the eligibility requirements of the NYSE program and the proposed Program differ, both programs are intended to incentivize redistribution of applicable data feeds by providing enhanced discounts and both programs target different segments for a specific purpose. The proposed discounts under this Program are intended to make the Exchange's offering competitively priced relative to alternative options that participants may have.
Without the proposed pricing discounts, the Exchange believes that (i) prospective customers may not be interested in purchasing top of book data from the Exchange, and may instead purchase such data from other national securities exchanges or the Securities Information Processors (“SIPs”), potentially at a higher cost than would be available pursuant to the proposed program and (ii) that Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors are not incentivized to make the Applicable Feed available via a hosted solution for retail investors of its External Hosted Subscribers. Similar to the existing Small Retail Broker Program, the Exchange believes that the proposed Program will continue to increase competition for such market data, and that enhanced competition could help to further reduce data fees as providers compete for subscribers, as well as help diversify the availability and quality of data offerings available to retail investors through their Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors. Ultimately, the Exchange believes that it is critical that it be allowed to compete by offering attractive pricing to customers as increasing the availability of such products ensures continued competition with alternative offerings. Such competition may be constrained when competitors are impeded from offering alternative and cost-effective solutions to customers.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act.
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted SROs and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change would further broaden the availability of U.S. equity market data to investors, and in particular retail investors, consistent with the principles of Regulation NMS.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed, there are sixteen registered national securities exchanges that trade U.S. equities and offer associated top of book market data products to their customers. The national securities exchanges also compete with the SIPs for market data customers. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Making alternative data products available to market participants ultimately ensures increased competition in the marketplace and constrains the ability of exchanges to charge prohibitive fees. If a market participant views one exchange's top of book data fees as more or less attractive than the competition they can, and frequently do, switch between competing products. In fact, the competitiveness of the market for such top of book data products is one of the primary factors animating this proposed rule change, which is designed to allow the Exchange to further compete for this business. As mentioned above, at least one other Exchange provides a similar waiver for redistribution of market data.
The Exchange notes that the Applicable Feed is distributed and purchased on a voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data distributors are required by any rule or regulation to make these data products available. Distributors (including vendors) and Users can therefore discontinue use at any time and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. Further, the Exchange is not required to make any proprietary data products available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any customers.
The Commission has long stressed the need to ensure that the equities markets are structured in a way that meets the needs of ordinary investors. For example, the Commission's strategic plan for fiscal years 2018-2022 touts “focus on the long-term interests of our Main Street investors” as the Commission's number one strategic goal.
The Exchange notes that the proposed waivers for the Applicable Feed only apply to Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors and its External Hosted Subscribers for three reasons. First, the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor is creating a full-service offering for External Hosted Subscribers in contrast to the Small Retail Brokers under the current Program, which only provide services directly to its own retail clients. Maintaining an additional platform for External Hosted Subscribers' clients is an additional workstream for the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors (in contrast to the existing Small Retail Brokers that only provide data and services directly to their retail clients), requiring technological and capital investments, as they seek to support additional ecosystems of business, each with its own book of retail clients. In order to incentivize the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors to take on the additional duties associated with hosting External Hosted Subscribers (such as managing the data, entitlements, and display of the application provided to the External Hosted Subscriber), the Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to provide a waiver of the Distribution Fee for the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors, as opposed to the standard discounted Distribution Fee normally paid under the current Small Retail Broker Distribution Program.
Second, by creating this program, the Exchange is further able to reach additional retail investors. By waiving Distribution Fees for both the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor and its External Hosted Subscriber, both parties are incentivized to work together to provide data to retail investors. Third, as mentioned previously, the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor is responsible for the fees and reporting for both its own activity and that of its External Hosted Subscriber. While the Exchange is not privy to pass-through costs between Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors and External Hosted Subscribers, this proposed pricing allows Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors the freedom to charge or not charge External Hosted Subscribers while also appropriately charging for a service provided to an External Hosted Subscriber that is benefitting from an infrastructure developed and supported by the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor. The Exchange notes that the current Small Retail Broker Program prevents the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor from packaging this waiver as part of their overall service to their External Hosted Subscribers (as External Hosted Subscribers would be billed directly under the existing Small Retail Broker Program). Given that External Hosted Subscribers are smaller relative to other Small Retail Brokers currently participating in the Program, these costs associated with the Applicable Feeds are inherently prohibitive to the External Hosted Subscriber. Through this Program, fees will not be a deterrent for Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors and External Hosted Subscribers to establish platforms that reach a wider scope of retail investors.
Moreover, by and between the Small Retail Brokers in the existing Small Retail Broker Distribution Program (take their data directly from the Exchange), and the External Hosted Subscribers in the proposed Program (who take their data from a Hosted Small Retail Broker Distributor), the former are generally more sophisticated, both in terms of capital and technological infrastructure. As such, incentives such as fee waivers are not necessarily required to encourage their subscription to and dissemination of the Applicable Feeds. Comparatively, the Exchange believes the small retail brokers subscribing to and disseminating the Applicable Feeds as External Hosted Subscribers would likely not, absent such incentives, otherwise even contemplate subscribing to and disseminating the Applicable Feeds, thereby limiting the availability of real time trade and quote information that could otherwise be accessed by the External Hosted Subscriber's end users.
Furthermore, while this Program would be effectively limited to smaller firms in accordance with the proposed eligibility requirements, the Exchange does not believe that this limitation makes the fees inequitable or unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange notes that large broker-dealers and/or vendors that distribute the Exchange's data products to a sizeable number of investors benefit from the current fee structure, which includes lower subscriber fees and Enterprise licenses. Due to lower subscriber fees, distributors that provide the Applicable Feed to more than the proposed capped amounts of Users permitted under either the Small Retail Broker Program or this Program already enjoy cost savings compared to competitor products. The Program, in addition to the existing Small Retail Broker Program, would therefore continue to ensure that small retail brokers that distribute top of book data to their retail investor customers could also benefit from reduced pricing, and would aid in increasing the competitiveness of the Exchange's data products for this key segment of the market.
Moreover, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed fees unfairly discriminate between Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors and External Hosted Subscribers. While the proposal provides additional benefits to External Hosted Subscribers that would not otherwise accrue to them under the current program, the Exchange notes that such benefits are designed only to make access to market data more accessible to smaller retail broker-dealers that either do not possess the financial and technological resources necessary to receive data as a Small Retail Broker, or simply choose not commit such resourced based on their business models. In turn, to continue to incentivize the provision of the Applicable Feed by Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors, the Exchange has sought to provide appropriate incentives to these brokers as well. Collectively, the fee structure provides benefits to both Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors and External Hosted Subscribers.
While External Hosted Subscribers would receive benefits they would not accrue under the current program, these are not benefits that today's Small Retail Brokers would choose to avail themselves of under the new fee structure, because it is highly unlikely that today's Small Retail Brokers would choose to instead become External Hosted Subscribers. The Exchange notes that today's Small Retail Brokers that qualify under the current program, have already committed significant capital in terms of time, technology, and finances towards building out and maintaining the technological infrastructure and staffing needed to receive and distribute the Applicable Feed to their end users. To forego such financial and technological commitments simply to avail themselves of additional benefits afforded to External Hosted Subscribers under this proposal, would very likely require an existing Small Retail Broker to drastically change their current business model simply to avail themselves of the additional benefits provided to External Hosted Subscribers. Moreover, today's existing Small Retail Brokers are likely to be providing services to their subscribers other than the Additional Feed, such as market access, order management systems, and other trading tools. To cease providing such a full suite of services—which required significant time and cost contributions—is unlikely and, again, would require a significant reversal in a Small Retail Broker's business model.
Rather, the Exchange believes that the more likely case is that the proposed fee structure will attract a new population of Small Retail Brokers who will seek to access the Applicable Feed as Hosted External Subscribers, at a cost-effective price point, thereby providing even more investors with access to top of book market data for U.S. equities. Another likely use case is that the proposed fee structure may incentivize more Small Retail Brokers to subscribe to the Applicable Feed as External Hosted Subscribers and, as they build their own business models and attract subscribers of their own, eventually commit time and resources to building their own infrastructure to evolve into a Hosting Small Retail Broker.
Furthermore, the Exchange acknowledges that under the proposed fee schedule that a Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor is eligible for a waiver of its Distribution Fee once its first External Hosted Subscriber is subscribed, whereas under current program a Small Retail Broker is not eligible for such a waiver. However, the Exchange does not believe that this proposed fee structure unfairly discriminates between existing Small Retail Brokers and Hosting Small Retail Brokers, because the application of these fees is based on meaningful differences between existing Small Retail Brokers and potential Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors.
Specifically, existing Small Retail Brokers are brokers that distribute the Applicable Feed to their own customers. These Small Retail Brokers typically operate their own retail trading businesses, and the provision of the Applicable Feed is part of the package of services provided to their own customers. Comparatively, similar to certain subscribers
Relatedly, the proposed fees are based on the competitive environment for market data products such as the Applicable Feed. In response to competition from other market data feeds such as NYSE BQT, the Exchange's proposed fees are merely intended to provide a financial incentive for vendors/redistributors that do not currently subscribe to any Exchange market data products to subscribe to the Applicable Feed. By focusing on this segment of the market, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees will make the Applicable Feed more competitive and attractive for vendors/redistributors to subscribe to, thereby increasing the availability of the Exchange's data products, expanding the options available to firms making data purchasing decisions on their business needs, and generally increasing competition. In this regard, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees—particularly the waiver of the Distribution Fee—will incentivize Hosting Small Broker Distributors (
Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to provide a waiver of the Distribution Fee to a Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor (
Finally, the Exchange notes that nothing in the current proposal prevents an existing Small Retail Broker from choosing to instead subscribe to the Applicable Feed as an External Hosted Subscriber. However, the Exchange does not believe that this makes the proposal unfairly discriminatory between Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors and External Hosted Subscribers, as broker-dealers are free operate their businesses however they may choose in response to a host of a reasons, only one of which are associated costs. The Exchange believes that the proposed cap of 10,000 for the Cboe One Summary Data Feed for this Program, as well as increasing this cap to 10,0000 for the Cboe One Summary Data Feed for the Small Retail Broker Program is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory as the Exchange believes it is in the best interest of all market participants to more broadly expand this in support of inclusion for more retail investors by participation in both programs by small retail brokers on a global scale.
The Exchange believes that the Distribution Fee Waivers for both the External Hosted Subscriber and the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor are reasonable as they represent a significant cost reduction for the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor to provide a hosted solution for the External Hosted Subscriber, to ultimately provide the data to the External Hosted Subscriber's retail investors. By targeting the Distribution
While the existing fee structure does provide a benefit of a discounted waiver for Small Retail Brokers that externally distribute the data, the discounted Distribution Fees are still incurred by both the External Hosted Subscriber and the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor. In an attempt to alleviate these costs, and make this data more available to retail investors, the Exchange proposes to waive the Distribution Fees for both the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor and the External Hosted Subscriber. With this Program, the Exchange believes it will increase market accessibility and data to investors on a global scale. Exchange Hosted Subscribers may not have the infrastructure or technical capabilities to offer market data and/or execution services to its retail investors. Through waiving these fees for the External Hosted Subscriber, the Exchange hopes to reach a broader scale of retail investors globally. Further, as discussed above, the Exchange also believes it is appropriate and not unfairly discriminatory to limit this specific credit to the External Hosted Subscriber and the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor given the development and maintenance the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor acquires to provide this data to the External Hosted Subscriber's end users.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to not charge the External Hosted Subscriber the Data Consolidation Fee for Cboe One Summary Data for the duration of the time that they are eligible for this program. As previously discussed, the waiver of fees for the External Hosted Subscriber is intended to make this data more available to retail investors. The Exchange also believes it is appropriate and not unfairly discriminatory to limit this specific credit to the External Hosted Subscriber because, as described above, the Exchange believes by alleviating some of the barriers to entry, that Exchange Hosted Subscribers are able to bring this data and execution services to their retail investors. Of further note, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to maintain this cost for the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor as the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor is the party receiving this data from the Exchange where it is consolidated for the benefit of the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to set a fixed cost for Non-Professional Users fees for External Hosted Subscribers by charging a flat, fixed cost instead of charging per user to allow for additional savings. Under this structure, the External Hosted Subscriber shall still be responsible by paying the standard per User fee of a Professional Users under the Applicable Feed. The Exchange does not believe this is unfairly discriminatory as the program is based around making the Applicable Feed available for Non-Professional Users. The Exchange also notes that it has taken a similar approach here to the NYSE Per User Access Fee, which sets a fixed cost where the data is used only for display purposes.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price these data products is constrained by: (i) Competition among exchanges that offer similar data products to their customers; and (ii) the existence of inexpensive real-time consolidated data disseminated by the SIPs. Top of book data is disseminated by both the SIPs and the sixteen equities exchanges. There are therefore a number of alternative products available to market participants and investors. In this competitive environment potential subscribers are free to choose which competing product to purchase to satisfy their need for market information. Often, the choice comes down to price, as broker-dealers or vendors look to purchase the cheapest top of book data product, or quality, as market participants seek to purchase data that represents significant market liquidity. In order to better compete for this segment of the market, the Exchange is proposing to reduce the cost of top of book data provided by Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors to its External Hosted Subscribers, and in turn, their retail investors. The Exchange believes that this would facilitate greater access to such data, ultimately benefiting the retail investors that are provided access to such market data.
The Exchange also believes the proposed fee changes will better enable it to compete in the Asia Pacific region, which is an area of increasing interest and growth within the U.S. equities markets, generally. As the Asia Pacific investor base seeks access to the liquidity and efficient price discovery processes that exist in the U.S. equities markets, various broker-dealers have begun offering trading in this region, and exchanges have begun to contemplate 24-hour trading solutions designed to capture the increased demand from the Asia Pacific investor base.
The Exchange does not believe that this price reduction would cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intermarket competition as other exchanges and data vendors are free to lower their prices to better compete with the Exchange's offering. Indeed, as explained in the basis section of this proposed rule change, the Exchange's decision to (i) waive the Distribution Fee for the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor and the External Hosted Subscriber and (ii) waiving the Consolidation Fee (when applicable) for the External Hosted Subscriber and (iii) setting a fixed cost for the Non-Professional Users for the External Hosted Subscriber is itself a competitive response to different fee structures available on competing markets. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed rule change is pro-competitive as it seeks to offer pricing incentives to customers to better position the Exchange as it competes to attract additional market data subscribers. The Exchange also believes that the proposed reduction in fees the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor and the External Hosted Subscriber would not cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intramarket competition. Although the proposed fee discount would be largely limited to small retail broker subscribers, larger broker-dealers and vendors can already purchase top of book data from the Exchange at prices that represent a significant cost savings when compared to competitor products that combine higher subscriber fees with lower fees for distribution. In light of the benefits already provided to this group of subscribers, the Exchange believes that additional discounts to small retail brokers would increase rather than decrease competition among broker-dealers that participate on the Exchange. Furthermore, as discussed earlier in this proposed rule change, the Exchange believes that offering pricing benefits to brokers that represent retail investors facilitates the Commission's mission of protecting ordinary investors, and is therefore consistent with 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) 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”),
Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BYX”) proposes to introduce a Small Retail Broker Hosted Solutions Program and to update the existing eligibility requirements for the Small Retail Brokerage Distribution Program for the Cboe One Summary Feed and BYX Top Data Feed. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
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 adopt a Small Retail Broker Hosted Solutions Program (the “Program”) for BYX Top Data and Cboe One Summary Data (collectively, the “Applicable Feeds”).
Further, the Exchange proposes to increase the allowed maximum Non-Professional Data User subscriber count for the existing Small Retail Broker Program for Cboe One Summary Feed and BYX Top Data Feed. By way of background, the Exchange currently offers the BYX Top Data Feed, which is a data feed that offers top-of-book quotations and last sale information based on orders entered into the Exchange's System. The BYX Top Data Feed benefits investors by facilitating their prompt access to real-time top-of-book information contained in BYX Top Data. The Exchange's affiliated equities exchanges (
Currently, the Exchange offers a Small Retail Broker Distribution Program
The Exchange now proposes to create a new Program based on the proposed eligibility criteria for Small Retail Brokers to specifically support Small Retail Brokers who are operating platforms on behalf of other Small Retail Brokers. Based on customer feedback, there are Small Retail Brokers who would like to provide this data via a hosted solution as a White Label Service
Of further note, the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor is responsible for reporting its External Hosted Subscribers and their users, and ultimately the Hosting Small Retail Broker is responsible for payment of all data fees for both its External Hosted Subscribers and itself. While the Exchange is not privy to pass-through costs between Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors and External Hosted Subscribers, this proposed pricing allows Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors the freedom to charge or not charge External Hosted Subscribers while also appropriately charging for a service provided to an External Hosted Subscriber that is benefitting from an infrastructure developed and supported by the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor. The Exchange notes that the current Small Retail Broker Program prevents the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor from packaging this waiver as part of their overall service to their External Hosted Subscribers (as External Hosted Subscribers would be billed directly under the existing Small Retail Broker Program).
Additionally, given that External Hosted Subscribers are smaller relative to other Small Retail Brokers currently participating in the existing Small Retail Broker Distribution Program, their ability to subscribe to the Applicable Feeds as Hosting Small Retail Brokers is likely not feasible. Specifically, the costs of the Applicable Feeds, and the costs associated with building and maintaining the technological infrastructure to receive and disseminate data, may make access to the Applicable Feeds impractical. Generally speaking, technology, infrastructure, and connectivity costs are a significant monetary investment and require significant human expertise and resources to maintain. As such, the totality of costs can make access to data difficult. The Exchange believes, though, that the proposed fees and the ability to subscribe to the Applicable Feeds as External Hosted Subscribers will make access to data more feasible. Indeed, the Exchange anticipates that the retail broker-dealers that would seek to become External Hosted Subscribers are broker-dealers that do not have the technological infrastructure in place to ingest and disseminate data as a Hosting Small Retail Broker, and that are likely to have smaller client bases and business models not as conducive to making the investments necessary to become a Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor.
In these regards, the Exchange believes that the proposed program will incentivize Hosting Small Retail Brokers to offer the Applicable Feeds to External Hosted Subscribers, thereby making data accessible to a larger number of broker-dealers and their clients, at an affordable cost. Specifically, under the proposed program, a Hosting Small Retail Broker providing the data to at least one External Hosted Subscriber would be eligible for a credit of its Distribution Fee (a credit of $250/month for BYX Top Data Feed and a credit of $3,500/month for Cboe One Summary Feed) that it is normally responsible for under the existing Small Retail Broker Program. Additionally, the External Hosted Subscriber shall also receive a waiver of the Distribution Fee (a credit of $250/month for BYX Top Data Feed and a credit of $3,500/month for Cboe One Summary Feed). The External Hosted Subscriber will also receive a waiver of the Data Consolidation Fee for the Cboe One Summary Data (a credit of $350/month) and in lieu of paying the Non-Professional User fees, it shall be a set monthly fee of $100 for BYX Top and $850 for Cboe One Summary Data.
In addition to the changes set forth above, the Exchange also proposes to modify the existing Small Retail Broker Program for Cboe One Summary Feed and BYX Top Feed to increase the number of Non-Professional Data User maximum from 5,000 to 10,000 to be consistent with the proposed threshold for External Hosted Subscribers. As previously discussed, the Exchange proposes to also use the cap of 10,000 Non-Professional Data Users for the proposed Program. The Exchange proposes to increase this in support of increased participation across both retail and investor markets in order to facilitate the growth of smaller retail brokers on a global scale..
The Exchange recognizes that Small Retail Brokers participating in the existing Small Retail Broker Distributor Program are not eligible for the proposed Distribution fee and Consolidation Fee waivers proposed to be offered to External Hosted Subscribers. Importantly, however, the Exchange notes that such incentives are necessary to help encourage External Hosted Subscribers to connect to a Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor, and in turn, disseminate data to their downstream retail clients. In doing so, the Exchange believes its Applicable Feeds will reach a larger base of retail clients that may not otherwise have access to such data. As a practical matter, by and between the Small Retail Brokers in the existing Small Retail Broker Distributor Program (
Furthermore, as mentioned above, the existing fee structure makes it costly for
The Exchange notes that at least one other exchange has a similar offering. For example, the New York Stock Exchange has a Redistribution Fee Waiver for NYSE Trades, for which redistributors of data may have their redistribution fee waived so long as they provide the data to at least one data feed recipient and reports such data feed recipient or recipients to the Exchange.
Without these discounts, a redistributor of NYSE Trades would pay the General Access Fee of $1,500/month in addition to the Redistribution Fee of $1,000/month and the applicable Professional User Fee ($4/month/User) and Non-Professional User Fee ($0.20/month/User).
While the eligibility requirements of the NYSE program and the proposed Program differ, both programs are intended to incentivize redistribution of applicable data feeds by providing enhanced discounts and both programs target different segments for a specific purpose. The proposed discounts under this Program are intended to make the Exchange's offering competitively priced relative to alternative options that participants may have.
Without the proposed pricing discounts, the Exchange believes that (i) prospective customers may not be interested in purchasing top of book data from the Exchange, and may instead purchase such data from other national securities exchanges or the SIPs, potentially at a higher cost than would be available pursuant to the proposed program and (ii) that Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors are not incentivized to make the Applicable Feeds available via a hosted solution for retail investors of its External Hosted Subscribers. Similar to the existing Small Retail Broker Program, the Exchange believes that this Program will continue to increase competition for such market data, and that enhanced competition could help to further reduce data fees as providers compete for subscribers, as well as help diversify the availability and quality of data offerings available to retail investors through their Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors. Ultimately, the Exchange believes that it is critical that it be allowed to compete by offering attractive pricing to customers as increasing the availability of such products ensures continued competition with alternative offerings. Such competition may be constrained when competitors are impeded from offering alternative and cost-effective solutions to customers.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act.
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted SROs and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change would further broaden the availability of U.S. equity market data to investors, and in particular retail investors, consistent with the principles of Regulation NMS.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed, there are sixteen registered national securities exchanges that trade U.S. equities and offer associated top of book market data products to their customers. The national securities exchanges also compete with the SIPs for market data customers. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Making alternative data products available to market participants ultimately ensures increased competition in the marketplace, and constrains the ability of exchanges to charge prohibitive fees. In the event that a market participant views one exchange's top of book data fees as more or less attractive than the competition they can, and frequently do, switch between competing products. In fact, the competitiveness of the market for such top of book data products is one of the primary factors animating this proposed rule change, which is designed to allow the Exchange to further compete for this business. As mentioned above, at least one other Exchange provides a similar waiver for redistribution of market data.
The Exchange notes that the Applicable Feeds are distributed and purchased on a voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data distributors are required by any rule or regulation to make these data products available. Distributors (including vendors) and Users can therefore discontinue use at any time and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. Further, the Exchange is not required to make any proprietary data products available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any customers.
The Commission has long stressed the need to ensure that the equities markets are structured in a way that meets the needs of ordinary investors. For example, the Commission's strategic plan for fiscal years 2018-2022 touts “focus on the long-term interests of our Main Street investors” as the Commission's number one strategic goal.
The Exchange proposes that the proposed waivers for the Applicable Feeds only apply to Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors and its External Hosted Subscribers for three reasons. First, the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor is creating a full-service offering for External Hosted Subscribers in contrast to the Small Retail Brokers under the current Program, which only provide services directly to its own retail clients. Maintaining an additional platform for External Hosted Subscribers' clients is an additional workstream for Hosted Subscribers (in contrast to Small Retail Brokers that only provide data and services directly to their retail clients) as they support additional ecosystems of business, each with its own book of retail clients. In order to incentivize the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors to take on the additional duties associated with hosting External Hosted Subscribers (such as managing the data, entitlements, and display of the application provided to the External Hosted Subscriber), the Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to provide a waiver of the Distribution Fee for the Hosting Small Retail Broker, as opposed to the standard discounted Distribution Fee it would normally pay under the Small Retail Broker Program.
Second, by creating this program, the Exchange is further able to reach additional retail investors. By waiving Distribution Fees for both the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor and its External Hosted Subscriber, both parties are incentivized to work together to provide data to retail investors. Third, as mentioned previously, the Hosting Small Retail Broker is responsible for the fees and reporting for both its own activity and that of its External Hosted Subscriber. While the Exchange is not privy to pass-through costs between Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors and External Hosted Subscribers, this proposed pricing allows Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors the freedom to charge or not charge External Hosted Subscribers while also appropriately charging for a service provided to an External Hosted Subscriber that is benefitting from an infrastructure developed and supported by the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor. The Exchange notes that the current Small Retail Broker Program prevents the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor from packaging this waiver as part of their overall service to their External Hosted Subscribers (as External Hosted Subscribers would be billed directly under the existing Small Retail Broker Program)., Given that External Hosted Subscribers are smaller relative to other Small Retail Brokers currently participating in the Program, these costs associated with the Applicable Feeds are inherently prohibitive to the External Hosted Subscriber. Through this program, fees will not be a deterrent for Hosting Small Retail Brokers and External Hosted Subscribers to establish platforms that reach a wider scope of retail investors.
Moreover, by and between the Small Retail Brokers in the existing Small Retail Broker Distribution Program (take their data directly from the Exchange), and the External Hosted Subscribers in the proposed Program (who take their data from a Hosted Small Retail Broker
Furthermore, while this Program would be effectively limited to smaller firms in accordance with the proposed eligibility requirements, the Exchange does not believe that this limitation makes the fees inequitable or unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange notes that large broker-dealers and/or vendors that distribute the Exchange's data products to a sizeable number of investors benefit from the current fee structure, which includes lower subscriber fees and Enterprise licenses. Due to lower subscriber fees, distributors that provide the Applicable Feeds to more than the proposed capped amounts of Users permitted under either the Small Retail Broker Program or this Program already enjoy cost savings compared to competitor products. The Program, in addition to the existing Small Retail Broker Program, would therefore continue to ensure that small retail brokers that distribute top of book data to their retail investor customers could also benefit from reduced pricing, and would aid in increasing the competitiveness of the Exchange's data products for this key segment of the market.
Moreover, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed fees unfairly discriminate between Hosting Small Retail Brokers and External Hosted Subscribers. While the proposal provides additional benefits to External Hosted Subscribers that would not otherwise accrue to them under the current program, the Exchange notes that such benefits are designed only to make access to market data more accessible to smaller retail broker-dealers that either do not possess the financial and technological resources necessary to receive data as a Small Retail Broker, or simply choose not commit such resourced based on their business models. In turn, to continue to incentive the provision of the Applicable Feeds by Hosting Small Retail Brokers, the Exchange has sought to provide appropriate incentives to these brokers as well. Collectively, the fee structure provides benefits to both Hosting Small Retail Brokers and External Hosted Subscribers.
While External Hosted Subscribers would receive benefits they would not accrue under the current program, these are not benefits that today's Small Retail Brokers would choose to avail themselves of under the new fee structure, because it is highly unlikely that today's Small Retail Brokers would choose to instead become External Hosted Subscribers. The Exchange notes that today's Small Retail Brokers that qualify under the current program, have already committed significant capital in terms of time, technology, and finances towards building out and maintaining the technological infrastructure and staffing needed to receive and distribute the Applicable Feeds to their end users. To forego such financial and technological commitments simply to avail themselves of additional benefits afforded to External Hosted Subscribers under this proposal, would very likely require an existing Small Retail Broker to drastically change their current business model simply to avail themselves of the additional benefits provided to External Hosted Subscribers. Moreover, today's existing Small Retail Brokers are likely to be providing services to their subscribers other than the Additional Feeds, such as market access, order management systems, and other trading tools. To cease providing such a full suite of services—which required significant time and cost contributions—is unlikely and, again, would require a significant reversal in a Small Retail Broker's business model.
Rather, the Exchange believes that the more likely case is that the proposed fee structure will attract a new population of Small Retail Brokers who will seek to access the Applicable Feeds as Hosted External Subscribers, at a cost-effective price point, thereby providing even more investors with access to top of book market data for U.S. equities. Another likely use case is that the proposed fee structure may incentivize more Small Retail Brokers to subscribe to the Applicable Feeds as External Hosted Subscribers and, as they build their own business models and attract subscribers of their own, eventually commit time and resources to building their own infrastructure to evolve into a Hosting Small Retail Broker.
Finally, the Exchange notes that nothing in the current proposal prevents an existing Small Retail Broker from choosing to instead subscribe to the Applicable Feeds as an External Hosted Subscriber. However, the Exchange does not believe that this makes the proposal unfairly discriminatory between Hosting Small Retail Brokers and External Hosted Subscribers, as broker-dealers are free operate their businesses however they may choose in response to a host of a reasons, only one of which are associated costs.
The Exchange believes that the proposed cap of 10,000 for the Cboe One Summary Data Feed and BYX Top Data Feed for this Program, as well as increasing this cap to 10,0000 for the Cboe One Summary Data Feed and BYX Top Data Feed for the Small Retail Broker Program is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory as the Exchange believes it is in the best interest of all market participants to more broadly expand this in support of inclusion for more retail investors by participation in both programs by small retail brokers on a global scale.
The Exchange believes that the Distribution Fee Waivers for both the External Hosted Subscriber and the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor are reasonable as they represent a significant cost reduction for the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor to provide a hosted solution for the External Hosted Subscriber, to ultimately provide the data to the External Hosted Subscriber's retail investors. While the existing fee structure does provide a benefit of a discounted waiver for Small Retail Brokers that externally distribute the data, these discounted Distribution Fees are still incurred by both the External Hosted Subscriber and the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor. In an attempt to alleviate these costs, and make this data more available to retail investors, the Exchange proposes to waive the Distribution Fees for both the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor and the External Hosted Subscriber. With this Program, the Exchange believes it will increase market accessibility and data to investors on a global scale. Exchange Hosted Subscribers may not have the infrastructure or technical capabilities to offer market data and/or execution services to its retail investors. Through waiving these fees for the External Hosted Subscriber, the Exchange hopes to reach a broader scale of retail investors globally. Further, as discussed above, the Exchange also believes it is appropriate and not unfairly discriminatory to limit this specific credit to the External Hosted Subscriber and the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor given the development and
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to not charge the External Hosted Subscriber the Data Consolidation Fee for Cboe One Summary Data for the duration of the time that they are eligible for this program. As previously discussed, the waiver of fees for the External Hosted Subscriber is intended to make this data more available to retail investors. The Exchange also believes it is appropriate and not unfairly discriminatory to limit this specific credit to the External Hosted Subscriber because, as described above, the Exchange believes by alleviating some of the barriers to entry, that Exchange Hosted Subscribers are able to bring this data and execution services to their retail investors. Of further note, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to maintain this cost for the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor as the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor is the party receiving this data from the Exchange where it is consolidated for the benefit of the Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributor.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to set a fixed cost for Non-Professional Users fees for External Hosted Subscribers by charging a flat, fixed cost instead of charging per user to allow for additional savings. Under this structure, the External Hosted Subscriber shall still be responsible by paying the standard per User fee of a Professional Users under the Applicable Feed. The Exchange does not believe this is unfairly discriminatory as the program is based around making the Applicable Feeds available for Non-Professional Users. The Exchange also notes that it has taken a similar approach here to the NYSE Per User Access Fee, which sets a fixed cost where the data is used only for display purposes.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price these data products is constrained by: (i) Competition among exchanges that offer similar data products to their customers; and (ii) the existence of inexpensive real-time consolidated data disseminated by the SIPs. Top of book data is disseminated by both the SIPs and the sixteen equities exchanges. There are therefore a number of alternative products available to market participants and investors. In this competitive environment potential subscribers are free to choose which competing product to purchase to satisfy their need for market information. Often, the choice comes down to price, as broker-dealers or vendors look to purchase the cheapest top of book data product, or quality, as market participants seek to purchase data that represents significant market liquidity. In order to better compete for this segment of the market, the Exchange is proposing to reduce the cost of top of book data provided by Hosting Small Retail Broker Distributors to its External Hosted Subscribers, and in turn, their retail investors. The Exchange believes that this would facilitate greater access to such data, ultimately benefiting the retail investors that are provided access to such market data.
The Exchange also believes the proposed fee changes will better enable it to compete in the Asia Pacific region, which is an area of increasing interest and growth within the U.S. equities markets, generally. As the Asia Pacific investor base seeks access to the liquidity and efficient price discovery processes that exist in the U.S. equities markets, various broker-dealers have begun offering trading in this region, and exchanges have begun to contemplate 24-hour trading solutions designed to capture the increased demand from the Asia Pacific investor base.
The Exchange does not believe that this price reduction would cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intermarket competition as other exchanges and data vendors are free to lower their prices to better compete with the Exchange's offering. Indeed, as explained in the basis section of this proposed rule change, the Exchange's decision to (i) waive the Distribution Fee for the Hosting Small Retail Broker and the External Hosted Subscriber and (ii) waiving the Consolidation Fee (when applicable) for the External Hosted Subscriber and (iii) setting a fixed cost for the Non-Professional Users for the External Hosted Subscriber is itself a competitive response to different fee structures available on competing markets. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed rule change is pro-competitive as it seeks to offer pricing incentives to customers to better position the Exchange as it competes to attract additional market data subscribers. The Exchange also believes that the proposed reduction in fees the Hosting Small Retail Broker and the External Hosted Subscriber would not cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intramarket competition. Although the proposed fee discount would be largely limited to small retail broker subscribers, larger broker-dealers and vendors can already purchase top of book data from the Exchange at prices that represent a significant cost savings when compared to competitor products that combine higher subscriber fees with lower fees for distribution. In light of the benefits already provided to this group of subscribers, the Exchange believes that additional discounts to small retail
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-CboeBYX-2025-033 and should be submitted on or before December 26, 2025.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Florida Midland Railroad Company, LLC (FMID), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR part 1150, subpart E,
According to the verified notice, the Haines City Spur historically was owned CSXT and its predecessors and was abandoned in two segments. The Haines City Spur was acquired by the City from CSXT in 2004. Pursuant to the agreement between FMID and the City, FMID will provide rail service on the Haines City Spur as a common carrier. The City will remain the non-common carrier owner of the Haines City Spur.
FMID certifies that its proposed operation of the Haines City Spur does not include an interchange commitment. FMID certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of the transaction will not result in the creation of a Class I or Class II rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million. According to FMID, it intends to initiate operations on the Haines City Spur on or shortly after the date when this exemption becomes effective.
The transaction may be consummated on December 18, 2025, the effective date of the exemption.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions to stay must be filed no later than December 11, 2025.
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36888, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board either via e-filing on the Board's website or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on FMID's representative, Thomas J. Healey, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60606-3208.
According to FMID, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic preservation reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Anika S. Cooper, Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
On November 13, 2025, the United States and the Republic of Korea (ROK) issued a Joint Fact Sheet reaffirming the historic announcement in July of the Korea Strategic Trade and Investment Deal (U.S.-ROK Deal), which reflects the strength and endurance of the U.S.-ROK Alliance. The Joint Fact Sheet sets out steps the United States and the ROK will take to further the U.S.-ROK Alliance under the U.S.-ROK Deal. The Secretary of Commerce and United States Trade Representative, in consultation with the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Chair of the United States International Trade Commission, have determined that certain tariff modifications are necessary to implement that deal. This notice amends the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to implement certain tariff elements of that deal, adjusting tariffs on certain articles that are products of the ROK, including the country-specific reciprocal tariffs provided for under Executive Order 14257, as amended; tariffs on automobiles and automobile parts provided for under Proclamation 10908, as amended; tariffs on timber, lumber, and their derivatives provided for under Proclamation 10976; and tariffs on certain aircraft and aircraft parts provided for under Executive Order 14257, as amended, Proclamation 9704, as amended, Proclamation 9705, as amended, and Proclamation 10962.
This notice is effective December 4, 2025. The modifications to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States set forth in Part A of the Annex are effective with respect to automobiles and automobile parts entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern time on November 1, 2025. The modifications to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States set forth in Part B of the Annex are effective with respect to goods subject to the country-specific reciprocal tariffs, timber, lumber, and their derivatives, and certain aircraft and aircraft parts, entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern time on November 14, 2025.
Emily Davis, Director for Public Affairs, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 202-482-3809,
In Executive Order 14346 of September 5, 2025 (Modifying the Scope of Reciprocal Tariffs and Establishing Procedures for Implementing Trade and Security Agreements), President Trump determined that it is necessary and appropriate to take steps contemplated in trade and security framework agreements between a foreign trading partner and the United States and that any modification of tariffs required to implement such framework agreements is necessary and appropriate to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14257 of April 2, 2025 (Regulating Imports With a Reciprocal Tariff to Rectify Trade Practices That Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual U.S. Goods Trade Deficits), and to reduce or eliminate the threats to national security found in Proclamation 9704 of March 8, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Aluminum Into the United States), as amended; Proclamation 9705 of March 8, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States), as amended; Proclamation 9888 of May 17, 2019 (Adjusting Imports of Automobiles and Automobile Parts Into the United States), as amended; and Proclamation 10962 of July 30, 2025 (Adjusting Imports of Copper Into the United States).
That order also directs and authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and the United States Trade Representative (Trade Representative) to act in a manner consistent with the national interests of the United States, the purpose of Executive Order 14346, the need to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14257, and the need to reduce or eliminate the threats to national security the President has found pursuant to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended.
The Secretary and Trade Representative, upon the conclusion of any framework agreement of a kind described in Executive Order 14346, are authorized to determine whether conditions to an action by the United States have occurred, to determine whether the United States must take any action to implement such framework agreement, and to take the necessary and appropriate actions to implement such framework agreement. That order also directs the Secretary and Trade Representative, in consultation with the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Chair of the United States International Trade Commission (USITC), and any other senior official they deem appropriate, to determine whether modifications to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) are necessary to effectuate that order and actions taken under that order and authorizes them to direct such modifications through notice in the
On November 13, 2025, the United States and the Republic of Korea (ROK) issued a Joint Fact Sheet reaffirming the historic announcement in July of the Korea Strategic Trade and Investment Deal (U.S.-ROK Deal), which reflects the strength and endurance of the U.S.-ROK Alliance (
The U.S.-ROK Deal provides that, for goods of the ROK with a column 1 duty rate in the HTSUS that is less than 15 percent, the sum of the column 1 duty rate and the additional
Accordingly, the Secretary and Trade Representative, in consultation with CBP and USITC, have determined that modifications of the HTSUS are necessary to implement the U.S.-ROK Deal, a framework agreement for the purposes of Executive Order 14346, and direct the modifications set forth (i) in Part A of the Annex with respect to automobiles and automobile parts of the ROK, effective for goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern time on November 1, 2025, and (ii) in Part B of the Annex with respect to other goods of the ROK entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern time on November 14, 2025. Additional amendments to the HTSUS may be made at a later date to further implement the U.S.-ROK Deal.
A. Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern time on November 1, 2025, subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) is modified as follows:
1. U.S. note 33 is modified by adding the following new subdivision (s): “(s) Headings 9903.94.60 and 9903.94.61 set forth the ordinary customs duty treatment for certain passenger vehicles and light trucks in the provisions of the HTSUS enumerated in subdivision (b) of this Note that are products of South Korea.
Any passenger vehicle or light truck, except those eligible for admission under “domestic status” as defined in 19 CFR 146.43, that is subject to the duty imposed by this subdivision and that is admitted into a United States foreign trade zone on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern time on December [DATE OF
Goods for which entry is claimed under a provision of chapter 98 and which are subject to the additional duties prescribed herein shall be eligible for and subject to the terms of such provision and applicable U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) regulations, except that duties under subheading 9802.00.60 shall be assessed based upon the full value of the imported article. No claim for entry or for any duty exemption or reduction shall be allowed for passenger vehicles and light trucks provided for in this subdivision (s) of this note under a provision of chapter 99 that may set forth a lower rate of duty or provide duty-free treatment, taking into account information supplied by CBP, but any additional duty prescribed in any provision of this subchapter or subchapter IV of chapter 99 shall be imposed in addition to the duty in headings 9903.94.60 and 9903.94.61. All antidumping, countervailing, or other duties and charges applicable to such goods shall continue to be imposed in addition to the duty in headings 9903.94.60 and 9903.94.61. Entries of passenger vehicles and light trucks described in this subdivision (s) shall not be subject to:
(1) the additional duties imposed on entries of semi-finished copper products and copper-intensive derivative products under heading 9903.78.01;
(2) the additional duties imposed on entries of products of aluminum under heading 9903.85.02 and 9903.85.12;
(3) the additional duties imposed on entries of derivative aluminum products under headings 9903.85.04, 9903.85.07, 9903.85.08, 9903.85.13, 9903.85.14, and 9903.85.15;
(4) the additional duties imposed on entries of iron or steel products under headings 9903.81.87, 9903.81.88, 9903.81.94 and 9903.81.95;
(5) the additional duties imposed on entries of derivative iron or steel products under headings 9903.81.89, 9903.81.90, 9903.81.91, 9903.81.93, 9903.81.96, 9903.81.97, 9903.81.98 and 9903.81.99.”
2. U.S. note 33 is modified by adding the following new subdivision (t):
“(t) Headings 9903.94.62, 9903.94.63, 9903.94.64, and 9903.94.65 set forth the ordinary customs duty treatment for certain parts of passenger vehicles and light trucks classifiable in the provisions of the HTSUS enumerated in subdivision (g) of this note or that meet the requirements of subdivision (r) of this note that are products of South Korea.
Any automotive part, except those eligible for admission under “domestic status” as defined in 19 CFR 146.43, that is subject to the duty imposed by this subdivision and that is admitted into a United States foreign trade zone on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern time on December [DATE OF
Goods for which entry is claimed under a provision of chapter 98 and which are subject to the additional duties prescribed herein shall be eligible for and subject to the terms of such provision and applicable CBP regulations, except that duties under subheading 9802.00.60 shall be assessed based upon the full value of the imported article. No claim for entry or for any duty exemption or reduction shall be allowed for the automotive parts provided for in this subdivision (t)
(1) the additional duties imposed on entries of semi-finished copper products and copper-intensive derivative products under heading 9903.78.01;
(2) the additional duties imposed on entries of products of aluminum under heading 9903.85.02 and 9903.85.12;
(3) the additional duties imposed on entries of derivative aluminum products under headings 9903.85.04, 9903.85.07, 9903.85.08, 9903.85.13, 9903.85.14, and 9903.85.15;
(4) the additional duties imposed on entries of iron or steel products under headings 9903.81.87, 9903.81.88, 9903.81.94 and 9903.81.95;
(5) the additional duties imposed on entries of derivative iron or steel products under headings 9903.81.89, 9903.81.90, 9903.81.91, 9903.81.93, 9903.81.96, 9903.81.97, 9903.81.98 and 9903.81.99; and
(6) the additional duties imposed on entries of wood products under headings 9903.76.01, 9903.76.02, 9903.76.03, and 9903.76.23.”
3. U.S. note 33(a) is modified by deleting “and 9903.94.51” each place it appears and inserting “, 9903.94.51, 9903.94.60, and 9903.94.61” in lieu thereof.
4. U.S. note 33(b) is modified by inserting “9903.94.60, 9903.94.61,” after “9903.94.51,”
5. U.S. note 33(f) is modified by deleting “and 9903.94.53” each place it appears and inserting “, 9903.94.53, 9903.94.62, and 9903.94.63” in lieu thereof.
6. U.S. note 33(g) is modified by deleting “9903.94.42, 9903.94.43, 9903.94.52, and 9903.94.53,” and inserting “9903.94.42, 9903.94.43, 9903.94.52, 9903.94.53, 9903.94.62, and 9903.94.63” in lieu thereof.
7. Subdivision (m) of U.S. note 33 is deleted and the following new subdivision (m) is inserted in lieu thereof:
“(m) As provided in headings 9903.94.40-9903.94.45, headings 9903.94.50-9903.94.55, and headings 9903.94.60-9903.94.65, for any good of Japan, the European Union, or South Korea subject to a specific or compound rate of duty under column 1—General, the ad valorem equivalent rate of duty of such good shall be determined by dividing the amount of duty payable under column 1—General by the customs value of the good. For example, if a good were subject to a specific duty of 50 cents per kilogram, and one kilogram of the good were entered with a customs value of $10, then the ad valorem equivalent rate of duty would be obtained by dividing 50 cents by $10, yielding 5 percent. For any good of South Korea for which a specific or compound rate of duty under column 1—Special is properly claimed, the ad valorem equivalent rate of duty shall be determined in the same manner.”
8. U.S. note 33(p) is amended by deleting “and 9903.94.55” and inserting “, 9903.94.55, 9903.94.64, and 9903.94.65,” in lieu thereof.
9. U.S. note 33(r) is amended by:
i. Deleting “and 9903.94.55” wherever it appears and inserting “9903.94.55, 9903.94.64, and 9903.94.65” in lieu thereof;
ii. Inserting “, South Korea,” after “European Union”;
iii. Deleting “or 9903.94.55” and inserting “9903.94.55, 9903.94.64, or 9903.94.65” in lieu thereof; and
iv. Inserting “or the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement” after “goods qualifying under Executive Order 14345 of September 4, 2025 (Implementing the United States-Japan Agreement)”.
10. Heading 9903.94.01 is modified by deleting “and 9903.94.51” from the article description and inserting “, 9903.94.51, 9903.94.60, and 9903.94.61” in lieu thereof.
11. Heading 9903.94.05 is modified by inserting “9903.94.62, and 9903.94.63,” after “9903.94.55” in the article description.
12. Heading 9903.94.07 is modified by deleting “and 9903.94.55” from the article description and inserting “, 9903.94.55, 9903.94.64, and 9903.94.65” in lieu thereof.
13. The following new headings are inserted in numerical sequence, with the material in the new heading inserted in the columns of the HTSUS labeled “Heading/Subheading”, “Article Description”, “Rates of Duty 1—General”, “Rates of Duty 1—Special” and “Rates of Duty 2”, respectively:
14. Subdivision (v)(x) of U.S. note 2 is amended by deleting “9903.94.01 and 9903.94.03” and inserting “9903.94.01, 9903.94.03, 9903.94.60, and 9903.94.61” in lieu thereof.
15. Subdivision (v)(xi) of U.S. note 2 is amended by deleting “9903.94.54 and 9903.94.55” and inserting “9903.94.54, 9903.94.55, 9903.94.62, 9903.94.63, 9903.94.64, and 9903.94.65” in lieu thereof.
B. Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern time on November 14, 2025, subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) is modified as follows:
1. Heading 9903.02.56 is terminated.
2. U.S. note 2 is amended by deleting “and 9903.02.01-9903.02.73” each place it appears in subdivision (v) and inserting “and 9903.02.01-9903.02.73 and 9903.02.79-9903.02.80” in lieu thereof.
3. U.S. note 2 is amended by deleting “9903.02.78” in subdivision (v)(i) and inserting “9903.02.81” in lieu thereof.
4. U.S. note 2 is amended by deleting “subdivisions (v)(ii) through (v)(xxii)” in subdivision (v)(i) each place that it appears and inserting “subdivisions (v)(ii) through (v)(xxiii)” in lieu thereof.
5. U.S. note 2 is amended by deleting “and 9903.76.22” in subdivision (v)(xiii) and inserting “9903.76.22, and 9903.76.23” in lieu thereof.
6. Subdivision (v)(xviii) of U.S. note 2 is deleted and the following new subdivision (v)(xviii) is inserted in lieu thereof:
“(v)(xviii) As provided in headings 9903.02.19, 9903.02.20, 9903.02.72, 9903.02.73, 9903.02.79, and 9903.02.80, for any good of the European Union, Japan, or South Korea subject to a specific or compound rate of duty under column 1—General, the ad valorem equivalent rate of duty of such good shall be determined by dividing the amount of duty payable under column 1—General by the customs value of the good. For example, if a good were subject to a specific duty of 50 cents per kilogram, and one kilogram of the good were entered with a customs value of $10, then the ad valorem equivalent rate of duty would be obtained by dividing 50 cents by $10, yielding 5 percent. For any good of South Korea for which a specific or compound rate of duty under column 1—Special is properly claimed, the ad valorem equivalent rate of duty shall be determined in the same manner.”
7. U.S. note 2 is amended by inserting the following new subdivisions in numerical sequence at the end of subdivision (v):
“(xxiii)(a) As provided in headings 9903.02.79 and 9903.02.80, for articles the product of South Korea for which the U.S. Most Favored Nation (“MFN”) tariff rate (Column 1—General) or the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement tariff rate (Column 1—Special), as applicable, is less than 15 percent, the sum of the column 1 duty rate and the additional ad valorem rate of duty pursuant to heading 9903.02.80 will be 15 percent ad valorem, and for articles the product of South Korea for which the column 1 duty rate is 15 percent or higher, heading 9903.02.79 applies, and no additional duty is due pursuant to heading 9903.02.80.
(b) As provided in heading 9903.02.81, the additional duties imposed by headings 9903.02.79, 9903.02.80, 9903.78.01, 9903.81.87, 9903.81.88, 9903.81.89, 9903.81.90, 9903.81.91, 9903.81.93, 9903.85.02, 9903.85.04, 9903.85.07, and 9903.85.08, shall not apply to articles the product of South Korea that are civil aircraft (all aircraft other than military aircraft and unmanned aircraft); their engines, parts, and components; their other parts, components, and subassemblies; and ground flight simulators and their parts and components, that otherwise meet
8. U.S. note 37 is amended by adding the following new subdivision (l):
“(l) Except for as provided by 9903.76.04, heading 9903.76.23 provides the ordinary customs duty treatment of wood products of South Korea described in subdivisions (d) and (f) of this note.
For any such products that are eligible for special tariff treatment under any of the free trade agreements or preference programs listed in general note 3(c)(i) to the tariff schedule, the duty provided in heading 9903.76.23 shall be collected in lieu of any special rate of duty otherwise applicable under the appropriate tariff subheading, except for goods qualifying under the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Goods for which entry is claimed under a provision of chapter 98 and that are subject to the additional duties prescribed herein shall be eligible for and subject to the terms of such provision and applicable CBP regulations, except that duties under subheading 9802.00.60 shall be assessed based upon the full value of the imported article. No claim for entry or for any duty exemption or reduction shall be allowed for wood products described in subdivisions (d) or (f) of this note under a provision of chapter 99 that may set forth a lower rate of duty or provide duty-free treatment, taking into account information supplied by CBP, but any additional duty prescribed in any provision of this subchapter or subchapter IV of chapter 99 shall be imposed in addition to the duty in heading 9903.76.23. All antidumping, countervailing, or other duties and charges applicable to such goods shall continue to be imposed in addition to the duty in heading 9903.76.23.”
9. U.S. note 16(i) of the HTSUS is modified by deleting “Except as provided in heading 9903.96.02, and 9903.02.76” and inserting “Except as provided in heading 9903.96.02, 9903.02.76, and 9903.02.81” in lieu thereof.
10. U.S. note 16(k) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS is modified by deleting “Except as provided in heading 9903.96.02 and 9903.02.76” and inserting “Except as provided in heading 9903.96.02, 9903.02.76, and 9903.02.81” in lieu thereof.
11. U.S. note 19(f) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS is modified by deleting “Except as provided in heading 9903.96.02 and 9903.02.76” and inserting “Except as provided in heading 9903.96.02, 9903.02.76, and 9903.02.81” in lieu thereof.
12. U.S. note 19(h) is modified by deleting “Except as provided in heading 9903.96.02 and 9903.02.76” and inserting “Except as provided in heading 9903.96.02, 9903.02.76, and 9903.02.81” in lieu thereof.
13. U.S. note 36(a) is modified by inserting “9903.02.81,” after “Except as provided in headings 9903.02.76, ”.
14. U.S. note 37(c) is modified by inserting “South Korea” after “the member nations of the European Union,”.
15. U.S. note 37(d) is modified by:
i. deleting “9903.76.21 and 9903.76.22” and inserting “9903.76.21, 9903.76.22, and 9903.76.23” in lieu thereof; and
ii. deleting “as specified in subdivisions (c), (h), (i) and (j)” and inserting “as specified in subdivisions (c), (h), (i), (j), and (l)” in lieu thereof.
16. U.S. note 37(e) is modified by inserting “South Korea,” after “the member nations of the European Union,”
17. U.S. note 37(f) is modified by:
i. Deleting “9903.76.21 and 9903.76.22” and inserting “9903.76.21, 9903.76.22, and 9903.76.23” in lieu thereof; and
ii. Deleting “as specified in subdivisions (e), (h), (i) and (j)” and inserting “as specified in subdivisions (e), (h), (i), (j), and (l)” in lieu thereof.
18. U.S. note 37(k) is modified by deleting “9903.76.21 or 9903.76.22” and inserting “9903.76.21, 9903.76.22, or 9903.76.23” in lieu thereof.
19. Heading 9903.01.25 is modified by deleting “9903.02.78” in the article description and inserting “9903.02.81” in lieu thereof.
20. The following new headings are inserted in numerical sequence, with the material in the new heading inserted in the columns of the HTSUS labeled “Heading/Subheading”, “Article Description”, “Rates of Duty 1-General”, “Rates of Duty 1-Special”, and “Rates of Duty 2”, respectively:
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
30-Day notice; correction.
On December 1, 2025, the FHWA published a notice with an incorrect docket identifier. This correction informs the public of the correct docket identifier.
This correction is effective on December 5, 2025.
Eva Birk,
The FHWA published a notice on December 1, 2025 (90 FR 55233). This docket identifier previous published as “FHWA-2024-0400” has been corrected to the docket identifier above, “FHWA-2025-0400”.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of final disposition; renewal of exemption.
FMCSA announces its final decision to renew the exemption from the minimum 30-minute rest break provision of the Agency's hours-of-service (HOS) regulations requested by the Specialized Carriers & Rigging Association (SC&RA) for certain commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemption covers drivers for all specialized carriers transporting loads that exceed normal weight and dimensional limits—oversize (OS) or overweight (OW) loads or both—and require a permit issued by a government authority. FMCSA has analyzed the exemption application and the public comments and has determined that the exemption, subject to the terms and conditions imposed, will likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.
This renewed exemption is effective from June 17, 2025, and expires on June 17, 2030.
Pearlie Robinson, Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; FMCSA; (202) 913-0704;
To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to
If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the application, safety analyses and public comments and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish the decision in the
Under 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii), driving is not permitted if more than 8 hours of driving time have passed without at least one consecutive 30-minute interruption in driving status. A consecutive 30-minute interruption may be satisfied either by off-duty, sleeper berth, or on-duty not driving time, or by a combination of off-duty, sleeper berth, and on-duty not driving time.
FMCSA announced the renewal application from SC&RA and provisionally renewed the exemption for 6 months in a
The Agency received 15 comments; 11 supported granting the exemption, 3 opposed the exemption, and one commenter neither supported nor opposed the exemption. Technical Trooper Nick Wright of the Kansas State Patrol, Rex Railsback and Lee and Lisa Schmitt, supported the exemption and recommended that FMCSA clarify the applicability of the exemption.
Specifically, Technical Trooper Nick Wright noted, “Since the inception of this initial exemption, there has been confusion among law enforcement based on the wording of the exemption.” Trooper Wright continued, “The summary makes a requirement for loads to be BOTH oversize AND overweight to be afforded this exemption. Many loads are over dimension (height, width, length) but are NOT overweight. As such, a strict reading of the exemption would preclude a driver from using this 30-minute interruption of driving exemption.”
Rex Railsback and Lee and Lisa Schmitt supported the same clarification. Lee and Lisa Schmitt added, “This exemption has been in effect for over TEN years with no adverse effects. It should be continued for another five years. Oversized carriers deal with curfews and daylight restrictions in many states. Finding a safe place to park for 30 minutes is usually difficult.”
Opposing comments stated that all drivers should be subject to the 30-minute rest requirement and that not taking the break is unsafe. Ross Tennison said, “I believe that there should be no more exemptions allowed until the entire HOS regulations are redone.” An anonymous individual stated, “I recommend no exemption to providing 30-minute rest break for carriers, drivers, and riggers. It is unsafe not to provide rest.” Another anonymous individual wrote, “If oversize truckers do not have to take a 30-minute break, then no driver should be required to take a 30-minute break.”
Jason Griffin recommended that FMCSA remove the 30-minute break requirement entirely “and add more drive time to hours of service.”
FMCSA has evaluated SC&RA's application and the public comments. In response to the commenters recommending that FMCSA clarify the applicability of the exemption, FMCSA notes that this exemption applies to interstate carriers transporting loads that are oversize, overweight, or both and require a permit issued by a government authority. The Agency has given guidance on this issue on several occasions, and it was the intent of the original exemption to apply to loads that were oversize, overweight, or both. The Agency believes finding suitable parking for trucks with OS/OW loads is particularly difficult, as SC&RA pointed out, and the default option is likely to be parking on the shoulder of a highway, with the load sometimes extending into the lanes of traffic.
FMCSA therefore concludes that renewing the exemption granted on June 24, 2020, for another five years, under the terms and conditions listed below, will likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be achieved absent the exemption.
FMCSA reaffirms its provisional decision to renew the exemption for a period of five years subject to the terms and conditions of this decision. The exemption from the requirements of 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii) is effective June 17, 2025, through June 17, 2030, 11:59 p.m. local time.
This exemption is applicable to drivers of specialized loads moving in interstate commerce that exceed normal weight and dimensional limits—oversize (OS) or overweight (OW) loads or both—and require a permit issued by a government authority. These drivers are exempt from the 30-minute rest break HOS regulations in § 395.3(a)(3)(ii). Drivers of loads not moving in interstate commerce are not eligible for this exemption.
1. When operating under this exemption, drivers must have a copy of this exemption document in their possession. The exemption document must be presented to law enforcement officials upon request.
2. Any motor carrier utilizing this exemption must notify FMCSA within 5 business days of any positive drug or alcohol tests, or accident (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5) involving any of the motor carrier's CMVs operating under the terms of this exemption. The
1. Identifier of the Exemption: “SC&RA,”
2. Name of operating carrier and USDOT number;
3. Date of the crash;
4. City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or closest to the crash scene;
5. Driver's name and license number;
6. Co-driver's name (if any) and license number;
7. Vehicle number and State license number;
8. Number of individuals suffering physical injury;
9. Number of fatalities;
10. The police-reported cause of the crash, if provided by the enforcement agency;
11. Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws, motor carrier safety regulations; and
12. The total on-duty time accumulated during the 7 consecutive days prior to the date of the crash, and the total on-duty time and driving time in the work shift prior to the crash.
Reports filed under this provision shall be emailed to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a firm or person operating under the exemption. States may, but are not required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in intrastate commerce.
FMCSA does not believe the drivers or the motor carriers covered by this exemption will experience any deterioration of their safety records. However, the exemption will be rescinded if: (1) SC&RA or the driver operating under the exemption fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objects of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA); U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
PHMSA is publishing this notice to solicit public comment on a request for a special permit for three special permit segments submitted by Gas Transmission Northwest LLC (GTN), a subsidiary of TC Energy, Inc. This notice was published previously but now contains updated documents, described further in
Submit any comments regarding this special permit request by January 5, 2026.
Comments should reference the docket number for this specific special permit request and may be submitted in the following ways:
•
•
•
•
There is a privacy statement published on
PHMSA received a special permit request from GTN, a subsidiary of TC Energy, Inc., on March 27, 2024, seeking to deviate from the Federal pipeline safety regulations in 49 CFR 192.611 and 192.619, for three special permit segments (SPSs), which include 11,178 feet (approximately 2.1 miles) of the GTN
Due to class location changes from Class 1 to Class 3, GTN is required to revise or reduce the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) for the Mainline A pipeline segments from its current MAOP of 911 pounds per square inch gauge. This special permit is being requested to allow GTN to operate the Mainline A pipeline segments in Class 3 locations at its current MAOP by implementing enhanced integrity management procedures in lieu of replacing pipe or lowering the operating pressure as required by Part 192.
The draft conditions were preliminarily determined to ensure that the special permit is consistent with pipeline safety. The requested SPSs are as follows:
PHMSA previously published this request on October 15, 2024, with the public comment period closing November 14, 2024. The Special Permit Request letter, proposed special permit with conditions, environmental assessment (EA), and all other pertinent documents for the original special permit are available in Docket No. PHMSA-2024-0055 in the Federal Docket Management System located at
Following the closure of the comment period, PHMSA began reviewing its special permit process to determine if special permit conditions could be streamlined in order to ease unnecessary burdens on applicants. As part of that process, PHMSA gave GTN the option of seeking reconsideration of its application and conducting another round of public notice and comment. GTN exercised that option. As a result, the proposed conditions in this new version of the special permit have been revised from the version previously noticed.
Since the issuance of the original EA, on July 1, 2025, DOT published DOT Order 5610.1D: Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts which outline DOT's processes and requirements for complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) under 42 U.S.C. 4321
The special permit request and revised proposed special permit with conditions for the TC Energy GTN pipeline are available for review and public comment in Docket No. PHMSA-2024-0055. PHMSA invites interested persons to review and submit comments on the special permit request and EA in the docket. Please include comments on potential safety and environmental impacts as a result of the special permit request. Comments may include relevant data.
Before issuing a decision on the special permit request, PHMSA will evaluate all comments received on or before the comment closing date. PHMSA will consider each relevant comment it receives in making its decision to grant or deny this special permit request.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Written comments should be submitted by January 5, 2026.
Jennifer Rodes, Office of Airline Information, RTS-42, OST-R, BTS, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone Number (202) 366-8513, Fax Number (202) 366-3383 or EMAIL
This collection needs a new OMB control number as it was previously and erroneously entered into ROCIS as a generic collection.
Not only is it imperative that carriers and charter operators retain source documentation, but it is critical that we ensure that DOT has access to these records. Given DOT's established information needs for such reports, the underlying support documentation must be retained for a reasonable period of time. Absent the retention requirements, the support for such reports may or may not exist for audit/validation purposes and the relevance and usefulness of the carrier submissions would be impaired, since the data could not be verified to the source on a test basis.
The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), requires a statistical agency to clearly identify information it collects for non-statistical purposes. BTS hereby notifies the respondents and the public that BTS uses the information it collects under this OMB approval for non-statistical purposes including, but not limited to, publication of both Respondent's identity and its data, submission of the information to agencies outside BTS for review, analysis and possible use in regulatory and other administrative matters.
Comments are invited on: whether the proposed record retention requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department. Comments should address whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled, “Guidance on Sound Incentive Compensation Policies.”
Comments must be received by February 2, 2026.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Following the close of this notice's 60-day comment period, the OCC will publish a second notice with a 30-day comment period. You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection beginning on the date of publication of the second notice for this collection by the method set forth in the next bullet.
•
• For assistance in navigating
Shaquita Merritt, Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS is inviting comments on the information collection request outlined in this notice.
Written comments should be received on or before February 2, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of this collection should be
The IRS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess the impact and minimize the burden of its information collection requirements. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record, and viewable on relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule; technical amendments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is amending certain medical device regulations to revise references and language in existing Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provisions to conform with the final rule “Medical Devices; Quality System Regulation Amendments” (QMSR Final Rule). This rule does not impose any new requirements on affected parties. This action is editorial in nature to correct errors, conform regulatory references, and ensure accuracy and clarity in the Agency's regulations.
This rule is effective February 2, 2026.
Daniel Schieffer, Office of Policy, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5562, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3350,
As a part of this technical amendment, FDA is making changes to 21 CFR parts 801, 803, 812, 860, 862, 864, 866, 868, 872, 874, 876, 878, 880, 882, 886, 888, 890, and 892 to revise existing regulatory provisions for consistency with the QMSR Final Rule
On February 2, 2024, FDA issued the QMSR Final Rule. This rule amended the device current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) requirements of the Quality System Regulation (QSR) to harmonize and modernize the regulation. The QMSR incorporates by reference an international standard for device quality management systems (ISO 13485:2016, Medical devices—Quality management systems—Requirements for regulatory purposes) and establishes additional requirements and provisions that clarify certain expectations and concepts used in ISO 13485. The purpose of this technical amendment is to update references from the QSR in existing FDA regulations to references to the QMSR that becomes effective on February 2, 2026, and to correct errors and ensure consistency and clarity in FDA's regulations.
We are amending 179 sections of Title 21 of the CFR, spread throughout 18 parts, in this technical amendment. Each section that is being modified includes a change to conform existing regulations for consistency with the QMSR. FDA is also clarifying the authority citations for three parts. The changes made in this technical amendment can be summarized as follows:
• One hundred and sixty-two of these amendments change the wording in the classification regulations for certain class I device types.
• Section 801.30(a)(2) (21 CFR 801.30(a)(2)), which is a specific exemption to the unique device identification requirement, is being modified in the same way as the classification regulations in the preceding bullet by changing references from §§ 820.180 and 820.198 in the QSR to the equivalent requirement in the QMSR (§ 820.35).
• In the classification regulation for the Keratoscope (§ 886.1350(b) (21 CFR 886.1350(b))), in addition to the updated language described in the first bullet, we are also adding the words “Classification. Class I (general controls).” This is because the statement that the device was classified as class I
• Nine class II classification regulations
• In part 812 (Investigational Device Exemptions) an additional two sections (§§ 812.1(a) and 812.35(a)(3)(iii)(A) (21 CFR 812.1(a) and 812.35(a)(3)(iii)(A))) are being modified to also change references from § 820.30 in the QSR to the equivalent provision in the QMSR (§ 820.10(c)). A second revision to § 812.35 revises § 812.35(a)(3)(iv)(A) to insert a clarifying reference to § 820.10(c) of the QMSR.
• One change in § 801.45(e) (21 CFR 801.45(e)) changes a reference from the design history file in the QSR to the design and development files of the QMSR.
• Four sections are modified in this technical amendment by updating the phrase “quality system regulation” to
• FDA is clarifying the authority citations in parts 862, 876, and 878 to italicize the `l' in 21 U.S.C. 360
In some of the edited sections we have also made minor wording changes to standardize language across sections and/or correct non-substantive typographic errors. The changes to all 179 sections are non-substantive and are intended to conform existing regulations to the requirements in the QMSR that mirror the requirements in the QSR. This rule does not impose any new regulatory requirements on affected parties. The amendments are editorial in nature and should not be construed as modifying any substantive standards or requirements.
Publication of this document constitutes final action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551-559). Section 553 of the APA generally exempts “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” from proposed rulemaking (
FDA has determined that this rulemaking meets the APA's notice and comment exemption requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4)(B). All the revisions in this rule are technical or non-substantive changes. These revisions update the language in certain regulations to be consistent with other regulations and the FD&C Act without changing the actions required under the regulations. Such technical, non-substantive changes are “a routine determination, insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential to the industry and to the public.”
This amendment is effective on February 2, 2026. This is the same date that the QMSR final rule becomes effective.
Labeling, Medical devices, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Imports, Medical devices, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Health records, Medical devices, Medical research, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Medical devices.
Medical devices.
Blood, Medical devices, Packaging and containers.
Biologics, Laboratories, Medical devices.
Medical devices.
Medical devices, Ophthalmic goods and services.
Medical devices.
Medical devices, Radiation protection, X-rays.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and under the authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR parts 801, 803, 812, 860, 862, 864, 866, 868, 872, 874, 876, 878, 880, 882, 886, 888, 890, and 892 are amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 331-334, 351, 352, 360d, 360i, 360j, 371, 374.
(a) * * *
(2) A class I device that FDA has by regulation exempted from the good manufacturing practice requirements of part 820 of this chapter, exclusive of any continuing requirement for recordkeeping under § 820.35 of this chapter.
(e)
21 U.S.C. 352, 360, 360i, 360j, 371, 374.
(e) If you are a manufacturer, you may maintain MDR event files as part of your complaint file, under part 820 of this chapter, if you prominently identify these records as MDR reportable events. We will not consider your submitted MDR report to comply with this part unless you evaluate an event in accordance with the quality management system requirements described in part 820 of this chapter. You must document and maintain in your MDR event files an explanation of why you did not submit or could not obtain any information required by this part, as well as the results of your evaluation of each event.
21 U.S.C. 331, 351, 352, 353, 355, 360, 360c-360f, 360h-360j, 360hh-360pp, 360rr-360ss, 360bbb-8b, 371, 372, 374, 379e, 381, 382; 42 U.S.C. 216, 241, 262.
(a) The purpose of this part is to encourage, to the extent consistent with the protection of public health and safety and with ethical standards, the discovery and development of useful devices intended for human use, and to that end to maintain optimum freedom for scientific investigators in their pursuit of this purpose. This part provides procedures for the conduct of clinical investigations of devices. An approved investigational device exemption (IDE) permits a device that
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) Credible information to support developmental changes in the device (including manufacturing changes) includes data generated under the design and development activities of § 820.10(c) of this chapter, preclinical/animal testing, peer reviewed published literature, or other reliable information such as clinical information gathered during a trial or marketing.
(iv) * * *
(A) For a developmental or manufacturing change to the device, the notice shall include a summary of the relevant information gathered during the course of the investigation upon which the change was based; a description of the change to the device or manufacturing process (cross-referenced to the appropriate sections of the original device description or manufacturing process); and, if the design and development activities of § 820.10(c) of this chapter were used to assess the change, a statement that no new risks were identified by appropriate risk analysis and that the verification and validation testing, as appropriate, demonstrated that the design outputs met the design input requirements. If another method of assessment was used, the notice shall include a summary of the information which served as the credible information supporting the change.
21 U.S.C. 321(h), 353(g), 360c, 360d, 360e, 360i, 360j, 371, 374.
(a) A panel recommendation to the Commissioner that a device be classified or reclassified into class I will include a recommendation as to whether the device should be exempted from some or all of the requirements of one or more of the following sections of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: Section 510 (registration, product listing, and premarket notification), section 519 (records and reports) and section 520(f) (good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality management system regulation), and, in the case of a recommendation for classification into class II, whether the device should be exempted from the premarket notification requirement under section 510.
(d) * * *
(4) In the case of a recommendation for classification into class I, a recommendation as to whether the device should be exempted from the requirements of one or more of the following sections of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: Section 510 (registration, product listing, and premarket notification), section 519 (records and reports), and section 520(f) (good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality management system regulation) and, in the case of a recommendation for classification into class II, whether the device should be exempted from the premarket notification requirement under section 510, in accordance with § 860.15;
(c) * * *
(2) That implementation of Quality Management System Regulation (part 820 of this chapter) requirements, in addition to other general controls and any specified special controls, provide adequate assurance that critical and/or novel manufacturing processes produce devices that meet specifications necessary to ensure reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(b) * * *
(2) As part of the risk management activities performed as part of your 21 CFR 820.10(c) design and development activities, you must document the appropriate end user device training program provided in your premarket notification submission to satisfy the special control in paragraph (b)(1) of this section that will be offered while marketing the device as part of your efforts to mitigate the risk of incorrect interpretation of test results.
(b)
(b)
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b) * * *
(3) As part of the risk management activities performed under 21 CFR 820.10(c) design and development, product labeling and instruction manuals must include clear examples of all expected phenotypic patterns and gating strategies using well-defined clinical samples representative of both abnormal and normal cellular populations. These samples must be selected based upon the indications described in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(b)
(b)
(b) * * *
(7) Under 21 CFR 820.10(c) design and development, device manufacturers must, as appropriate:
(i) Conduct human factors/usability validation testing with the final version of the labeling and related materials to adequately mitigate the risk of failure to operate the instrument correctly.
(ii) Document a device training program that will be offered to the end user to adequately mitigate the risk of failure to operate the instrument correctly.
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b) * * *
(6) As part of the risk management activities performed under 21 CFR 820.10(c) design and development, you must document an appropriate end user device training program that will be offered as part of your efforts to mitigate the risk of failure to correctly operate the instrument.
(b) * * *
(7) The risk management activities performed as part of the manufacturer's 21 CFR 820.10(c) design and development activities must document an appropriate end user device training program that will be offered as part of efforts to mitigate the risk of failure to correctly operate the instrument.
(b) * * *
(4) As part of the risk management activities performed under 21 CFR 820.10(c) design and development, you must document an appropriate end user device training program that will be offered as part of your efforts to mitigate the risk of failure to correctly operate the instrument.
(b) * * *
(8) As part of the risk management activities performed under 21 CFR 820.10(c) design and development, you must document an appropriate end user device training program that will be offered as part of your efforts to mitigate the risk of failure to correctly operate the instrument.
(b) * * *
(10) As part of the risk management activities performed under 21 CFR 820.10(c) design and development, you must document an appropriate end user device training program that will be offered as part of your efforts to mitigate the risk of failure to correctly operate the instrument.
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
21 U.S.C. 351, 360 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(b)
(b)
(b)
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(b)
(b) * * *
(2)
(b)
(b)
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(b)
(b)
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b) * * *
(2)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b) * * *
(2) Class I (general controls) for the battery-powered device. The class I battery-powered device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 886.9. The battery-powered device is exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality management system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, except for requirements concerning records and complaint files under § 820.35 of this chapter.
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b) * * *
(2) The risk management activities performed as part of the manufacturer's § 820.10(c) of this chapter design and development activities must document an appropriate end user initial training program which will be offered as part of efforts to mitigate the risk of failure to correctly operate the device, including, but not limited to, documentation of an appropriate end user initial training program on the proper spacer deployment technique.